Conference quark::mennotes

    None! You hit the nail on the head.:)
    

    I don't think it will have any impact on first marriages because no one
    believes it. But after you've 'been there' ! It certainly won't happen 
    to me twice.
    
    Martin

    Don't most men marry again later (someone else) after they've been 
    through a divorce, though?
    

    .3
    
    From what I was told by the family counseling service most men in the
    U.S. will remarry. The area at issue is divorces in MA (perhaps other 
    states) that involve children.       
    
    The state guidelines (read law) cause a lot of problems.
    
    Martin  

    
    As I've said before, as much as I care about my kids, in this day
    and system I'd _never_ have children again.  Of course under the
    laws of some states you can be held liable for support of the child
    even if it isn't yours.  Thus in Colorado, as well as many other
    states, your wife can go have an affair, get pregnant from the affair,
    divorce you, marry the baby's father, and they can hold you responsible
    for child support for the child even though it isn't yours because 
    you were married to the mother when she got pregnant.


    How's  that for "fair"?
    
    fred();

    
    I've also often said that if men ever do start thinking with their
    heads instead of their sex organs, women are going to be in a heap
    of trouble.
    
    fred();

    
    Go4it!
    
    It would be a huge improvement over the situation we have now.
    

    Suzanne,                          
    
    I haven't got a clue whether there really is a cause and effect link
    between the state guidelines and men marrying a second time, but I
    would guess there is from my experience.  
    
    The impact of the MA probate laws gets played out on our local TV and in 
    the newspapers repeatedly. At least every week there will be a major news 
    item -  
    
    Some deadbeat dad is brought back from who knows where and the cameras
    are at the airport. Given that under the guidelines you effectively lose 
    your children, home, savings, and a third of your gross for the first 
    child then some men figure there is no point in staying around. MA has 
    the worse record for deadbeats for a very good reason. 
     
    And our state governor just loves to get tough on divorced men for the 
    media. Ofcourse it's in the interests of the children to throw their 
    father in jail because he hasn't got any money can't make the payments.
    
    Or maybe some guy just loses it and wipes out his whole family.
    
    I sat through many hours in the probate court and I probably saw 100-150 
    cases played out in front of me. About half involved children and there
    were always problems.
    
    My solution - equal custody would certainly eliminate most of the
    trouble, but what politician would vote for that change ? 
    
    Martin

    Martin, I know what you mean.  Divorce is a bad situation in general,
    and it's a lot worse for dads in some states.

    In general, American men don't seem to be shying away from second
    marriages, though.

    Often, it seems as though marrying again is the best thing that
    could possibly happen to divorced men (for a lot of reasons.)

    Interesting, eh?

|    I've also often said that if men ever do start thinking with their
|    heads instead of their sex organs, women are going to be in a heap
|    of trouble.
    
    Most will starve, from what I've seen.
    
    

    Well I checked last night and I stand corrected. In the U.S., within 5 
    years of the first divorce, 75% of women and 80% of men are remarried. No 
    with/without children split, but the overall number is so high it seems
    many with kids do it again too. Jeez, that was a surprise.
    
    Martin

    RE: .10  Tim
    
    >> I've also often said that if men ever do start thinking with their
    >> heads instead of their sex organs, women are going to be in a heap
    >> of trouble.
        
    > Most will starve, from what I've seen.
    
    Wow, you don't get out much.  :>
    

                
    According to the U.S. Department of Labor, here are some numbers about
    the percentages of our population who are employed in civilian jobs
    (as of March 1997 and seasonally ajusted):
        
        
                    Male and female:        63.8%       
    
                    Male                    71.3%
        
                    Female                  56.8%
        
    
    [This is for people who are 16 years or older...]

>                    Male and female:        63.8%       
>                    Male                    71.3%
>                    Female                  56.8%
    
    
    Wow. There are far more hermaphrodites than I'd thought.
    
    
    
    
    Greek mythology sidebar...
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (Having just double-checked the spelling, I found it interesting
    that the word "hermaphrodite" is derived from "Hermes" and
    "Aphrodite".)

    I find the statistics on the re-marry rate rather high and interesting. 
    I wonder if it is because both sexes think a lot more about marriage,
    commitment, etc the second time around than they did the first.  I do
    seem to remember that the failure rate for second and subsequent
    marriages is rather high, something over 50%, but I can't remember the
    specifics.
    
    AS far as the whole issue around divorce and how each party is treated
    before the law goes, it is overwhelmingly clear that men rarely if
    ever, get anything close to equal treatment.  the debate around
    deadbeat dads, find it interesting that they don't refer to deadbeat
    moms, even though there are some, really goes to the injustice in the
    legal system when it comes to divorce.  If men got a fair shake and
    weren't treated as a bank account, they would probably react much
    differently.
    

    Sure, many men remarry after their first divorce. Many times, there are
    no children involved in the first marriage, so the man has yet to be
    really "burned" by the system.
    
    -john

    The key word, "really burned". 

    RE: .16  -john

    > Sure, many men remarry after their first divorce. Many times, there are
    > no children involved in the first marriage, so the man has yet to be
    > really "burned" by the system.

    A stat mentioned earlier shows that 80% of men divorced from their
    first wives marry again.  The stat was 75% for women.

    Surely you aren't trying to suggest that most people don't have
    children until their second marriages.

    re .18
    
    Suzanne
    
    Yes, as a matter of fact I am. Many first marriages dissolve early on
    before much is invested financially or emotionally. Just about one step
    above 'breaking up'. Many first marriages are for the wrong reasons and
    are consummated at too early an age.
    
    The truly sad cases are when children are involved, and the marriage is
    broken up because one party is 'unhappy' or want to 'find themself'.
    
    The stats in these cases are based in very strong anti-male bias,
    especially in Massachussets. For example, the wife can decide she wants
    to fool around, and dissolve the marriage. The judge will say "Sorry
    about that. Too bad. Pay up, sir".
    
    But if the man decides he wants to leave the wife for another woman,
    the same judge will say "Shame on you. Too bad. Pay up, sir".
    
    This is a direct result of no-fault divorce. Our society no longer
    cares about what is right or wrong. Our divorce laws are too intent on
    making the man pay and pay and pay.
    
    If a woman decides she wants to 'date again', she can get the house,
    the custody of the kids, and a *very* large chunk of her ex-husband's
    future earnings. In other words, he is made to finance her affairs.
    
    Is this right? Of course not, just the way things are. I don't expect
    you to understand, Suzanne, because I have *never* known you to admit
    that a woman could be at fault in any issue. But you have to face it;
    what I say is true.
    
    -john

    
    Please provide a source if you wish to claim that most first marriages
    do not result in children.
    
    This will not be accepted because you say so.
    

I can't go into detail.  And I can't cite published stats.  I can only say that
the description John entered in .17 hit the nail on the head in my case.  I am
financing one heck of a social life.  Anyway, I'm not divorced yet, though
trying.  But, I will cite one very real statistic.  I fork over 73.2% of my
regular net pay to her each week!  This does not include the other extras such
as maintaining health insurance and such.  Oh, I have two kids and I would never
think of absconding on support.  However, my soon-to-be-ex has an equivalent
responsibility to attempt to support the children financially.  The burden
should not fall exclusively to me.  In this situation, the kids don't benefit
and I can't afford underwear.

Grahame

    Grahame
    
    Your soon to be ex may discover (if she hasn't already) that being 
    unemployed (ie not supporting herself or her children) can actually be 
    financially advantageous. Watch for 'I'm not working because I'm going
    back to school' which is typically argued along the lines of long term
    benefit. Well not to you ofcourse - you get to pay for it through 
    increased child support because she has no income.
    
    Martin 

    I find the term "no fault diveroce" a real oxymoron.  Of course someone
    is at fault if the marriage doesn't work, but unfortunately, way too
    many bleeding hearts don't want to point fingers.
    
    As you can see here and in other places there are many, many people who
    will not accept that a wife could be responsible for a breakup and,
    therefore, would be liable for costs and her own future.  It is so much
    easier to claim no-fault, but you poor, dumb sucker, will have the
    benefit of paying for her for years.
    
    I think the solution really falls into two specific areas.  If you want
    to support no-fault then at divorce each party goes their separate
    ways, and only those assets acquired after the marriage can be
    considered in any split.  Other than that, there is no other financial
    responsibility by either party.  If there are children they would be
    assigned to that parent best able to provide for them.
    
    The other is to have "fault" divorce.  Before a marriage could be
    dissolved one of the parties would have to be determined as having been
    at fault for the destruction of the marriage and be held accountable
    for any results related to the failed union.  this would stop a lot of
    the divorces and certainly introduce a significant burden of proof on
    the party filing that they actually had real grounds to end a marriage,
    particularly if children were involved.
    

    
    If divorce is changed such that full-time homemakers are putting
    themselves (and their children) at great risk by not having
    breadwinner incomes, expect a far bigger push to get women into
    occupations which pay breadwinner salaries.

    And don't expect many women to agree to being full-time homemakers.

    While I realize that it's a terrible drag to face being divorced
    from someone who has been a full-time homemaker (and does not have
    prospects for a good income), it's one of those things to think
    about before getting married.

    .24
    
    I don't see any problem with women striving to get into occupations
    that pay higher salaries.  The only restriction is that they are
    competent, experienced and meet the same standards.  If not, then go
    get them, but don't look for anyone else to pay for it.
    
    Also, if fewer women want to be ful-time homemakers, that would be
    their decision.
    
    Also, if changing the divorce rules makes both parties think long and
    hard before entering into mariiage, and particularly having children,
    then we really need to make these changes yesterday.
    

    RE .23
    
    In MA there is Fault and No Fault Divorce. My ex filed for Fault and I 
    discovered the main difference is how much you pay. So Fault Divorce is 
    often used for negotiating. In principle and in practice I do not agree 
    with blaming someone because they no want to be married to you. But I  
    understand others believe differently. 
    
    Martin
       
    
    
                                      

    .26
    
    I assume that the current approach, particularly in the bastion of
    intelligence, MA, probably has some shortcomings, but I think it would
    be a good idea to look at the shortcomings.  In your case, it appears
    that it was used a club as opposed to an actual determination of who is
    at fault for a failed marriage.  If the system merely corrupts another
    facet then it needs to be ashcanned.  It does not change the fact that
    divorce laws area joke and men usually end up holding the short end of
    the stick.
    

    If marriage becomes a competition to see who can make the most money
    (so that they will be more likely to get the kids in case of a divorce),
    we'll make things worse than they are now (for the prospects of a
    successful marriage.)

    If divorce becomes a competition to see who has the most dirt to dish
    about the other (to assign blame when it has failed), then divorces
    will be worse than they are now.

    If being a full-time homemaker puts women at risk, then discrimination
    in the workplace will become a hotter issue than ever (especially if
    sexual discrimination in the workplace can be used as a weapon against
    women in divorce.)

    Aside from joint custody, the main decision in custody hearings should
    be to place children with the most involved parent.  If one parent has
    been a full-time homemaker, this person is obviously more involved.

    Perhaps men should think more carefully about wanting their kids to
    have full-time parenting by their mothers.

    RE.28
    
    Divorce already IS a competition to see who has the most dirt to dish 
    about the other. Real or not doesn't matter one bit. It's all about 
    perceptions which, in todays society, is as real as you need to get.
    
    And frankly it doesn't matter one bit who was most involved with the
    children prior to the break up. 
    
    I was a late starter and found this out the hard (and expensive) way.
     
    Martin
    
    

    .28
    
    See, I have an entirely different view of marriage.  I believe that
    marriage is for life and that there are good times and bad. 
    Unfortunately as life goes on, the bad times many times outweigh the
    good most of the time.  I also believe marriage is THE most important
    decision a person will ever make next ot having children.  People who
    enter into marriage without the same views are cancers on society.
    
    Before you even think about marrying someone you had better know all
    there is to know about that person.  If they have flaws know that you
    will probably not change them.  To think otherwise and then complain
    about it later is plain stupidity.
    
    The more thought that goes into a marriage up front, the more difficult
    it is to end a marriage, the more likely marriages will be successful.
    

I have been following this thread...  I still see too many generalizations in
here though.  There are those unions that end amicably (usually, but not always
no children involved).  No fault is used for negotiation.  But once the
negotiations fail, from my limited understanding, the court doesn't care who did
what or who was repsonible for this that and the other.  They simply go thorugh
the asset list and divy things up.

Now, in my case, my soon-to-be-ex is currently waitressing weekends.  Well, the
ones when she isn't travelling to Las Vegas or something.  Anyway, Before we
were married and during the marriage, she had worked toward a degree in
accounting.  She was an accountant for many years (no CPA).  In my opinion, she
should be able to capitalize on using the degree to get a better job than
part-time waitressing.  And at the rate at which I have to pay, I find that I am
forced into a situation where I need to prove that she is purposefully under
employed.  I will find out 5/1/97.

Grahame

    .31
    
    You should have no responsibility to prove anything.  She goes her way,
    you go yours.  If anything, she should have to prove, beyond a
    reasonable doubt, that you, with malice aforethought, took specific
    actions to harm her currently and in the future.  If she is unable to
    prove indiependent and individual action on your part, then she is on
    her own.
    

    RE: .32
    
    I'm sorry I don't understand your reply.  Are you referring to getting
    the final divorce?  Or to the support that I have to provide?  If the
    former, then I agree.  If the latter, then I don't/
    
    The reason for the need to prove purposeful underemployment is to help
    eliminate the alimony.
    
    Grahame

    Grahame,
    
    There are no absolutes in divorce, even when the law is clear and the 
    state has also seen fit to lay down 'guidelines' as in MA. You really
    need to discuss this with your lawyer.
    
    When no children are involved the focus is on 1. assets, certainly those
    acquired during the marriage and if the marriage has lasted a reasonable
    length of time then also include those brought into the marriage, and
    2. the ability of both parties to earn a living and support themselves.
    
    In situations where there are children involved, rightly in my opinion,
    their well being is pretty much all the court wants to hear about. There 
    is no equality in custody. The woman normally gets the children and with 
    them all the assets required to maintain their care.
    
    In most states alimony has largely gone with equality. Homemakers
    typically get it for a period of time until they can re-enter the job
    market. In MA alimony has been merged into what is now an incredible
    child support.
    
    Concentrate on 2 things -
    
    1.	Get a generous and guaranteed way of seeing your children until
    they are grown.
    
    2.	Having enough money left to live. Frankly there is not much you can
    do other than keep her honest because there are often guidelines that
    determine what you pay.  
     
    To answer your specific questions - if you can't agree you go to a
    pre-trial hearing and then a trial date is set. Expect a minimum of 2
    days and work on the basis of at least 2 days to prepare for every
    court day. It is a civil case - you have been sued for divorce and
    the law works on the preponderance of evidence. Who sued who ? what's
    their case ?
    
    With respect to your wife getting a job - it depends on the age of the
    children. Less that school age and the law supports the idea she ought
    to be home with them - notwithstanding the fact that many children of
    two parent families are in day care . At school but not a teen and there 
    ought to be someone home for them when school finishes... you get 
    the idea.
    
    Martin
    
                                      
    
       

    Well, there's only so much you can get accomplished in .5 hours. 
    That's all the court allocated to hear the case.  Nothing has changed
    although the judge has preliminarily decided that the GAL expenses are
    90% mine and 10% hers.  Nothing final there yet.  He did address her
    doing nothing about seeking better employment, but took no action. 
    Everything else tabled for now and another date needs to be set on her
    contempt of court motion against me (which I have documentation to
    prove I am NOT in contempt).  So, it looks like we have to get through
    this ONE item before we can progress further.  Oh yeah, the judge
    denied my motion to have the Temporary Stipulation modified to reflect
    that I have the kids every weekend and have the support order modified
    accordingly.  His answer was, "You understood what you were doing when
    you agreed to take the kids."

    
    If you can show that her contempt of court charge is "frivolous" you 
    can ask that she be ordered to pay your attorneys fees.
    fred();

Too much to discuss here, so I'll just respond to -.1

Even if we prove frivolous, my lawyer said, "fat chance" that we would ever
recover fees.

    Thats where you do neet things like put leins on real property if there
    is such. Or going back to fight it again and again. It becomes a costly
    game if the you can do it yourself, and the opposing camp has to hire
    an attorney to fight off the attack.
    
    

    But at what point do you stop for the sake of the kids?  No matter
    what, they'll know that their parents are still engaged in a messy
    battle.  It's not fair, and usually the father gets the short straw,
    but no matter who wins, the kids lose.
    
    I looked at this (recovery of legal fees for a frivolous suit) and
    decided to compromise for the sake of a truce.  It takes years for kids
    to get over this sort of thing, and the years don't start until the
    parents stop fighting.  The kids are, after all, more important than
    money.
    
    tim
    

    I guess, Tim, it would depend on how mature all of the above were.
    Norm, a local fathers united member, hasn't seen his kids in over 7
    years. And the legal system supports the ex. And he finally decide to
    go for it and raise some hell cause he has lost all to begin with. So
    filing motions for friv cases are not going to hurt no help him gain
    visitation.
    

    ..then agian... this is a case of cruelity. And men are to take the
    pain like men and roll over for the system...

     Re: .28 by Suzanne

       >  Aside from joint custody, the main decision in custody hearings
       >  should be to place children with the most involved parent.  If
       >  one parent has been a full-time homemaker, this person is
       >  obviously more involved.

     I have to disagree with this as overly simplistic, on several grounds.

     Firstly, the future needs of the children should determine who is
     primary physical custodian.  The future needs of the children will not
     necessarily be met by the parent who in the past has been the more
     involved parent.  While this is often the case, there is no single
     criterion which is universally understood to indicate "the best
     interests of the child."  Most states have half a dozen to a dozen
     criteria that are often used to justify a custody decision.  Which of
     the general criteria are applicable to a particular concrete case can
     be subject to legitimate differences of opinion.  Further, which
     parent better fulfills even an agreed-upon criterion can be subject to
     legitimate differences of opinion.

     Secondly, I believe the entire concept of "placing" the children with
     a single parent is harmful to the children.  Simply removing one
     parent from the children's lives is incredibly harmful.  Emotionally
     it is on par with the "winning" parent having murdered the absent
     parent -- the other parent is gone as a result of the remaining
     parent's actions.  Most states have presumptive joint custody for
     exactly this reason.  Many states are starting to recognize that the
     custodial parent denying access to the children to the other parent is
     in fact abusive to the children, and hence grounds for removal of
     custody; I applaud such recognition, and hope it speedily spreads.

     Thirdly, one parent being a full-time homemaker does not guarantee
     that parent's having been more involved with the children.  While I
     suspect this is _generally_ the case, I know of cases where the
     stay-at-home parent was in fact substantially less involved in the
     children's lives than the work-outside-the-home parent.

       >  Perhaps men should think more carefully about wanting their kids
       >  to have full-time parenting by their mothers.

     Perhaps instead it is time to rethink all the stereotypes in this
     area, not just this one.

				     Brian

    
    RE:41
    
    Thanks Brian for that response.  You said it better than I ever could.
    I think the courts are beginning to realize that **both** parents are
    equally important but we are very sadly the lost generation of Fathers.
    We have to struggle through this episode in history.
    One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the injustice 
    toward Fathers and children in current domestic issues.
    
                              Bill

    Good point, George.  I did leave out an important aspect of my case.
    I won.  It just cost a fortune that could have gone to college.
    
    tim
    

    Mine... filed bankruptcy. Just about done with it in a couple of
    months. Lost an apartment building, just about lost my job, here, over
    it. Looking for my daugher and her mom in Maine wasn't allot of fun
    either....