Fair Divorce?

[MaggieTheCat]

Also I am curious who actually started the fight/throwing of things around the house. The OP does not specify. S/he says that things are broken, things are thrown, but does not say by whom. The husband is removed from the home, but how easy would it be for the wife to tell the police, "Oh officer, I was so scared for myself and my kids, he was throwing things at us!" Maybe the wife started it. Maybe they were both throwing things; is it more justified if one started and the other one retaliated?

There is a huge fight. Things are broken, things are thrown and the police are called. Although there was admittedly no physical violence or injury the police remove the wife from the house and issue a temporary restraining order which is converted to a 12 month restraining order.

[telecom_goddess]

I don't think it's far at all. The person earning an income does not need to be getting any damn child support from the one without a job...where is the fairness in that? And it should be shared custody. Nothing like kicking an at home parent with no marketable job skills while they're down. And if they are violent and throw things....who the hell could blame them if they found out their spouse was cheating? We don't know what drove them to it exactly.

[Andara Bledin]

And if they are violent and thre things....who the hell could blame them if they found out their spouse was cheating? We don't know what drove them to it exactly.

Yeah, there's no telling what drove the spouse to infidelity.

It takes two to make a relationship, and sometimes when one fails, it's the fault of both parties.

^-.-^

[telecom_goddess]

Yeah, there's no telling what drove the spouse to infidelity.

It takes two to make a relationship, and sometimes when one fails, it's the fault of both parties.

^-.-^

I meant more we don't know what drove the person to be violent when they found out about the infidelity. But you have a valid point too

[Sarah Valentine]

I agree with Seifer, the cheater shouldn't get shit. IMO if my hubby turns out to be a cheater, I'm gonna get the best lawyer I can and make sure he's left sitting in a ditch with nothing.

[Nekojin]

I agree with Seifer, the cheater shouldn't get shit. IMO if my hubby turns out to be a cheater, I'm gonna get the best lawyer I can and make sure he's left sitting in a ditch with nothing.

Depending on what state you live in, you may not really have a say in the matter. In many states, while infidelity is certainly valid grounds for divorce, it isn't considered relevant when it comes to dividing community property.

Emotional issues need to be left at the door when you step into the family law courtroom. Sure, feel free to call him a scumbag for cheating (if he does), but don't start attaching everything to that one issue.

[crashhelmet]

Depending on what state you live in, you may not really have a say in the matter. In many states, while infidelity is certainly valid grounds for divorce, it isn't considered relevant when it comes to dividing community property.

Emotional issues need to be left at the door when you step into the family law courtroom. Sure, feel free to call him a scumbag for cheating (if he does), but don't start attaching everything to that one issue.

So in this case, the cheater, who happened to be the one with the job and all the money, aka the sole provider, should be the one screwed?

Again, we don't know why she decided to cheat. Maybe the marriage itself was already over and they were delaying the inevitable?

I'm guessing the husband only got what he did because of the state laws. States like California are "no fault" states. That means that regardless of who did what, assets are split 50/50 unless there's a prelim signed prior to getting married.

[Nekojin]

Just to be clear, there are four issues to be settled in most divorces.

1.) Dissolution of the marriage, and legal registration of that fact. This severs legal ties, and sets a "sunset" date (usually the declared date of separation) on when spouses are liable for each other's debts. This is almost always the least contentious part of the matter.

2.) Disposition of community assets. Who gets the house, who gets the car, how much of the joint savings goes to each person, and so on. This gets down to as fiddly of details as the people care to make it, although attorneys usually recommend giving up things that can be repurchased (DVD collections, etc) if they're a point of contention, as the concession means you get something back elsewhere, and they can be repurchased once the divorce is done.

3.) Disposition of children, child support, and visitation. In nearly all cases (every case I've been involved in), the party that doesn't get custody has to pay child support, because it's unfair to make one parent be solely responsible for the child.

4.) Spousal support. This may vary from state to state, but in California, at least, this is the only matter where infidelity matters even a tiny bit. An unfaithful spouse might be ordered to pay more (or receive less) spousal support than otherwise... but don't count on it. The party receiving support will almost certainly be lose the spousal support if they shack up with someone else.

[Seifer]

I disagree 100%.

Violence trumps infidelity in terms of a reason to deny custody.

There wasn't any physical violence, though. Things were thrown (probably in rage). I've thrown things around in the past when I've gotten angry - it helps blow off steam. I wouldn't say that's a reason for someone to lose everything in a divorce.

Now, if it turned into physical violence (punching, kicking, slapping, etc), then yes, that would change it entirely.

[jackfaire]

YoA friend of mine came down with a very rare and very serious illness over three years ago, she is still recovering from it and can't work more than 20 hours a week at a sit-down desk job without literally having to pass out for 10-12 or more hours a day.

And that would fall under what I would consider extenuating circumstances. I must admit bias I have never met a stay at home parent that wasn't lazy with the exception of medical problems in self or kids.

I might have but none of the people I knew well that were stay at home parents were anything but lazy. Most expecting the parent who worked and the kids who went to school to do the cooking, cleaning, laundry etc while they just enjoyed still being a kid well into their thirties and beyond.

[draco664]

There wasn't any physical violence, though. Things were thrown (probably in rage). I've thrown things around in the past when I've gotten angry - it helps blow off steam.

Sorry, but throwing stuff around *is* physical violence. If you swing at someone and miss, it's still assault. If you connect, it's assault and battery.

I made my statement about violence trumping infidelity as a blanket opinion, not as a specific to this case. However, given the fact you stated that the hubby was the one who got the restraining order against him, I'm assuming he was the one doing the throwing. The fact that the wife wasn't injured merely means he has poor aim.

I wouldn't say that's a reason for someone to lose everything in a divorce.

Now, if it turned into physical violence (punching, kicking, slapping, etc), then yes, that would change it entirely.

So you agree that once physical violence is involved it changes things. It is merely your definition of physical violence that is in question. The law has a very specific definition, and that's what was used in this case, I assume.

In the specific case you mentioned, there are unfair aspects to it - namely the husband not being represented by a lawyer. Had the genders been reversed, I have no doubt the wife would have found representation.

But custody should always go to the non-violent. Fair.
House should be available for the kids. Fair.
Split monetary assets. Fair.

Child support? Depends on the level. If as you say, the custody parent is comfortable to wealthy, then a low-income non-custody parent should not have to pay an undue amount, but definitely at least a token figure.

[draco664]

I might have but none of the people I knew well that were stay at home parents were anything but lazy.

Really? My wife has just gone back to work after nearly six years off to raise our two daughters. The eldest is at school and the youngest is now four and at childcare full time during the week, allowing my wife to head back.

I would never, ever describe her as lazy.

[MaggieTheCat]

Yeah, my mom was a full-time stay at home mom for my two brothers and I, and she was anything but lazy. She cooked homemade meals for us every night, kept the house very clean, did all the shopping (grocery, clothes, and otherwise) with us, took us to and from school and other extracurricular activities, and maintained a large garden. Among other things. I'm not saying lazy stay at home parents don't exist, but hard-working ones do, as well.

[jackfaire]

Yeah, my mom was a full-time stay at home mom for my two brothers and I, and she was anything but lazy.

But I and every other working adult does those things too. My parents both worked and they both did all of those things. Why is what stay at home parents do not lazy when working parents do that and more?

That's the thing doing those things has never required not having a job. I know it's a unpopular opinion but when your doing half of what working parents do I have to wonder why?

My mom and dad cooked home cooked meals, we had a large garden, bought clothes ran errands, etc had all of the same things still spent time with us kids and would even take days off work to volunteer at our schools or to bring in cupcakes yet no one ever praised them no one ever said how awesome it was that they did all of that while raising 4 kids.

It's like if you went into a store and saw two people of equal capabilities and one moved 5 boxes an hour while the other moved 10 and then watching as the one moving 5 was given raises and told how hard they are working when the other person is working twice as hard.

[MaggieTheCat]

Dude...you just said every stay at home parent you know is lazy and acts like a child needing to be supported by their spouse. I was pointing out that this isn't the case in every situation, since my mother worked her ass off even though she didn't get "paid" for it. My dad owned his own company and worked very hard at what he did as well and was able to support us on his income alone, so instead of having to pay for daycare/whatever if my mom was working, they decided together that he would work outside the home and she would work inside.

I do not understand the notion that you think you know what is better/best for everyone in this situation. If it works for one family, why would you belittle them for it?