Conference quark::mennotes-v1

< Note 194.0 by VOLGA::D_DUVERGER >

>The sad part is the mother only will see them for 4 hours every other week.
    
    Is that her choice or was that part of the settlment? My ex only
wants to see our girls every other weekend.

Bill 

    
    
    	I don't think that ads should be placed in this conference.
    I believe there are others that are more appropriate.
    
    	Moderators?
    
    								mike

    (Although I'm not a Moderator...)
    
    I think the base note serves an important purpose.  Throughout this
    notesfile men have highlighted the struggles they have had in gaining
    access to thier children.  Men have been mistreated by the legal system
    in divorce and child custody cases simply because they are male.
    99 percent of the lawyers I have talked to regarding this issue 
    have had the attitude that men should be considered priviledged if 
    they can see thier child once every two weeks.  Why shouldn't a
    father be able to see his children when he wants to??  Why does a
    father have to miss out on being involved with his child simply
    because he is male??  
    The concept of alimony is archaic.  As a feminist I am appauled
    that women readily accept handouts simply because they are female
    and can get away with it.                                        
    I applauded the base note when I read it, and I have already given
    that lawyer's name to a number of male divorced friends that are
    treated by the legal system like cr*p simply because they are male.
                                                                       
    I don't know the answer.  Every case is different but this is the
    *ONE* area of the law that favors women at the expense (expense=
    financial and emotional) of men.
                                    

    RE: .3
    
    > The concept of alimony is archaic. As a feminist I am appalled
    > that women readily accept handouts simply because they are female
    > and can get away with it.
    
    Yup, the concept of alimony and divorce "settlements" brings new
    meaning to the statement "having it *all*".
    
    More on this issue is touched upon in Note 195 in this Conference.
    
      Alan

    If the concept of alimony is archaic, I propose the common practice
    of work without pay in a partnership is illegal.
    
    If and when a man or woman maintains a family and home or works
    in the marriage so that the other partner may advance their career
    compensation is due if the partnership is dissolved.

    re.5
    since when is room and board ever free ?????????????

    RE: .5 What you are saying is that room and board and clothing 
    etc is not compensation (you said "without pay" and did not 
    specify a level of compensation). I sure don't believe that.
    Most spouses who don't work outside the house live as well as
    their spouse does.
    
>    If and when a man or woman maintains a family and home or works
>    in the marriage so that the other partner may advance their career
>    compensation is due if the partnership is dissolved.

    Can I assume then that if the person who doesn't work out side the
    home does not work because they don't want to (rather then to support
    the others career) that they are *not* due compensation?
    
    			Alfred    
    

    I seem to recall that some of the apologists for slavery attempted
    to justify it by pointing out that slaves had guaranteed room and
    board for life, and would probably starve if freed...
    
    Spouse as slave? Some people clearly want that.
    
    	-- Charles

	If two people make a decision to concentrate on one of the partners
    	career at the expense of anothers and that partnership dissolves
    	then in fact the individual who was in the supportive role deserves
    	compensation.
    
        I do not think this is a laughing matter.  A great many of us
    	who contribute to these conferences have been involved in divorce,
    	child custody, and child support.  Our experiences have eroded
    	the next generations attitude about marriage.
    
    	If I were 25 again even though I would enjoy staying home and
     	being a full time mother and home engineer I would not give
        up my career.  That would be my insurance policy.
    
        It took me ten years to get my career to a wage that was considered
    	above poverty level.  The fifteen years that I worked for 'room
        and board' somehow do not fit on a resume for an accountant.
    
    	I
    

    re .10
    
    stayin alive the bee gees listen to it
    
    re.8 (I think)
    Gale I am truly sorry that your kids fit the categorie of so many
    kids today. Couch spuds, I guess. At seven I delivered 70 newspapers
    a day to houses. At 14 I was playing football so I could change
    to landscaping on the weekend ad naseum......
    
    maybe thats a big problem in this (and other) file(s).
    
    Americans succeed by their parents making sure they should ............
     
    
    not their own efforts!

    re.10 A first for me I THOUGHT about a note
    
    
    since when do "we" rely on anyone to support us?
    
    who owns me ?
    stand on your own two feet.
    if god had wanted you to have four he would have made you a horse.

    I worked like one (a horse) during the marriage and after the divorce.
    
    

    re.14
    I shall not argue with you.
    I never fight unarmed people.

    
.14�        and I still stand by what I said... they don't pay room and board,
.14�    so it must be free to them...right?
   
    Wrong.  "They earn it" :-) [quote attributed to my dad].  Sounds
    like 3 good and hard-working kids to me!
    
    GOG
    

>    	If two people make a decision to concentrate on one of the partners
>    	career at the expense of anothers and that partnership dissolves
>    	then in fact the individual who was in the supportive role deserves
>    	compensation.

    One more time for the slow people... What if that scenario is *not*
    the case? What if the woman (or the man for that matter) stays home
    because they don't want to work outside the house? Is that person
    still deserving of compensation?

>    	If I were 25 again even though I would enjoy staying home and
>     	being a full time mother and home engineer I would not give
>        up my career.  That would be my insurance policy.

    Good that you learned something. Lots of people (women mostly)
    don't think this way. They think that they deserve not to have
    to work outside the house. And if the marriage doesn't work out
    they expect to be compensated for their years of (comparative to
    working outside and inside the home) leisure. BTW, most husbands
    today do a lot of work inside the house. If that is/wasn't the
    case in your marriage don't blame me for your marrying a jerk.

>            It took me ten years to get my career to a wage that was considered
>    	above poverty level.  The fifteen years that I worked for 'room
>        and board' somehow do not fit on a resume for an accountant.

    Unless someone forced you not to work those 15 years don't expect
    much sympathy. We all make some bad choices. We can either admit
    to them, grow for them, and go forward or we can become bitter and
    try and blame others for them.
    
    
    					Alfred

       re .18:
       
       I thought that Foley was expressing only his personal opinion in
       his note (.2); it didn't seem that he was trying to speak for
       anyone, or everyone, else.  I'm sure you're not suggesting that he
       ought not express his opinion, are you? 
       
       Of course, I also think he was off-base in his remark, but that
       may well be a by-product of the giddy ride on the Starship
       PowerCruise -- a ride and a feeling that any conference moderator
       knows only too well.
       
       --Mr Topaz

       	   An open letter to someone who won't sign their name.
        
        RE: .18
        
        Pardon me?  I DO have a right to MY opinion. Obviously the
        moderators disagreed with me and left the note. BFD. I didn't "jump
        on my high horse" and go complain, did I? I just thought that
        the advertisement of services should go somewhere else. (Like
        CLASSIFIED_ADS fer instance) 
        
        I don't know WHERE in hell you get off thinking I'm God or
        something.. But then again, you ARE entitled to YOUR opinion.
        If you think that anything I say is being taken as Gospel then
        you obviously should seek some help in carifying your beliefs.
        I make no claims to being the know-all/end-all of Noting.. I 
        freely admit it when I'm wrong. (and I am wrong alot)

        
        As for my ride on the Starship PowerCruise, hey, I bought and
        paid for the ticket.. The operator is entitled to fool with
        the ride. TANSTAAFL.
        
        I'm glad for you that you got your daughters BTW. Congrats.
        You're lucky.
                
						mike

    re .17
    
    I am really quite surprised by the tone of this reply.  I think
    the first quote you extracted was self explanatory.  In reality
    I do not feel I was entitled to alimony, I would have been satisfied
    with one half of the children's support.  
    
    As far as not blaming you for marrying the jerk.  I don't!  First
    impressions I guess are not so good....I had a very good impression
    of the author of .17 up until now.
    
    Dissolving a marriage is a very emotional experience filled with
    trauma, guilt and blame.  It would seem if some basic accounting
    concepts were adhered to the financial aspect could be dealt with
    in a better manner.  
    
    Whether or not a woman stayed home out of choice or to help her
    husband pursue his career is not the issue.  The issue is whether
    or not she provided a supportive role for her husband.  If she was
    a lousy housekeeper, never went grocery shopping and the husband
    did the laundry alimony is clearly not justified.  She did not provide
    a service so therefore compensation is not due. I think that
    each case has to be looked at individually.
    
    When I was staying home and my husband was working I did not expect
    him to help around the house and it would seem to me that the husband
    that has a stay at home wife and comes home to dirty dishes needs
    to think about talking to her about responsibilities.
    
    I have also changed my mind about child custody as a direct result
    of a note entered by a man.  If he has the financial resources to
    raise the children then that should be a deciding factor in the
    award of custody.  
    
    I have two basic principles in the financial aspect of divorce.
    
    Each parent owes one half of the cost to support the children through
    high school.  
    
    If one partner of the marriage has been able to expand his career
    and one of the contributing factors was the other partners supportive
    services in maintaining the home there is compensation due.
    

    re .18, .19, .20:
    
    ENOUGH!!!!!!
    
    - M (co-moderator)

    RE: .21 I don't think you understood my note because you seem
    to be missing my point all together. For example:
    
>    As far as not blaming you for marrying the jerk.  I don't!  First

    What's this about? In my note the only jerk I talked about was any
    man who doesn't pull his own weight around the house.

>   I had a very good impression of the author of .17 up until now.

    Sorry you changed your mind but I think you're misunderstanding
    my point.    

>    Whether or not a woman stayed home out of choice or to help her
>    husband pursue his career is not the issue.  

    Maybe it's not an issue to you but it is to me. That is the issue
    I'm trying to resolve. I maintain that there is rarely a need for
    one spouse to stay home for the others career to progress. At least
    it's rare in todays world. If one partner stays home it's almost
    always to *their* benifit and a drain rather then a support to the
    other.
    
>    The issue is whether
>    or not she provided a supportive role for her husband.  If she was
>    a lousy housekeeper, never went grocery shopping and the husband
>    did the laundry alimony is clearly not justified.  She did not provide
>    a service so therefore compensation is not due. 

    This is *not* an issue to me in the same way it appears to be to
    you. A wife does not have to stay home to be supportive. BTW, of the
    women I know the worst house keepers are all full time stay at homes.
    I do much (~half) of the grocery shopping and most of the laundry
    in my house but would never ever think that my wife was less then
    200% supportive of me and my career. Support is a lot more to me
    then housework.
    
>    I think that each case has to be looked at individually.
>    Each parent owes one half of the cost to support the children through
>    high school.  

    100% agreement except I'd set the level of education at the college
    level (or help starting a business).
    
				Alfred

    Some interesting exchanges.....
    
    My wife stays home to raise our son. Even before that she "retired"
    when we moved and worked at the house full time. I always believed
    that she earned exectly half of my pay and it was hers to do with
    as she saw fit. But a good point was raised. If we divorce later
    on and we split everyting right down the middle, she will still
    lose when she reenters the marketplace because she has been away
    for so long. 
    
    I'll admit I hadn't considered it that way before.
                           
    
    Perhaps a compromise would be to have decreasing alimony payments
    that coincide with her (hopefully) improving salary as she becomes
    self sufficient again. Of course, any equitable solution would
    probably be impossible considering how unresponsive our present
    judicial system is.    

    I guess we are in disagreement.  Marriage is a partnership and how
    the financial aspects are determined during the marriage is a decision
    of the two partners.  Divorce usually enters a third party and the
    courts have to do what seems reasonable.
    
    And as I suggested initially if I were to do it over my career would
    be first as an insurance policy even though I would prefer to stay
    home.  
    
    It appears that the thoughts and ideas that I am arguing about are
    different than my thoughts and ideas on the same subject.  When
    I talk about a supportive role I mean a lot of work to make life
    easier for the partner whose career is the main focus of the marriage.
    It means perhaps the supportive partner maintaining a strict budget,
    doing all or most of the household chores, and generally keeping
    the home fires burning.  
    
    If I were to be furthering my career I would expect a man to help
    around the house but if we decided his career was important and
    he did not have the energy or time to do household chores I would
    not expect his help.
    
    We are talking about specific careers over and above a 40 hour week.
    The classic example is the doctor whose wife works as a secretary
    and keeps house so that he can complete his education.  She deserves
    alimony for whatever period of time she contributed to his career.
    She was an integral part of the process of him becoming a doctor
    and she is owed a portion of his earnings for a period of time.
    
    This extreme example may not occur in many lives....but the courts
    cannot ignore the individual that is thrust out into the world by
    a divorce.  Unless we want to get into the management of the 
    marriage prior to the divorce.  
    
    Would you suggest that these people who do not have the skills to
    support a minimum lifestyle go on welfare?   
    
    Again another argument for prenuptial agreements.  It seems that
    intent has to be clear as to the roles and financial arrangements
    of a marriage up front and not when the divorce is in the courts.

    I guess I think of marriage as a partnership in which each
    person shares 50-50. That is to say that the value one
    partner receives is equal to that which the other receives.
    At the point the partnership dissolves the past should not be
    considered as one haven gotten more value then the other which
    should now be 'made up'. Perhaps it's because each partner didn't
    receive equal value that the marriage broke up? I don't know.
    
    Even in your Doctor example, if the non-Doctor is not receiving
    value equal to their work why are they doing it? Of course, value
    can not be measured in pure money terms. Trying to do it is a
    major part of the inherently impossible task in reasonable divorce
    cases.
    
>    Would you suggest that these people who do not have the skills to
>    support a minimum lifestyle go on welfare?   

    I would suggest that the number of people in this case is far smaller
    then the number of people currently on welfare. Any person who can
    manage a household budget, keep house and raise kids has the skills
    to support a minimum lifestyle.

    Actually rather then being an argument for prenuptial agreements
    I see this all as an argument for people to work harder at making
    and keeping good marriages.
    
    			Alfred

    It is always difficult to argue issues around divorce, alimony,
    child support and child custody.
    
    Those of us who have faced these issues head on and in some small
    way try to do their part to see that others do not have to endure
    the same financial hardship or pain most often get the worst 
    arguments from the married, never divorced community.  Instead of
    being thankful that they were fortunate to have made a good choice
    and that they are able to work at marriage they tend to attribute
    all this to their wisdom and our stupidity.
    
    I made a mistake, I chose the wrong man.  For whatever reason we
    could not work it out.  We were close to destroying each other and
    our children.  Divorce is an answer and it can be a good answer
    if the issues are worked fairly and equitably.  
    
    But to expect that you can treat a marriage partner in the same
    way you might a stray cat is inexcusable.  It is against the law
    to abandon animals and it should be likewise to abandon spouses
    without insuring that they can survive outside the marriage.
    
    For every spouse who has abused alimony there are many who have
    not received their share of the couples assets including a portion
    of the salary of the spouse who developed her/his career within the
    marriage.
    
    Divorce is here to stay...very few of us are perfect...and when
    we make a serious mistake we should be allowed to correct it and
    we should not be expected to suffer financial hardship.
    
    These issues are becoming more and more genderless and I suspect
    within ten years we will see some change in direction on these 
    issues.
    
    The man who entered the base note accomplished something that a
    lot of men in this conference have not been able to do.  I am quite
    surprised at the responses this note has received.  It would seem
    men would be quite interested in how he received custody of two
    children and $90 a week child support for $5000 in lawyers fees.
    
    I often wonder if men really want custody or if they enjoy threatening
    to sue for it.  This is said with tongue in cheek and not meant
    to offend....it is just a thought. 

    
    
    I have one comment on the phrase,
    
    "Why can't a father see his child when he wants to?"
    
    If you are speaking in terms of bopping over and picking up
    the child, or last minute trips to the ice cream stand, I 
    will strongly disagree with you.  
    
    A child needs a schedule (how structured depends on the age),
    and the mother needs her own life, too.
    
    If my ex-husband called whenever he wanted to, I'd say buzz off
    pal.  We/child are not here at your beck and call.
    
    I used to have scheduled every other weekend my son would go with
    his father; at 3 years old, he knew and understood it.  If his
    Dad had something special, or wanted to pick him up on a Wednesday
    through Thursday, providing he called ahead of time, I'd give
    them the green light.
    
    But......it wouldn't be fair for the Dad to expect Mom to drop
    that movie she had planned for tonight with her son/daughter,
    so Daddy could pick them up.
    
    I strongly believe that Mom and Dad need to have a schedule,
    for stability purposes and others (think about it) and a once
    and a while last minuter would be ok.
    
    The term "see his child *when he wants to*" irks the hell out of
    me.

    Whoah there now.  Me thinks I here double standard in the works.
     The previous reply says that it is not fair for the father to want
    to take his child to the ice cream stand on the spur of the moment.
     Is it fair for the mother to be able to do this?  I don't think
    a single person would dispute the right of the custodial parent
    (typically the mother) to make on the fly plans with the children..
    BUT, I don't think it is fair that the non-custodial parent (typically
    the father) should be relegated to every other weekend, with the
    only chance of seeing the child otherwise being at the whim of the
    custodial parent.  This makes it almost impossible for the
    non-custodial parent to maintain a normal parental relationship
    with the children.  I defy anyone to prove that a person can be
    a fair parent when they only see the children 2 days out of 14.
    
    Let's be real.  The previous replier may not want to see her
    ex-husband, but that is no right to deny him the right to spend
    a fair quantity of time with the children.  If he wants to take
    the kids to a movie, say, and it is within a reasonable schedule
    for the children (not at midnight on a school night for example)
    then within reason he should be able to.
    
    In some ways, the needs of the non-custodial parent should be given
    a little more consideration, because the custodial parent can do
    things at any time.  This does not mean much extra weight, just
    enough to be fair.
    
    Ed..
    

     While there is a need to prevent the non-custodial parent from
    being disruptive, there is also a need to allow some flexibility
    for the non-custodial parent. Since human relationships are fairly
    nebulous, it is difficult to make a blanket rule that fairly covers
    all aspects and instances for this subject.
    
     If all exes still got along, there would be no problem with a very
    loose arangement. Unfortunately, many exes will do what they can
    to subvert the other parent (goes both ways). There needs to be
    enough flexibility to preclude the non-custodial parent from being
    relegated to every other weekend only visitation. However, there
    also needs to be enough rigidity to prevent the non-custodial parent
    from insisting upon visitation at the last minute on a regular basis.
    "Geez- I know it's not my weekend, but I've got Celtics tickets for
    tonight, and if you don't have anything special planned with the
    kids I'd like to take them out tonight" should not be a problem.
    Of course, if the custodial parent has tickets for the Nutcracker,
    then the non-custodial parent is out of luck. It would be stupid
    and selfish for the custodial parent to deny the kids a trip to
    the Celts game if (genderless pronoun) had no plans for the kids
    that evening.
    
    Mark

    Not to digress, but can anyone recommend a "Can Do Lawyer" in central
    MA or anywhere for that matter.  I am considering going back for
    a modification.  My ex quit her job and live off the child support.
    Now, because she doesn't have enough money, she's considring moving
    back to Maine with her mother.  I've had enough.  Please, I need
    recommendations.
    
    Craig