(03-06-2014 04:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 04:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 04:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 04:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My son is the first to say that he is quite happy that his mom and I divorced. He realizes, as did we, that we--and he, particularly he--needed very much for that to happen. God doesn't want you to be miserable.

It may be that he says he feels that way, Owl 69/70, but it sounds like you both mutually agreed to the divorce? Or perhaps I am wrong, it is hard to tell from your post.

Repeated research has shown that most children, not all, but most, given a choice would rather have their families remain intact vs divorce. It has a tendency to repeat the cycle and gain momentum as time goes on as well. There are always of course exceptions, but they go against the odds.

All three of us mutually agreed.

I think many times that the kids will recognize that it is better for everyone involved to move on. It isn't that you don't love them, it is that you want to make sure they can have an enjoyable upbringing without the non-sense that can come from a loveless marriage. I care about my ex-wife, I don't want anything negative to happen to her, but I am much happier in my life now that I ever was while married to her. I found the woman whom I thought she was, who is a 50% partner to me in everything we do. She says she has found the same with her fiancé, which I think is great. I just don't want her to take my kids away. I love my kids, I'm there for them. I have coached their teams, I've watched their events, and I've gone out in the back yard and played for hours on end. I repainted my daughters' room and made it a princess motif. I'm building them a bunkbed that looks like a castle, with a slide down from the top bunk. I'm building my son a loft bed that looks like a fire truck, also feature a slide.

I just do everything I can to stay positive... I figure in the long run the kids will recognize that I was there every step of the way and that I wanted to be with them as much as I possibly could.

Very wise under difficult circumstances MLB. FWIW I don't think she can move too far away and still have joint custody? FWIW I did have a loser friend who married a good girl, scammed her into moving to Florida, to get her away from her parents, they had 4 kids fast and then divorced soon thereafter.
She is dying to move back to Ohio, but she can't do that and take the kids.

No fault divorce isn't the problem, irresponsible people marrying anybody who comes down the pipe is the problem.

Divorce is a symptom of a wider problem, not the problem, itself.

(03-06-2014 05:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No fault divorce isn't the problem, irresponsible people marrying anybody who comes down the pipe is the problem.

Divorce is a symptom of a wider problem, not the problem, itself.

This is true.

(03-06-2014 05:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No fault divorce isn't the problem, irresponsible people marrying anybody who comes down the pipe is the problem.

Divorce is a symptom of a wider problem, not the problem, itself.

I agree. And NFD was created with good intentions. Before NFD, you had to have a specific reason for divorce. In VA, it was/is adultery, felony conviction, cruelty, and desertion (if my memory is feeling good). The problem is that divorce is a public record and no one wanted this kind of stuff on record. Second, there are affirmative defenses that one can use to keep the marriage together for longer. So, NFD was created to avoid this mess. It was also put in to help two people that agreed on divorce to have a way out without alleging a fault (as you can see...none of those are something you want to be labeled as, on the public record). The unintended consequence is that people don't take marriage seriously and see divorce as an easy thing. Heck, there are now $500 flat rate divorce attorneys, if you both agree to it.

(03-06-2014 05:12 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Very wise under difficult circumstances MLB. FWIW I don't think she can move too far away and still have joint custody? FWIW I did have a loser friend who married a good girl, scammed her into moving to Florida, to get her away from her parents, they had 4 kids fast and then divorced soon thereafter.
She is dying to move back to Ohio, but she can't do that and take the kids.

Yeah. I'm filing for full custody at this point. I don't know that I'll win though. All 3 kids are very young and ohio courts generally side with the mom unfortunately.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-06-2014 05:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  The unintended consequence is that people don't take marriage seriously and see divorce as an easy thing. Heck, there are now $500 flat rate divorce attorneys, if you both agree to it.

$199 flat on a billboard in Georgia. We have devalued marriage far too much in this country and it shows.

It was better the way it was before where you couldn't run away from your problems, had to face the truth if there were any, and couldn't make everyone else pay and leave them behind to pick up the pieces of what you did because of your selfish irresponsibility. It also cost society and the taxpayers a heck of a lot less than it does now. Anybody else not see that connection because it's direct?

(03-06-2014 05:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No fault divorce isn't the problem, irresponsible people marrying anybody who comes down the pipe is the problem.

Divorce is a symptom of a wider problem, not the problem, itself.

HOD, since you said you are a lawyer (correct?), I imagine you know something of contracts. So, how about explaining your opinion one this to us:

(03-06-2014 04:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  My point being is that anyone can be taken down by the system the way it is set up. And there are incentives in the system for doing so. That cannot be right. It should be even at least, and skewed toward staying married at best.

The thing that gets me is marriage is the ONLY contract I am aware of where the person that breaks the agreement gets away without any of the negative consequences, and the person who is left behind and the subject of the breach is the one whom is negatively penalized for not leaving first.

That cannot be right, but it is the law. It contradicts the most basic foundations of all other agreements. In every other contract breach the breaking party is liable to the other party for a remedy for the consequences of their actions.

This thread is heart breaking. Who knows why some of us have the trials that we do? So much of what happens to us is fate. I was engaged to my high school sweet heart and we were going down that road. We would have married if it wasn't for a summer party our sophomore year in college. We broke up and I was devastated for years it was my fault that we broke up. In hindsight it was the best thing that ever happened to me but I didn't know. Many sleepness nights for a 2 or 3 year period in my early twenties. She was drop dead gorgeous but that only goes so far and at the end I didn't respect her the way I should have. She has been through a divorce and at our high school class reunion you could just tell her life wasn't happy. Condescending bitter type. My wife just oozes class and the first girlfriend would put in subtle little digs at me while we were all eating. My wife just had a great way of deflecting it and making her look like a fool. BEHIND EVERY GREAT MAN IS A BETTER WIFE OR COUNTERPART.... BELIEVE THAT! I have had four wonderful children with my wife but as many on here know we both carry a recessive allele that can lead to death or major medical needs. So I do sometimes wonder how my life would have turned out if I married the high school sweet heart. I know we would have been divorced. So, in retrospect, it's all about getting damn lucky in your choices or fate. My wife and I have been threw hell and back and we are stronger for it. I just feel for you guys out there. I know I could have been divorced if i didn't get lucky in finding the high character girl I did. In the end it's all about that!!!!

Thanks for that post, Mach.

I wonder how many would have entered a marriage with their present or former partners knowing there was no No-fault option to get out if they had a child?

How much of this destruction might have been avoided? How many taxpayer dollars would have been saved?

I am often told by people I speak of this to that they fear being trapped in a marriage they do not want. My response is: Good. Then why would you get into it anyway unless you were willing to stay for the worst case scenario? If you are saying you will bolt when the going gets tough or life throws you curveballs or your partner turns out to be someone else, then you don't understand what marriage really is. You are just a player. If you do, and you are afraid of making that kind of commitment, then you will hopefully be much more careful and take much more seriously who you marry before you do so, than using marriage as a long-term trial date with no real commitment and making your children pay for your brainlessness.

FTR, I entered mine willing to take better or worse, sickness or health, richer or poorer, and stated so at the time. I did not leave mine. I kept my contract.

Even though I ended up with worse, sickness and poorer, leaving was never an option to me. That is the commitment lacking in marriage today. That is what pulls people through hard times, wars, famine, disease together throughout history to see a new day.

Should I ever find or desire another to marry in the future, my vows will only be for worse, poorer, in sickness and until death. Those are the only conditions of the deal that sincerely speak to commitment and good anyway. The others don't really matter at all.

(03-06-2014 05:57 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:12 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Very wise under difficult circumstances MLB. FWIW I don't think she can move too far away and still have joint custody? FWIW I did have a loser friend who married a good girl, scammed her into moving to Florida, to get her away from her parents, they had 4 kids fast and then divorced soon thereafter.
She is dying to move back to Ohio, but she can't do that and take the kids.

Yeah. I'm filing for full custody at this point. I don't know that I'll win though. All 3 kids are very young and ohio courts generally side with the mom unfortunately.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Louisiana courts always side with the mother too except in very rare cases...

(03-06-2014 04:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  God doesn't want you to be miserable.

Happiness is not found in freedom from the storm. True happiness is being able to be free in the storm. All others are false gods, to me.

I can say that I am happy with who I am as a father and a person, that I have persevered and not given up despite how things turned out. That I have kept my word even when it was not the most convenient for me. I am very satisfied with that. And that has made me very happy indeed, to find that I have that capacity in me. So , to paraphrase your quote, 'God has allowed me to be happy by showing me I do not have to fear misery.'

(03-06-2014 06:50 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No fault divorce isn't the problem, irresponsible people marrying anybody who comes down the pipe is the problem.

Divorce is a symptom of a wider problem, not the problem, itself.

HOD, since you said you are a lawyer (correct?), I imagine you know something of contracts. So, how about explaining your opinion one this to us:

(03-06-2014 04:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  My point being is that anyone can be taken down by the system the way it is set up. And there are incentives in the system for doing so. That cannot be right. It should be even at least, and skewed toward staying married at best.

The thing that gets me is marriage is the ONLY contract I am aware of where the person that breaks the agreement gets away without any of the negative consequences, and the person who is left behind and the subject of the breach is the one whom is negatively penalized for not leaving first.

That cannot be right, but it is the law. It contradicts the most basic foundations of all other agreements. In every other contract breach the breaking party is liable to the other party for a remedy for the consequences of their actions.

Marriage isn't like normal contracts. That's the long and the short of it.

(03-06-2014 02:25 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  If you go into a marriage thinking that divorce is an option if it doesn't meet my standards of perfection, you will more than likely use that option.

People don't want to have consequences for their decisions, so that is why we get "No Fault Divorce". If you want to

This is it in a nutshell. If divorce is an option for you at some point when the marriage gets tough and all do, you'll bail.
If divorce isn't an option, you'll work through the problem because you have to.

BTW graduated at 22, got married at 23, had a kid the same year, married 25 years...divorce was never an option.

(03-06-2014 10:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 06:50 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No fault divorce isn't the problem, irresponsible people marrying anybody who comes down the pipe is the problem.

Divorce is a symptom of a wider problem, not the problem, itself.

HOD, since you said you are a lawyer (correct?), I imagine you know something of contracts. So, how about explaining your opinion one this to us:

(03-06-2014 04:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  My point being is that anyone can be taken down by the system the way it is set up. And there are incentives in the system for doing so. That cannot be right. It should be even at least, and skewed toward staying married at best.

The thing that gets me is marriage is the ONLY contract I am aware of where the person that breaks the agreement gets away without any of the negative consequences, and the person who is left behind and the subject of the breach is the one whom is negatively penalized for not leaving first.

That cannot be right, but it is the law. It contradicts the most basic foundations of all other agreements. In every other contract breach the breaking party is liable to the other party for a remedy for the consequences of their actions.

Marriage isn't like normal contracts. That's the long and the short of it.

I once talked to an appellate lawyer who said the same thing. When I asked him to be more specific, he couldn't. He just kept saying: well it just isn't. But he could not give me a reason. This was someone who knew nothing of my personal situation. I found that interesting.

My question is "why not?" It is a contract, after all. There are two parties. Offer, acceptance, and consideration.

Why would someone agreed to be bound by something that was only enforceable in the negative as marriage currently is, but not in the affirmative? Where is the logic in that?

I see no reason to treat it as different from any other agreement, other than selfishness and greed. When breached, the injured party should be made whole as in every other contract. Yet in marriage, it is the injuring party that is made whole, and the injured party is further deprived. That just doesn't make sense. It certainly does not seem to serve our country's economic interest.

Are you in fact a lawyer? I believe you mentioned you teach constitutional law somewhere, though you did not specify where? If so, please explain this. I'm patient, I can wait until you have more time than today. Thank you.

(03-06-2014 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 10:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 06:50 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No fault divorce isn't the problem, irresponsible people marrying anybody who comes down the pipe is the problem.

Divorce is a symptom of a wider problem, not the problem, itself.

HOD, since you said you are a lawyer (correct?), I imagine you know something of contracts. So, how about explaining your opinion one this to us:

(03-06-2014 04:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  My point being is that anyone can be taken down by the system the way it is set up. And there are incentives in the system for doing so. That cannot be right. It should be even at least, and skewed toward staying married at best.

The thing that gets me is marriage is the ONLY contract I am aware of where the person that breaks the agreement gets away without any of the negative consequences, and the person who is left behind and the subject of the breach is the one whom is negatively penalized for not leaving first.

That cannot be right, but it is the law. It contradicts the most basic foundations of all other agreements. In every other contract breach the breaking party is liable to the other party for a remedy for the consequences of their actions.

Marriage isn't like normal contracts. That's the long and the short of it.

I once talked to an appellate lawyer who said the same thing. When I asked him to be more specific, he couldn't. He just kept saying: well it just isn't. But he could not give me a reason. This was someone who knew nothing of my personal situation. I found that interesting.

My question is "why not?" It is a contract, after all. There are two parties. Offer, acceptance, and consideration.

Why would someone agreed to be bound by something that was only enforceable in the negative as marriage currently is, but not in the affirmative? Where is the logic in that?

I see no reason to treat it as different from any other agreement, other than selfishness and greed. When breached, the injured party should be made whole as in every other contract. Yet in marriage, it is the injuring party that is made whole, and the injured party is further deprived. That just doesn't make sense. It certainly does not seem to serve our country's economic interest.

Are you in fact a lawyer? I believe you mentioned you teach constitutional law somewhere, though you did not specify where? If so, please explain this. I'm patient, I can wait until you have more time than today. Thank you.

In theory a marriage is a three sided contract between two parties and the state.

A breach can lead to recovery in state where there is 'fault.' It can lead to disproportionate shares, alimony, and the works.

You'll notice the majority of "no fault" states just happen to be big states who have abandoned old common law doctrine in exchange for civil law community property, no fault, 50-50 or at worst 60-40 splits. They have largely done so because the system doesn't have the time to get nasty with every single one and no-fault helps push things through quicker by encouraging settlement and discouraging trials.

I'm a practicing attorney in a firm that operates across the Southeast and in my spare time I teach two law related courses, one of them Con Law, at a 4 year Christian school here in Montgomery. I also do 'lobbying' work on behalf of the AlBA.

(03-06-2014 07:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This thread is heart breaking. Who knows why some of us have the trials that we do? So much of what happens to us is fate. I was engaged to my high school sweet heart and we were going down that road. We would have married if it wasn't for a summer party our sophomore year in college. We broke up and I was devastated for years it was my fault that we broke up. In hindsight it was the best thing that ever happened to me but I didn't know. Many sleepness nights for a 2 or 3 year period in my early twenties. She was drop dead gorgeous but that only goes so far and at the end I didn't respect her the way I should have. She has been through a divorce and at our high school class reunion you could just tell her life wasn't happy. Condescending bitter type. My wife just oozes class and the first girlfriend would put in subtle little digs at me while we were all eating. My wife just had a great way of deflecting it and making her look like a fool. BEHIND EVERY GREAT MAN IS A BETTER WIFE OR COUNTERPART.... BELIEVE THAT! I have had four wonderful children with my wife but as many on here know we both carry a recessive allele that can lead to death or major medical needs. So I do sometimes wonder how my life would have turned out if I married the high school sweet heart. I know we would have been divorced. So, in retrospect, it's all about getting damn lucky in your choices or fate. My wife and I have been threw hell and back and we are stronger for it. I just feel for you guys out there. I know I could have been divorced if i didn't get lucky in finding the high character girl I did. In the end it's all about that!!!!

You and I have both experienced a similar thing. We both have a solid woman behind us. We also had serious medical challenges with our child. I really believe that having to deal with adversity brought us even closer. I have always said that it was the "tiny" unimportant things that caused us the most problems. The house could fall down and we would just shake it off. God forbid though that the bread or eggs get damaged on the way home from the grocery store!!!! All hell breaks loose.

(03-06-2014 05:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No fault divorce isn't the problem, irresponsible people marrying anybody who comes down the pipe is the problem.

Divorce is a symptom of a wider problem, not the problem, itself.

I see it from both directions. Sometimes people just grow apart for some reason or simply just were not mature enough from the start. I also have seen people get married that I knew would never make it. They simply were not compatible from the start. It is funny how we can see that from the outside and yet no one ever seems to be able to stop it..or has the will to stop it.

When my wife and I went and talked to the minister about marrying us... he quickly made this statement. "If there is ANY reason you can think of NOT to do this?...then I strongly suggest that you don't get married."
He was harsh...but...dead on with that comment.

(03-06-2014 11:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 10:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Marriage isn't like normal contracts. That's the long and the short of it.

I once talked to an appellate lawyer who said the same thing. When I asked him to be more specific, he couldn't. He just kept saying: well it just isn't. But he could not give me a reason. This was someone who knew nothing of my personal situation. I found that interesting.

My question is "why not?" It is a contract, after all. There are two parties. Offer, acceptance, and consideration.

Why would someone agreed to be bound by something that was only enforceable in the negative as marriage currently is, but not in the affirmative? Where is the logic in that?

I see no reason to treat it as different from any other agreement, other than selfishness and greed. When breached, the injured party should be made whole as in every other contract. Yet in marriage, it is the injuring party that is made whole, and the injured party is further deprived. That just doesn't make sense. It certainly does not seem to serve our country's economic interest.

Are you in fact a lawyer? I believe you mentioned you teach constitutional law somewhere, though you did not specify where? If so, please explain this. I'm patient, I can wait until you have more time than today. Thank you.

In theory a marriage is a three sided contract between two parties and the state.

A breach can lead to recovery in state where there is 'fault.' It can lead to disproportionate shares, alimony, and the works.

You'll notice the majority of "no fault" states just happen to be big states who have abandoned old common law doctrine in exchange for civil law community property, no fault, 50-50 or at worst 60-40 splits. They have largely done so because the system doesn't have the time to get nasty with every single one and no-fault helps push things through quicker by encouraging settlement and discouraging trials.

I'm a practicing attorney in a firm that operates across the Southeast and in my spare time I teach two law related courses, one of them Con Law, at a 4 year Christian school here in Montgomery. I also do 'lobbying' work on behalf of the AlBA.

And if the divorce occurs across state lines? How is that supposed to be handled with respect to the contract breach?

(03-07-2014 10:47 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 11:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 10:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Marriage isn't like normal contracts. That's the long and the short of it.

I once talked to an appellate lawyer who said the same thing. When I asked him to be more specific, he couldn't. He just kept saying: well it just isn't. But he could not give me a reason. This was someone who knew nothing of my personal situation. I found that interesting.

My question is "why not?" It is a contract, after all. There are two parties. Offer, acceptance, and consideration.

Why would someone agreed to be bound by something that was only enforceable in the negative as marriage currently is, but not in the affirmative? Where is the logic in that?

I see no reason to treat it as different from any other agreement, other than selfishness and greed. When breached, the injured party should be made whole as in every other contract. Yet in marriage, it is the injuring party that is made whole, and the injured party is further deprived. That just doesn't make sense. It certainly does not seem to serve our country's economic interest.

Are you in fact a lawyer? I believe you mentioned you teach constitutional law somewhere, though you did not specify where? If so, please explain this. I'm patient, I can wait until you have more time than today. Thank you.

In theory a marriage is a three sided contract between two parties and the state.

A breach can lead to recovery in state where there is 'fault.' It can lead to disproportionate shares, alimony, and the works.

You'll notice the majority of "no fault" states just happen to be big states who have abandoned old common law doctrine in exchange for civil law community property, no fault, 50-50 or at worst 60-40 splits. They have largely done so because the system doesn't have the time to get nasty with every single one and no-fault helps push things through quicker by encouraging settlement and discouraging trials.

I'm a practicing attorney in a firm that operates across the Southeast and in my spare time I teach two law related courses, one of them Con Law, at a 4 year Christian school here in Montgomery. I also do 'lobbying' work on behalf of the AlBA.

And if the divorce occurs across state lines? How is that supposed to be handled with respect to the contract breach?

Across state lines?

You get divorced wherever you got married or wherever you are domiciled; there is no crossing state lines.

(03-06-2014 05:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 04:55 PM)mlb Wrote:  I wish I only put out $600 a month. I pay out $1600 in child support and another $1000 in alimony (until she gets married this coming summer). Why? Because I made over 90% of the family income and the even though I have shared parenting (Ohio's joint custody), they have to keep both households "even". I honestly didn't care about doing it because I was done with her, and wanted my kids to be in a great situation when they weren't with me. Of course, she actually has more money each month than me because she has her own job, she gets $1600 tax free, another $1000 a month that she has to claim, and she has a fiancé who lives in a $400K house 90 minutes away. I'm still paying for food 50% of the time, I kept the house which we owed more on than it was worth, and I split all school and activity costs equally. Now we are back in court because she wants to move my kids to his house... and it sucks. Worst feeling in the world is when you love your kids and want to be with them, you currently get to see them 7 out of every 14 days, and you have the prospect of becoming an out of state dad that only gets summer and Christmas break.

The only thing I can say is that I've got a great woman standing behind me, 2 great parents who have been supportive all the way (she lied to them about her activities and after I showed my mother the proof she went from upset that we were getting a divorce to "why didn't you do this immediately?"), and a company that has been extremely supportive of my time with the kids, with the court dates and lawyer meetings.

I put out $1200.00 but no alimony... With that, a mortgage, auto loan, utilities, and regular expenses, I hardly have shiit left over when I get paid because I have to do this all by myself. My GF just moved in though so I'll have some extra income for the first time in 3 years since she helkps a little on bills.

I think it's safe to say a high percentage of posters on this board are divorced.....

flying solo in today's world is a mfkr....