Conference quark::mennotes

    
    You might want to check out QUOKKA::NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.  

    Welcome to marriage in the 90's.  You have ABSOLUTELY NO protection
    from her booting you out of the house and moving her boyfriend in
    and forcing you to finance it.  The _only_ weapon you have is the
    withdrawal of your love, support, and protection.  If that isn't 
    enough, then you're dead meat.

    fred();

    If you have been served then all the councling in the world isnt worth
    the time to fart. Either she gets this message that you dont coperate
    unless she does. Or You can join the rest of us, and sleep in your car.
    Hopefully, you live in a warm climate. Snow suck when living in the
    car. Take it from first hand knowledge and experience.

    You mentioned that you were both good at conflict avoidance ...
    
    There is exactly where many marriages fail.  Conflict is a natural
    part of anyone's interaction with another.  By avoiding conflict,
    you simply never get the basic problems sorted out.  By now there are
    so many unresolved problems, that counselling without baring your
    souls is never really enough.  
    
    Sounds like the counsellor wasn't too skilled in mediating controlling 
    the conflicts in his / her office.  What a skilled counsellor will do 
    is to set up a protocol for discussing any problem, and keep you on that 
    protocol.  That way it is not just an hour slamming session.
    
    It could well be that your wife does not have another man in her
    life, but simply has to get out from the weight of the unresolved
    conflicts.  Sometimes, all the unresolved conflicts can really be
    debilitating in its impact on your life ... at work and at home.
    
    Any arguments and conflicts you have now carry all the weight of
    all the unresolved conflicts behind them, like a 100 car freight
    train ... hence the situation in the counsellors office.
    
    The problem is now that the whole relationship is so sour, any
    positive thing you do will be discounted as having an ulterior
    motive, or not believed.
    
    The bottom line is that you've just not communicated.  You really
    have to allow yourselves to face conflicts ... and then as each
    of you express your side of the conflict, you have to allow yourself
    to get inside the other person and look at it from their perspective
    and acknowledge that they might feel as they do ... even if you
    don't agree, but then you explain your side and your partner should
    get into your shoes and see it from your side.  Again, she may not
    agree with your perspective ... but you will have looked at the
    situation just how each other sees the problem.  When you've done
    that, then you are in a position to work out a win-win agreement,
    instead of a compromise.
    
    It's a shame that it has gone on for so long, and that the cannonball
    of divorce has been fired.  By the time the lawyers are involved,
    it has usually gone too far because the ball is flying through the
    air and won't stop till it hits its target.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    WOW!  Looks like Stuart is in the wrong job!
    
    Was that the voice of experience?

    Not exactly ... not divorce etc.  But it comes from an interest in
    counselling and helping others, after dealing with a number of
    people who have been through the living hell of depression.  You
    discover that a lot of the things that precipitate depression in
    some people cause marital problems in others, and all manner of
    problems in still others.
    
    Stuart

    Just to add to Stuart's .3:
    
    Where there's conflict avoidance/lack of communication there is also
    hidden agendas.  Since one cannot express one's needs, those needs
    cannot get met.  This, as Stuart pointed out, results in accumulating
    frustration - until there is a breaking point; which in a marriage
    means divorce, third party or not.
    
    At this point, it appears your wife has made a decision, and you are
    now in the game.  I have two pieces of advice FWIW:
    
    	1.  Play the best you can, and hope your losses will be minimal.
    	    From a family unit perspective, there is no recovering that.
      	    It is a soul pain, and always will be.  And yes, you are
    	    correct, in a divorce there are no winners - only survivors.
            Try to maintain a close-as-you-can relationship with your
    	    children, and as best you can, civil to your ex.  Ex hostility
    	    hurts the children, not the ex's; they're too busy playing
            games with each other.  From a financial perspective, as a
            non-custodial-parent, your worries are over (especially if
    	    in Mass) - you won't have any finances to worry about.  I
    	    say that with a sick humor because in reality it's not 
    	    funny.  I will say, however, life does go on; it's not the
    	    end of the world.  Tough, but not the end.
    
        2.  Be kind to yourself.  Get yourself some grieve counselling if
            you can.  This is going to be an incredibly emotional time for
            you, and you'll need all your fortitude and support from
    	    others.  Also, when you are emotionally ready, take this
            opportunity to learn about yourself; do some self-discovery -
    	    who are you?  Why do you avoid conflict?  What can you do to
            change, assuming you may wish to?  How can you communicate
    	    better?  These are all fixable things.  Your options for 
            self wellbeing are limitless.  The intent is not to find
    	    fault; rather, to find inner peace in a vortex of turmoil.
    
    The road ahead looks uncertain at the moment, and it is.  Therefore,
    if I may borrow a page from those who've survived various hells:
    Take one day at a time.  
    
    Hope this helps.  God bless
    
    -Bill (who's been through the fires of hell, and has the ashes to
           prove it)

    
    
    More news from the grim...

    One major problem you are facing is that she has noting to lose but
    you (or at least thinks she does).  She will likely get to keep the
    house, most of any investments, the car, the kids, and a good size 
    share of your paycheck.  There is no incentive or motivation for 
    her to even try to save the marriage.  There is only so much _you_
    can do without her help.  It takes two to make a marriage, only one
    to make a divorce.  Somtimes no matter how good you are, or how
    hard you try, it just isn't enough.

    Again the _only_ leverage you have is the withdrawal of your love and 
    support.  If that doesn't get her attention GET A LAWYER NOW.  I've
    seen too &^%$ many men that think that if they are just a nice guy
    and don't make waves, then maybe she'll come around.  Right up until
    they walk into court and get impaled on a lag-bolt (that's a _big_ 
    screw).

    Also (if you haven't already) check out QUOKKA::NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.
    
    fred();

    
    Get active in the Non_Custodial notesfile, you'll not only get plenty
    of free advice but also plenty of good advice. Mr. Rauh will also make
    you laugh out loud with his views from the Darkside. They were greatly
    appreciated when I was going through the Big D.
    
    	I also was the first in my family to get a divorce...take it from
    me, other people do not really care about your life as much as you
    think. So instead of beating yourself up just make sure that you take
    care of yourself and do the best you can. It's a long tough road, the 
    repercussions last forever. Don't start any bad habits, they'll only
    make things worse in the long run. 
    
    	Take care...

    �<< Note 117.9 by GIAMEM::HOVEY >>

    �but also plenty of good advice. Mr. Rauh will also make you laugh out
    �loud with his views from the Darkside.

    Flattery will get you every where. And I owe my success to watching 
    Alfred Hitchcock and other ghouls. Infact thats the Fathers United
    theme song, the Alfred H's theme song. :)

    Nice guys don't finish last - stupid guys finish last.  There's a
    difference.  You can still afford to be nice, just not stupid.
    
    I divorced three years ago.  My ex and I have joint custody, and I have
    physical custody.  Mutual property (house) was sold and all debt paid off at
    the time of the divorce.  I'm closer to my kids than I've ever been, I
    pay no child support (why should I, after all?)...they see their mom
    all the time.  It worked out just fine.  No custody battle.
    
    Get a good attorney who isn't afraid to fight, and who's first priority
    is to get it over with quickly and fairly.  Those are rare - very rare.
    Mine wasn't a divorce lawyer - she was a litigator.  That helped.
    
    It's an emotional time.  Keep your wits, get good counsel and good
    counselling, and it can work out.
    
    tim
    

    Tim,
    
    
    Count your blessings that it went the way it did. I know many others
    who were not so lucky. 

That's my point.  It isn't just 'luck'.

Don't let the grief and anquish of the loss of a marriage paralyze you.
Use your head.  Know what you're up against.  Understand what you want,
what you're up against, and what it will take to get it.  If you know
your wife, and know what motivates her, use that knowledge - directly.
Remember the old sales addage: everthing is negotiable.

You don't have to be an &sshole to avoid getting screwed - just smart.

tim

    Tim...... perhaps in your case luck had allot to do with it. Perhaps ol
    paint you should attend a few fathers meetings. Listen to these men and
    you will see some who have had it sooo bad..  But I can see you have a
    knowledge of all things. 
    
    These men meet in Concord NH in the room 202 of the old post office
    building behind the capitol building. Tuesday nights, 7-9pm.
    
    A cup of reality will greet you.

Re: .14

Why would Tim, who has obviously found a way to come out ahead under
difficult circumstances, need to meet with a bunch of men who didn't do
so well?

I agree with Tim, and would say that many men who end up screwed in divorce
did themselves in.  I also recognize that the odds and the courts are
stacked against men, but it IS possible, sometimes, to avoid being screwed.
I did, largely by "not being an asshole" and recognizing what was important
and what wasn't.

However, regarding Tim's comment on his not paying support because he has
physical custody; that's using logic, which doesn't enter into things.  Many,
many fathers with custody still pay support, but largely because they never
pushed hard enough to get the support requirement dropped. (This usually
happens when the physical custody arrangement changes sometime after the
initial settlement.)

				Steve

    Steve,
    
    Perhaps Tim would want to see how men, who did try to be real nice get
    their butts slammed. And they did try. And like yourself, not all of
    these little wars go as easys as Tims and yours. Dispite all of the
    squishy leftist advice you can give to .0. The reality will happen on
    the other side of the tub of .0. and it will be what it will be. 
    
    And despite your remarks about the Fathers United being a bunch of
    loosers, perhaps you should get in your car to see some of them work as
    hard as they do to make their divorce work. 

George,

Sounds like sour grapes to me, George.  You don't know squat about how 'easy' 
my divorce was, and it's presumptuous of you to imply that.  'Squishy leftist 
advice' is yet another stupid irrelevent euphemism.  It wasn't easy at all, 
but I didn't just lie down and tattoo "WELCOME" across  my forehead, either, 
George.  

Know what you want, know what you're up against, know how to get it, and
know how to approach it from your wife's perspective and you'll get 
better results.  There's a difference between being nice and being a
doormat - doormats get their butts slammed, as you put it.

Understand that the system is prejudiced against the husband, and work 
from that perspective - the courts, and society as a whole tend to be
biased against the husband/father and so it makes no sense to try to
get what you want in court, or through the lawyers.  Remain civil, and
nice to each other, and negotiate what you both know to be fair, 
regardless of what the lawyers say - put it in writing and execute it,
and then make sure you both stick to it.  Use your lawyer to make sure
of that, not to negotiate the actual terms - they're lousy at that.

I hear all sorts of horror stories that sound like, "She got the kids,
the house, the car, a third of my salary, and I got all the debt, and
I see the kids alternating weekends and every wednesday"  Why?  Because
her lawyer said she can get it if she tries, and your lawyer said you
can't do anything to stop her?  That's just being stupid, IMHO.  If your
lawyer says you can't do anything, fire him.  I did.  Best thing I
ever did.

tim

    While I haven't been through this problem myself, I have been
    closely involved with people who have ...
    
    There are a number of points that are valid on both sides, but
    as Tim points out ... knowing how to use the system properly is how
    not to lose.
    
    If you listen to a bunch of people who have come out of divorce on
    the wrong end, you run a high risk of accepting that that is how the
    process has to work, and therefore you set yourself up to fail.
    
    That is not to say that there aren't people who come out of divorce
    court scarred and bruised, in spite of having a good lawyer, in spite
    of seemingly have everything sorted out.  There are any number of
    variables in the process not in your control, but by getting as many
    as possible in control, your chances improve ... and sometimes quite
    dramatically.
    
    I can't endorse Tim's comments about having a good lawyer enough.  A
    good lawyer listens to you and your feelings, and all the other emotion
    and takes that and puts it back together and gives you the
    non-emotional guidance.  A good lawyer will act as something of a
    counsellor to help you get those things you should.
    
    There are too many lawyers simply willing to take your money to put
    you through the process.  These are the people who come out as losers.
    The lawyer simply processes the forms, shows up in court and that's
    it.
    
    A GOOD lawyer even in divorce is like a good criminal lawyer ... he
    will dig the necessary information, he will look at your circumstances,
    he will get teh non-emotional info he needs from you to present your
    case, and he will help you present yourself well to help your own
    case.  He will get the WHOLE picture.  The forms and process to a good
    lawyer are only part of the job, to the poor lawyer they are all the
    job.
    
    I'll never forget one person who visited a lawyer to talk about what
    he needed to do to get a divorce.  He said it was almost like a
    pressure sell ... a) that this person wanted a divorce (he wasn't sure
    at that stage) and b) that he HAD to be the only lawyer good enough
    to do it!  Suffice it to say that when the time came when he finally
    decided to go through with it that he didn't use this guy.
    
    Stuart
    
    

Re: .17 and .18

What they said!  A proper attitude is your most important ally.  A good
lawyer is next. 

				Steve

re: 11
>   I divorced three years ago.  My ex and I have joint custody, and I have
>   physical custody.  Mutual property (house) was sold and all debt paid off at
>   the time of the divorce.  I'm closer to my kids than I've ever been, I
>   pay no child support (why should I, after all?)...they see their mom
>   all the time.  It worked out just fine.  No custody battle.

Why isn't child support paid to you ????  My understanding is that if your
exwife had physical custody, Massachusetts guidelines would demand you paid
her at least $50/week (even if you were unemployed).   So why aren't
you paid ??

It was part of the deal.  I've always been their sole support anyway, so it
doesn't bother me - she was a fulltime homemaker at the time, with no
significant career on which to rely.  It was the right and fair thing to do 
at the time.  

tim

    re .21, thanks for replying with that.  I think it's wonderful that you
    felt that way.  I was going to reply to .20 that perhaps you had chosen
    not to receive child support from your ex-wife.
    
    When my husband and I divorced (9 yrs. ago) he was making exactly twice
    my pay (at the time).  I had wanted the divorce, so we agreed that he
    would be able to live in the house and have physical custody of our
    daughter, then age 11.  One of the reasons that I agreed that he could
    have physical custoday was *because* he made twice my pay.  My
    reasoning was that he could afford to raise a kid a lot easier than I
    could.  (Also, it meant that our daughter would get to stay in the same
    town and school system, where she was an A student, with many friends,
    and where my mother lived just down the road.  I was moving out of
    town, and we didn't want to disrupt her life.  It paid off as she's now
    a sophomore at Boston College and doing well.  Was an A student all
    through high school.)  Anyway, when we went to court for our divorce,
    the judge asked my husband why he wasn't asking for child support, and
    my husband said, "She's makes less money than me, and she's going to
    have a tough enough time getting by on her own income without having to
    pay child support to me.  I have no desire to take away her last cent." 
    I really appreciated his kindness at the time, and it has contributed
    to the fact that we are still friends 9 yrs. after the divorce.  I
    think that, overall, it pays to treat other people decently.
    
    Lorna
    

    	Is it possible to discuss *why* either of you might want a divorce?
    
    	As a European, there seem to be two main reasons for divorce:
    1) You want to legitimise kids you have (or intend to have) from
    another relationship.
    2) You are in the public limelight, and it is more acceptable to have a
    succession of lovers if you are divorced than if you are married.
    
    	Any other reason, and you seem to be giving part of your joint
    wealth to lawyers for no significant gain. This is fine for the Richard
    Burtons and Elizabeth Taylors, where the publicity may even be worth
    the cost of the lawyers, but for most of the rest of us it seems
    reasonable to delay the involvement of lawyers or courts indefinitely.
    Maybe Americans  are just too wealthy?
    
    	I have a couple of close friends who divorced for reason 1. She
    desperately wanted kids, and he didn't. Neither of them had another
    partner in mind at the time. They agreed everything before even talking
    to a lawyer. They had a single lawyer for both of them (no point in
    paying for two). She remarried a couple of years later, and has a couple
    of kids. He remarried several more years later, and (ironically) now
    also has a couple of kids. They are still on friendly enough terms that
    they will dance together at parties. I don't know anyone publicly
    prominent enough to have divorced for reason 2.
    
    	From my observation, anything other than reasons 1 or 2 can be
    arranged more easily and less expensively without lawyers, courts or
    marriage guidance councillors, though if you are finding it difficult
    to talk to each other it is possible that a mutual friend might be able
    to help.

    re .23, it seems to me that many people do not care to date, or become
    involved, with other people who are still legally married to somebody
    else.  There seems to be just too much chance of becoming embroiled in
    some sort've sticky situation.  Therefore, if an unhappily married
    person would like to be able to date other people (continue to have a
    social life other than with their former spouse), it seems important to
    first get divorced from the previous spouse.  Are you saying this isn't
    the case in Europe?
    
    Lorna
    

    I can't really speak for the European divorse but divorse in England
    ans Wales has become a very nasty business.  The child suport agency
    (CPA) was setup with the intention od chacing errant parents (fathers)
    and making them pay child support and so saving the gov't money.  The
    parent who has care and control can not refuse this money, if she does
    she simply looses benifits, tax breaks etc.  Another recent change is
    that a company pension is now concidered part of a mans assets.  And as
    property values are still weak this can be a mans only major asset and
    the state can and will take it away.  The long term affects are not the
    CPA's concern, they raise cash now.  There is also a sense that they
    are out to punish divorsed people.  Only the very ritch benifit because
    the new system has an upper limit.  It is very high but it does exist,
    unlike the old court based maintenance system that looked at all cases
    individually.
    
    regards, Michael.

 I agree with Tim, Be Smart! Know what you want! Stick to it!

 When my estranged wife and I sepperated I knew after the first week that
 having my children with me at least 1/2 the time was what I really wanted.
 I researched Joint Parenting thoroughly and convinced my estranged wife
 that this was something we should try. Thus it came to pass even before the
 court handed down temporary orders stating such. We had our differences and
 battled them out in court but our custody arrangement remained unchanged.

 Her Lawyer at first recomended that she seek primary physical custody
 his reasoning was that she could win and be better off financialy. However
 she knew if she asked for this I would fight tooth and nail to oppose it.
 Thus she backed down because she knew that our Joint Parenting was working
 and she knew I was a good and capable parent with lots of references to
 show for it. Also she knew I would drag a lot of dirt up and throw it in
 her face. Thus I remained in the marital home, our children attend school in
 the town where I and they lived prior to all this. I do pay court ordered
 child support of $250.00 per month due to the fact that she makes 1/2 as
 much money. However in NH there are no RSA guidelines for Joint Physical
 custody and child support amounts. The $250.00 was what the Marital Master
 considered fair. Actually it was $100.00 per week prior to our divorce and
 he lowered it since the ex now has full time employment and takes home more
 money than when we sepperated. The ex was happy to work Part Time prior to
 the divorce because she thought she'd make out better but I filed a motion
 to compell her to seek full time employment and she thus complied prior to
 our court date.

 Neil....

    
    There have been several responses about how some couples have
    been able to reach some reasonable agreement.  Well and good and
    congratulations.  If you can reach some reasonable conclusion 
    between the two of you, then that is by far the preferable 
    way to go.  However, as I've said before, in order to have a 
    reasonable conclusion you have to have _two_ sane and reasonable
    people.

    Bottom line is still no matter how hard you fight or how good you
    are, you are still totally at the mercy at what _she_ wants.  If
    she is halfway reasonable, then there is a chance, but if she wants
    to lag-bolt you to the floor, chances are you'd better get out
    the Vaseline.  As -1's ex's lawyer pointed out, if she had gone
    for primary sole custody, she'd probably have gotten it.  Hope for 
    the best.  Prepare for the worst.  The  day you walk into court for 
    the final disposition is a _very_ bad time to find out she and her 
    lawyer are coming in with power  screwdrivers and a bag full of 
    deck-screws.
    
    fred();

Reply .27

> Bottom line is still no matter how hard you fight or how good you
> are, you are still totally at the mercy at what _she_ wants.  If
> she is halfway reasonable, then there is a chance, but if she wants
> to lag-bolt you to the floor, chances are you'd better get out
> the Vaseline.  As -1's ex's lawyer pointed out, if she had gone
> for primary sole custody, she'd probably have gotten it.  Hope for 
 
 Fred, I do feel that the current system is unfairly biased against
 dads. And if a father isn't ready to fight for his rights to see his
 kids at least as often as mom then he has only himself to blame. In
 the State of NH Joint Physical Custody is a viable option which if
 dad is willing to fight for he can in probably get. However if any
 father is planning to fight for sole physical custody he is surely in
 for a tough time. As I stated in my previous note Joint Physical Custody
 does not equate to not paying child support. If the court thinks this
 is what you have in mind by asking for Joint Physical Custody you may
 be in for a rude awakening. The key here is sharing parental care and
 nurturing of your children both physicaly and financialy. I would love
 to have my children with me all the time but I also realize that our
 children need Mom too and 50/50 to me seems like the best thing for
 all concearned. One other thing! If you're entertaining Joint Physical
 Custody try to get it prior to the divorce because afterwards it will
 "like Fred said" be totally at the mercy of what she wants and if she
 thinks its going to cost her in child support you can bet she won't agree
 to anything no matter how much time your kids spend with you and how close
 you live to their current custodial home. 

 Neil....

    
    Joint Physical custody may well be easier to come by than Sole
    Physical.  Joint Legal Custody is (IMHO) a joke.  Joint Legal
    and 50 cents, as they say, will get you a cup of coffee and little
    else.  The tide _is_ starting to turn in favor of Joint Physical
    custody in some states even without the consent of both parents.  
    Most states, however, still require the consent and cooperation of 
    both parents to grant Joint Physical.  If N.H. is easier, good for 
    them.  Otherwise you're looking at about a 1 in 10 chance of winning
    a _contested_ custody fight.  Not saying don't try.   Several
    in QUOKKA::NON_CUSTODIAL_PARNTS have...and won.  But you'd better
    be ready for the battle of your life.  You'd better be able to
    pitch a no-hitter.  

    fred( Custodial Parent for the last 3 years after 9 1/2 years
    and 3 court battles.);

    In NH, shared physical custody (note - it's technically "shared",
    not "joint".  It is "joint legal custody") is what the courts try
    for if it seems reasonable.
    
    				Steve

    >"joint legal custody") is what the courts for if it seems reasonable.
    
    Execpt it is never reasonable.

Re: .31

I disagree.  I've had shared physical custody of my son since my divorce 
over seven years ago.  It doesn't work for everyone, and it has its own
disadvantages, but at least it doesn't relegate one parent to the role of
a walking wallet.

					Steve

    Re: .31
    
    I also disagree.  If the parents are in reasonable proximity of each
    other, the only time it isn't reasonable is when one of the parents
    themselves isn't reasonable.  If you believe it's 'never reasonable',
    then perhaps it's your own doing.
    
    tim
    

    re: .23
    	I can't do a valid comparison with the U.S., but in Europe, from my
    observation, casual affairs are generally ignored and not expected to
    affect the marital status unless you are a British government minister.
    
    	In almost every case of my personal acquaintance, when there has
    been a divorce there has also been either the intention (or even threat
    of imminent arrival) of babies in the new relationship. I can think of
    only one exception - a TFSO'd DEC manager in his 50's. In this case his
    wife knew he regularly had affairs with other women, but the latest
    "other woman" happened to live in a different country, so continuing
    *that* affair while preserving an appearance of normality in the
    marriage was hardly possible. There was no intention of having
    children, and his ex-wife is chortling with glee at the fact that he
    now has a brand new pair of twin babies as he is rapidly approaching 
    retiring age - serves him right, she says.

    Bottom line, is the both of you are lucky people. And because of your
    fortunate luck in gaining Joint Physical Custody doesnt always mean
    that the rest will be so lucky. 

    She may be chortling with glee... and he may well be paying by having
    fooled around at retirement age, BUT the twins will pay too... you may
    be sure of that, and, for that reason the chortling is at the twins
    expense.
    
    Jeff

    
    Although I agree that Shared (Joint) Custody is, at least for the 
    children, the next best thing to an intact family, I must agree with
    George that that situation is more the exception than the  rule.  Those
    who are able to pull it off are fortunate indeed. As I said before,
    takes _two_ sane and reasonable people.   Why is this?  Because if they
    could get along, then there would have been little or no reason from
    divorce in the first place.  So many people, both men and women, think
    that divorce will solve their problems with their spouse.  They 
    usually find out too late that it's only the beginning.
    
    fred();

    	I doubt if the twins will suffer much. Apart from his marital
    infidelity I don't think he is irresponsible. He appears physically
    fit, and will probably be able to keep up with them physically for the
    next 15 years or so. With a working wife and a 20-year DEC TFSO package
    he is a rich househusband with no financial worries. It's just that he
    will have a lot more housework than he bargained for for the next few
    years.
    
    	She isn't malicious. She put up with his infidelities for many
    years, and would probably look after the twins if she thought there was
    a serious problem (but she isn't volunteering yet).

Re: .37

It's not luck, it's a lot of hard work and tongue-biting.  And it can be
incredibly frustrating at times.   One also has to realize that it only
takes one to instigate a divorce.

				Steve

    re .39

    The luck is in getting the Shared Custody in the first place.  Most
    states won't award it over the objections of one parent or the
    other, and few ex-wives will give up the control and/or "child
    support".

    fred();

In NH, at least, if both parents have been reasonably equally "involved"
in child care and are each capable of providing such care, the courts
prefer shared custody.  I'll agree that if the mother wants to fight for
full custody, she has a good chance of winning, still.  This is all the
more reason to have the right "attitude" and not do things you'll regret
later.

					Steve

    
    re .41

>This is all the
>more reason to have the right "attitude" and not do things you'll regret
>later.

    Depends on what you consider the "right" attitude.  I've see all too
    many men with the attitude "If I'm just a nice enough guy, then
    maybe she'll come around".  Right up until they walk into court
    for the final decree and get lag-bolted to the floor.  Then it's
    too late.  Of course there's nothing that says you can't be
    prepared for a fight if necessary and still be civil if possible.
    As the saying goes, "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst".

    fred();

No - "be a nice guy" is the wrong attitude.  "Be a reasonable guy" is
more like it, one who has his eyes open and solid legal advice behind him.
In particular, don't go out of your way to antagonize your soon-to-be-ex.
Stay calm, prepare yourself fully and stay aware.

I have a friend who's doing the "nice guy" route, and he's setting himself
up to be screwed.  I'm doing what I can to help him (even made a lawyer's
appointment for him), but there's just so much I can do.

				Steve

 Shared Custody doesn't always come cheap!

 Personally I think the best thing to do is to build a strong defense and
 plan a ruthless offense. Then you can negotiate! If negotiations fail
 then attack with precision and let them know that you are ready for a
 full scale war. Being prepared to fight for your rights does not a bad
 person make. Also luck had very little to to with my situation I had to
 work hard for what I got and intimidate the hell out of the ex and her
 attorney. I had two seperate attorneys a private investigator and a
 Gardian Ad Litem. It cost me a bundle to secure my Shared Custody situation.
 I might add I was also the defendant and sought Primary Custody although
 she knew that I would settle with Shared Physical if the conditions were
 acceptable. However the Marital Master recomended Shared Physical Custody
 in lieu of what I considered acceptable conditions and what the GAL
 recomended as acceptable Shared Custody arrangements.

 Neil....

    
    re .44

    Amazing how much more reasonable people can be when they are not
    certain that they will be handed everything they ask for ;^).
    Which brings us back to the "be a nice guy" syndrome and why it
    can bite you more than help you.  As Mr. Spock once said, "Not
    always logical, but often true".

    I can agree with what Steve said in .43.  It doesn't hurt to
    be reasonable, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared
    to go to war if necessary.  There's another one I like that
    came from Stonewall Jackson when asked by the cadets at VMI
    if Virginia should succeed from the Union, "If you pull the
    sword, throw away the scabbard".

    fred();

    -< Divorce is a game of Strategy not of Luck >-
    
    Contrair, it is not only strategy, is is also luck. Luck if you are
    able to strike a deal, luck if you are able to find the weak point and
    it does work to your benifit.
    
    I have known men, who hired the gumshoe, hired the gal, and still got
    their hides nailed to the back barn door just for spite. 
    
    I have met a man whose children are being molested by the ex's beau.
    And the GAL and DCYS are standing there doing nothing execpt saying
    that this man is doing this for revenge. Yet the chilren are telling
    all of the above the horra's. 
    
    Contrair, luck has allot to do with it. I lucked out. And I had done
    all of my homework. Tried to negotiate, tried to work deals, and she
    would stonewall the whole thing. Till I found the thread to make the
    whole thing come apart.

    Why does it appear that those who so obviously see themselves as losers
    in this struggle are also those who most closely allign their fate with
    luck?  Nobody said being Mr. Nice Guy was the way to success, as some
    have obviously discovered the hard way.  
    
    Of course!  If it really is a matter of being smart, then....
    
    Is this sinking in yet?
    
    tim
    
    

        re tim.

    In order for a man to win a custody battle he must be smarter than
    the average bear (as Yogi says), more tenacious than the average pit
    bull, and get some very good breaks.  My biggest break was that she
    didn't get jurisdiction changed to Minnesota like she asked.  She
    messed up big time by filing in Colorado, then moving to Minnesota,
    then asking for jurisdiction change.  Minnesota declined jurisdiction
    because there was already a previous action.  If I'd have had to 
    fight the case in Minnesota, there would have been no way I could have
    managed.

    I think it's more a matter of men who have not been through the
    system, or who have had the relative good luck to have an ex that is
    relatively reasonable who don't understand just how blatantly bigoted
    the system is against men/fathers.  Most of the rest of society seems
    to take an, "Aw, it's not really that bad", or "They deserve it anyway" 
    attitude.  Men seem to fall into one of several categories: 1)I don't
    care what happens in the future I just want to get laid, 2)It will
    never happen to me, 3)I hope to God it never happens to me,  4)don't
    do/say anything that might rile the little woman, 5)If it isn't going 
    to benefit me personally, why fight, 6)nothing left financially or 
    emotionally to fight with, and 7) Those who are getting drug through
    the knot-hole of the judicial system like a raft going down white-water
    and by the time they figure out what's going on, it's too late.
    
    In short there is a strong denial by men who have never had to deal
    with  the system, men who are getting mangled by the system and being
    told, "face it like a man", and those who have been drug through the
    system and have little or  not hope or finances left to make any
    change.  There are also a couple of other categories, 1) men who are
    trying to stay on the good side of the femi's and will do anything
    to ingratiate themselves, or 2)men who hate their own sex/maleness
    so much that they will do anything to help destroy it.  Then there is
    the smallest minority of all--those who are trying to do something about
    it.
    
    fred();

Fred,

You don't seem to be paying proper attention to what some of us have been
saying.  Yes, the system is awful and is extremely biased against men.  But
that doesn't mean that the proper response is to automatically go into
full-bore attack mode nor to just give up.  Make the system work for you
to the maximum extent possible.  Keep in mind that the odds ARE in her favor
and don't do anything to make your position worse.  Be firm but fair.  It's
your best shot - not a guarantee.

				Steve

    
    re. .49

>You don't seem to be paying proper attention to what some of us have been
>saying.  

    To the contrary, Steve, I understand all too well what you've been
    saying.

    >Yes, the system is awful and is extremely biased against men.

    So where's the "lets be fair and equal" outcry that I here whenever
    the "fair" will benefit the "feminists".

>  But
>that doesn't mean that the proper response is to automatically go into
>full-bore attack mode nor to just give up. 

    I don't think I've ever said that.  I've said "hope for the best and
    prepare for the worst".  Doesn't meant that what really happens doesnt
    fall somewhere int he middle.

>Make the system work for you
>to the maximum extent possible.  

    Unfortunately for a man who has an ex who is not reasonable, "the
    maximum extent possible" isn't much.  And as I've said before, in
    most divorce cases, this is more the rule than the exception.  Because
    if they can still get along, there usually isn't a reason for divorce
    in the first place.  In this case you'd better be prepared to pitch
    a no hitter.  Even then you may not win.

    >Keep in mind that the odds ARE in her favor
>and don't do anything to make your position worse.  

    So once again, where's the outcry.  Why is it ok to leave this problem
    as is while hypocritically screaming about "injustice" against all
    others.

    >Be firm but fair.  It's
>your best shot - not a guarantee.

    The bottom line is that the outcome will be determined by how
    reasonable _she_ is.  If she isn't, there's not a heck of a lot
    you can do about it except get out the Vaseline.

    fred();

    

fred(),

>    So where's the "lets be fair and equal" outcry that I here whenever
>    the "fair" will benefit the "feminists".

This has nothing to do with feminism.  You appear to have a serious chip on 
your shoulder about feminism.  That's irrelevent.  Feminism didn't make these
rules - in fact, men did.  'Fair', by definition, benefits everyone.

Divorce is a turning point - with the outcome of which you will live for
the rest of your life, especially if you have kids.  You have to look at
the big picture.  I tend to think that the men who fare the best are those
who themselves are able to be most reasonable under duress - the exact
converse of your assertion...funny, how I got what I wanted, and you didn't,
huh?  Luck?  Not at all.

>    The bottom line is that the outcome will be determined by how
>    reasonable _she_ is.  If she isn't, there's not a heck of a lot
>    you can do about it except get out the Vaseline.

Not true.  I never said my ex was reasonable - I don't really think she
was.  It depends solely on how reasonable BOTH of you are - i.e. your
ability to reason with each other - you can't have a one sided fight.
Obviously, you're just as responsible for the outcome as she is.

You left out one scenario in your list of seven ways that men approach
divorce: 8.) I'm struggling for fairness in a woman's world, and I have
to think like a woman, and use what I know about my partner to get what
I want without my usual benefit of negotiating from a position of strength.
She's the one negotiating from a position of strength, and she knows it,
but that doesn't mean she'll automatically prevail.  

I agree with Steve, in that you missed the point...obviously.

tim

    
    re .51

    >This has nothing to do with feminism.  You appear to have a serious chip on 

    It does, however, have a _lot_ to do with hypocrisy. 

>I tend to think that the men who fare the best are those
>who themselves are able to be most reasonable under duress - the exact
>converse of your assertion...funny, how I got what I wanted, and you didn't,
>huh?  Luck?  Not at all.

    Men who fare best in my considerable experience with working with men
    in this situation, are those who can negotiate from a position of
    strength.  ie, This is what I'll settle for, but this is what more
    I'll ask for if it goes to court.  The hope the bluff works, because
    if it goes to court, you probably won't get what you would settle
    for even in negotiation.

>depends solely on how reasonable BOTH of you are - i.e. your
>ability to reason with each other - you can't have a one sided fight.
>Obviously, you're just as responsible for the outcome as she is.

    I never said that the man shouldn't be reasonable.  You're twisting
    what I've said.  The key here is _BOTH_.  And if she isn't, if she
    takes it into court, she will get everything (most likely) that 
    she asks for, and you you get the bills and debts.  If she can be
    reasonable, then by all means be reasonable, but if she wants a 
    fight, you'd d**n well better get your gloves on or you're going
    to find you that there can indeed be a one sided fight.

>You left out one scenario in your list of seven ways that men approach
>divorce: 8.) I'm struggling for fairness in a woman's world, and I have
>to think like a woman, and use what I know about my partner to get what
>I want without my usual benefit of negotiating from a position of strength.
>She's the one negotiating from a position of strength, and she knows it,
>but that doesn't mean she'll automatically prevail.  

    Kind of like saying that the Jews could have saved themselves from the
    gas chambers if they would have just been more reasonable.  If she has
    you by the b***s and knows it, if she is bent on not only divorcing
    you, but destroying you, there is no amount of  reasonableness and
    understanding that will help you.   
    
    >I agree with Steve, in that you missed the point...obviously.

    I think not.  I am dealing not only from my own experience, but from
    real world experience of dozens of men that I have tried to assist
    while going through this situation.  You and Steve both appear to have
    had a relatively easy time of it (note I said relatively) and therefore
    seem to think that that is the way it should work for all men if they
    were "just reasonable".  I agree that I would have rather have had your
    or Steve's experience, but no amount of reasonableness would have
    afforded me that.  Nor are most men. Your and Steve's experience is the
    exception, not the rule in divorce cases.  

    fred();

    this reply is cross-posted from wommannotes; the author of the base note
    will have come across it over there - i enter it here, to add one more
    story for the benefit of readers of this file. readers, which might have 
    gone through a similar situation as the author of the base note or as 
    myself.



re .0

hello,

i married with twentytwo and was married for eight years. what you describe
sounds familiar; we're now divorced since four years, and things are back
in order - because both parties have grown.


.0> Starting a couple of years ago, every time I tried to approach her for
.0> a hug I would get the cold shoulder.  For nearly a year I haven't gotten
.0> any kind of affection, and our sex life has been non-existent. (We still
.0> sleep in the same bed, but when I try to approach her she gets up and
.0> leaves.)  

in my case i learned, that communication had broken down completely. at the 
time, i was often told "you don't listen!" there were these periodical fits, 
and when i had enough, i said "okay, lets talk this to the bottom" and we'd sit 
up talking for nights on end. it was always the same subject: our relationship. 
we compromised, i worked less hours, we moved close to work, i came home for
lunch. my wife became increasingly more depressed. she resented the fact,
that (in her view), my life was progressing, whilst hers was on stand-still.
she retreated into her domain and shut me out.


.0> I suppose that it's only natural for two girls spending most of the
.0> day with their mother to tend to exclude their father, but, from my
.0> perspective, their mother is also working to keep them from being
.0> involved with me.  As an example, I have offered to take vacation time
.0> during their school breaks to take them on outings, but she has
.0> discouraged this.

i finally agreed to the divorce, when i realised that the situation was having
an effect on my daughter. my daughter began to shut herself away and i suddenly
realised, that no matter how hard i would try not to lose my children, that if 
we stayed together, this would have a lasting effect on the children and that
i was sure to lose them this way.

divorce proceedings were costly and messy, they lasted a year - whilst i was 
allowed to see my children, it took eight months, following the divorce, until
a normal relationship could be restored. initially, the children were set
against me, and for months, travelling to england to see them, i was left
standing infront of the door.

following divorce, i worked like crazy, i suffered a severe depression over
the loss of the children. then i had numerous sexual relationships with 
'shallow' women, until i realised, that i behaved like a complete idiot and
that my life-style was shallow.

strange as it may sound, when calm returned, i noticed how my wife had 
regained confidence and how much happier my children were. in my marriage, 
i had taken all her space, i had done everything for her, instead of 
encouraging her and simply learning to take and to appreciate.

since three years, my wife has a new SO. since three years, by law, i now only 
have to continue to pay for the children. i continue to pay the full maintenance
as it benefits our family. since two years, we spend vacation and the time on 
my monthly visits together, the children are happiest on the playground, when 
both their parents sit talking and watching them in the background.

think of your children, first and foremost. do what is best for them.
in my case, divorce was a change to the better.

i hope the best for you,

andreas.