Divorce: Canadian Style.

[lacarnut]

Lets watch it please with the attacks...

Ok, sorry. I did not see your post.

[Phillygirl]

She was great in the sack. I answered your question. Since you mentioned bars and dancing. Here is yours. Does your ass get cold from sitting on a bar stool because no one asks you to dance? Btw, I don't go to bars.

Another good one lacarnut. You're on a roll tonight. Damn, where do you come up with these?

[Gingersnap]

Ok, sorry. I did not see your post.

Or mine.

[lacarnut]

Or mine.

That is correct. Sorry to you, also.

[lacarnut]

Another good one lacarnut. You're on a roll tonight. Damn, where do you come up with these?

I got a million of them. However, 3 Mods coming down on little ole me is just to much for me to contend with. So, I will quit while I am ahead.

[MrsSmith]

You have planned well, knowing that his responsibilities to his children came first, and will continue until they are emancipated.

Yes, his "children" come first. Even the 19 year old adult "child" whose mother sucks in $400 a month to support her despite the fact that she lives at college all year and works out of town all summer. She is in her mother's house about 4 - 5 weeks in 52. If you think that money goes to the kid, you're dreaming.

I've seen this woman's house, her car, and her expense statement. She spends more money on her hair every month than our house payment. If he was only taking care of his responsibilities, they'd live like we do.

Either your state doesn't get off on screwing men to make women feel "all better," or you're not paying attention.

[Gingersnap]

Either your state doesn't get off on screwing men to make women feel "all better," or you're not paying attention.

The pendulum has swung way too far, no doubt. It's not that there aren't situations that merit support, it's that the court system has now fully embraced the popular sentiments of 1972.

Except we're living in 2009.

[Phillygirl]

Yes, his "children" come first. Even the 19 year old adult "child" whose mother sucks in $400 a month to support her despite the fact that she lives at college all year and works out of town all summer. She is in her mother's house about 4 - 5 weeks in 52. If you think that money goes to the kid, you're dreaming.

I've seen this woman's house, her car, and her expense statement. She spends more money on her hair every month than our house payment. If he was only taking care of his responsibilities, they'd live like we do.

Either your state doesn't get off on screwing men to make women feel "all better," or you're not paying attention.

I will grant you that every state is different. I will also grant that the system is not about justice, it is about resolution.

Having said that, I can assure you that, except in the very high income cases (combined net monthly income of $20 k or more) most parties to a divorce feel the financial pinch of separation and the wife, even with alimony or spousal support, can not continue the lifestyle that she and the children had pre-divorce. The husband likewise can not continue the prior lifestyle very well. One of the differences, however, is that the rules that generally bar taking more than 55% of anyone's net income means that a wife with no income other than her husband's support, with 3 children, will be attempting to live on the same amount for 4 people that he is living on for 1 person.

The biggest problem is that so many people today fail to do what you and your husband have done, and that is to plan on being able to pay the major bills with 1 income. With most people buying houses that are out of reach, the mortgage payment alone will suck up most, if not all, of a support payment. Daycare will generally suck up the rest of it, if it is involved. Two people who previously had trouble making ends meet, other than pay check to paycheck, are now attempting to fund 2 separate households with the same income pool. It is generally nearly impossible without serious alterations to lifestyle. Frequently this means that 1 of them is unable to do so without a lot of familial or other help.

[Gingersnap]

The biggest problem is that so many people today fail to do what you and your husband have done, and that is to plan on being able to pay the major bills with 1 income. With most people buying houses that are out of reach, the mortgage payment alone will suck up most, if not all, of a support payment. Daycare will generally suck up the rest of it, if it is involved. Two people who previously had trouble making ends meet, other than pay check to paycheck, are now attempting to fund 2 separate households with the same income pool. It is generally nearly impossible without serious alterations to lifestyle. Frequently this means that 1 of them is unable to do so without a lot of familial or other help.

This is so true.

When Mr. Snaps and I bought our first house, we looked for a mortgage payment (not a house) that either one of us could pay if the other became unemployed. We also bought in an area with public transportation (in case the car died). Both things happened and we survived them handily.

Maybe the the answer to the divorce/kids thing is to make both parents support the house and kids and have each of them live in a studio apartment and rotate through the kid house off and on. :p

[Phillygirl]

This is so true.

When Mr. Snaps and I bought our first house, we looked for a mortgage payment (not a house) that either one of us could pay if the other became unemployed. We also bought in an area with public transportation (in case the car died). Both things happened and we survived them handily.

Maybe the the answer to the divorce/kids thing is to make both parents support the house and kids and have each of them live in a studio apartment and rotate through the kid house off and on. :p

On a temporary basis, that happens more frequently than you might think. It can work quite well as a transition.