Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

"gini52" wrote
TM, do you know the arguments surrounding the
implementation of no-fault divorce by the states?
I'm sure you aren't old enough but thought you
might have read about it. I remember when states
began doing this but don't remember the arguments
pro/con. It would be interesting to see how reality
squares with those arguments.

I'm not sure about how it originated, but one of the reasons I hear today
for justifying it is that it allows women in abusive relationships to leave
abusive husbands when actual abuse cannot be proved or the wife is not
believed. It allows her to leave with a minimum of conflict, thus
theoretically not ****ing off the husband.

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"gini52" wrote
TM, do you know the arguments surrounding the
implementation of no-fault divorce by the states?
I'm sure you aren't old enough but thought you
might have read about it. I remember when states
began doing this but don't remember the arguments
pro/con. It would be interesting to see how reality
squares with those arguments.

I'm not sure about how it originated, but one of the reasons I hear today
for justifying it is that it allows women in abusive relationships to
leave
abusive husbands when actual abuse cannot be proved or the wife is not
believed. It allows her to leave with a minimum of conflict, thus
theoretically not ****ing off the husband.

One of the articles I was reading talked about that. It said that most of
the women in abusive relationships were with boyfriends, not husbands. That
the power of the abuser over the abused was not created with the marriage
certificate, nor would it be ended by a divorce decree, as ex-husbands are
also high on the list of abusers of these women. It said that there are
really no statistics on the subject of no-fault divorce helping these women
out of their situations--it was a statement that was made at the beginning
of the no-fault push as a reason for no-fault, and was just never
questioned.

gini52 wrote:

TM, do you know the arguments surrounding the implementation of no-fault
divorce by the states?
I'm sure you aren't old enough but thought you might have read about it. I
remember when states began doing
this but don't remember the arguments pro/con. It would be interesting to
see how reality squares with
those arguments.

If memory serves me well, no-fault was brought in to make easier to obtain when
people simply didn't want to be together any longer due to no fault of either
party. I also remember people saying no-fault was brought in to stop the
he-said/she-said court room dramas.

I married my HS sweetheart in 1971 and filed for divorce in 1972. I knew things
were not going to work out quickly, but in order to get divorced I had to have
grounds. I know there were several grounds options to choose from and I picked
emotional abuse, as it was the least toxic and closest to the truth. Then I had
to have a witness that saw the abuse testify at my divorce hearing. It came
down to a friend testifying she had seen my XH yell at me and insult me infront
of her. At the time I thought it was just plain nuts we couldn't just get
divorced without jumping through so many hoops.

For people that just want to go their seperate ways with little entanglement
no-fault is a God send. Problem is not every couple is in short term marriages,
argee they just both want to call it quits for no reason other than choose not
to be married to one another any longer.

In some states, and it might be all I'm not sure but am sure grounds still
exist in the state I reside in, people still have the ability to divorce based
on grounds. Problem is most states no longer consider any type of fault in the
division of assests and custody.
IMHO if you are abusive, commit adultery, etc. You should be finacially
penalized and not have be given custody in the event of divorce.

Mrs Indyguy
==
==

The Dave wrote:


Maybe it's just me, but I see a pattern here. The conversation has become
focused on how the other spouse might benefit, even if by accident, and the
kid's needs are being virtually ignored. We don't like our spouses anymore
(men and women, both) that we are willing to lose sight of the bigger
picture just to make sure they don't get anything.

Dave, I have been reading and posting here since 1997 and the pattern you see
has been here since 1997. By no means is it a figment of your imagination.

Mrs Indyguy

"Indyguy1" wrote
At the time I thought it was just plain nuts we
couldn't just get divorced without jumping
through so many hoops.

In instances with no kids, I have absolutely no problem with no-fault
divorce. If you have kids together, I think there should be some kind of
reason.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"gini52" wrote
TM, do you know the arguments surrounding the
implementation of no-fault divorce by the states?
I'm sure you aren't old enough but thought you
might have read about it. I remember when states
began doing this but don't remember the arguments
pro/con. It would be interesting to see how reality
squares with those arguments.

I'm not sure about how it originated, but one of the reasons I hear
today
for justifying it is that it allows women in abusive relationships to
leave
abusive husbands when actual abuse cannot be proved or the wife is not
believed. It allows her to leave with a minimum of conflict, thus
theoretically not ****ing off the husband.

One of the articles I was reading talked about that. It said that most of
the women in abusive relationships were with boyfriends, not husbands.
That
the power of the abuser over the abused was not created with the marriage
certificate, nor would it be ended by a divorce decree, as ex-husbands are
also high on the list of abusers of these women. It said that there are
really no statistics on the subject of no-fault divorce helping these
women
out of their situations--it was a statement that was made at the beginning
of the no-fault push as a reason for no-fault, and was just never
questioned.
===
What about "irreconcilable differences?" Was that the catchall before
no-fault
or is that what is considered no-fault? Did the divorce rate go up after
no-fault? The reason I'm asking is that
if there is to be a movement back to at-fault divorce, it seems the impetus
of the movement would lie
with the objections that surrounded the move to no-fault.
===
===

"frazil" wrote
To the contrary, I think it serves the kids needs best
when their parents are treated fairly. Remember,
someday most of them will be parents themselves.

Fairly, absolutely. But, I think some become so obsessed with the idea that
their ex is going to somehow benefit from their labors that they confuse
fairness with the extreme in the other direction. I agree completely that
the system as it stands now is not fair and is in serious need of fixing.
But, the kids belong to both parents and it is the resposnibility of both
parents to see to it that the kids have what they need and are raised
properly, regardless of which home the kid is sleeping in on any given
night. If there is a great disparity in income, then one side will probably
need to give some money to the other. This is where we get back to 'cost
based' as opposed to 'lifestyle based' CS.

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"gini52" wrote
TM, do you know the arguments surrounding the
implementation of no-fault divorce by the states?
I'm sure you aren't old enough but thought you
might have read about it. I remember when states
began doing this but don't remember the arguments
pro/con. It would be interesting to see how reality
squares with those arguments.

I'm not sure about how it originated, but one of the reasons I hear
today
for justifying it is that it allows women in abusive relationships to
leave
abusive husbands when actual abuse cannot be proved or the wife is not
believed. It allows her to leave with a minimum of conflict, thus
theoretically not ****ing off the husband.

One of the articles I was reading talked about that. It said that most
of
the women in abusive relationships were with boyfriends, not husbands.
That
the power of the abuser over the abused was not created with the
marriage
certificate, nor would it be ended by a divorce decree, as ex-husbands
are
also high on the list of abusers of these women. It said that there are
really no statistics on the subject of no-fault divorce helping these
women
out of their situations--it was a statement that was made at the
beginning
of the no-fault push as a reason for no-fault, and was just never
questioned.
===
What about "irreconcilable differences?" Was that the catchall before
no-fault
or is that what is considered no-fault? Did the divorce rate go up after
no-fault? The reason I'm asking is that
if there is to be a movement back to at-fault divorce, it seems the
impetus
of the movement would lie
with the objections that surrounded the move to no-fault.
===
===

The main impetus behind no-fault divorce was to allow women (not men) to
leave their relationships without having any scrutiny of the divorce grounds
they were raising, i.e. making divorce easier for women. NOW objected that
women, who were using grounds like mental cruelty, abandonment, adultery,
and other fault based criteria for divorced, were actually being asked to
prove their accusations to secure a divorce. Therefore, the term
irreconcilable differences became the catch-all reason in no-fault divorce.

One of the major objectives presented by NOW was the need for women to have
freedom to end marriages and not be forced to remain attached to men for
financial security. This of course, was total BS. One of NOW's early
pushes was to increase the amounts and incidence of alimony payments paid to
women by their former husbands. How can women no longer be forced to be
attached to men for financial security while at the same time demanding more
financial security (alimony) from men?

NOW got very little support from Congress, and lots of criticism from other
women, for taking this simultaneously conflicting position. So NOW switched
their objective from increasing alimony paid to women to getting alimony
built into CS awards. This change served two purposes. First, they could
claim they were doing it for the children which disguised the true intent.
And second, they could move away from the fixed term applied to alimony
payments and extend them over the timeframe until children reached 18 or 21.

So to go back to fault-based divorce would require more than just going back
to showing a reason for the divorce. The artificially inflated CS amounts
would need to be decreased to take the built-in alimony out. Most men just
focus on this latter objective because that is where they suffer the long
term disadvantage post-divorce.

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
news

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
newsoVIa.161349$eJ2.117086@fed1read07...
Ummmm, don't want anyone to get screwed, but who is to say this
would
not
happen to a man that puts his wife through college? The law would
not
screw
anyone, it would be the ex that screws them if they so choose, as
is
true
with all relationships currently. What if they were never married
and
one
spouse put the other through school? Why should a piece of paper
change
that?

Then why bother with marriage at all, Drew? Why not just say that
each
person should look out for themselves, at no-matter-whose expense?
Let's
just teach our children how to look out for number one, and
precisely
how
to
screw over anyone who gets in their way. That'll certainly set
things
right
again!!

For better or worse, this is already happening. A significant number
of
divorced men are refusing to get married, especially those with
children.
And a noteworthy number of never married are refusing also. I'm one
of
them. I have no desire to have more children as a result of my
divorce,
and
if I did, I couldn't afford more children anyway. Since I can't
afford
any
more children, what would be the point of getting married? And as a
result
I only date women who already have children and don't want anymore,
didn't
want children in the first place, or who can have children. As to the
later, if adoption comes up, I run for the hills. For me at least,
marriage
is a losing proposition. And my single male friends, having witnessed
what
I went through, are not very eager to tie the knot anymore. It is too
bad,
because I liked being married, but the consequences are just too
great,
and
the benefits too little. Men are slowly learning that lesson. It is
unfortunate.

Yes, it is. I worry very much about the world my young daughters will
be
walking into.

I have a daughter, and I too worry.

I have a daughter who is an adult. She makes comments like "If I ever get
married." My advice to her is to only get married to someone who shares the
same strong religious beliefs about marriage and family relationships.
There is less of a chance one of the parties will walk away from their
marriage vows if they have similar beliefs going into the marriage about
what marriage means.

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"frazil" wrote
To the contrary, I think it serves the kids needs best
when their parents are treated fairly. Remember,
someday most of them will be parents themselves.

Fairly, absolutely. But, I think some become so obsessed with the idea
that
their ex is going to somehow benefit from their labors that they confuse
fairness with the extreme in the other direction. I agree completely that
the system as it stands now is not fair and is in serious need of fixing.
But, the kids belong to both parents and it is the resposnibility of both
parents to see to it that the kids have what they need and are raised
properly, regardless of which home the kid is sleeping in on any given
night. If there is a great disparity in income, then one side will
probably
need to give some money to the other. This is where we get back to 'cost
based' as opposed to 'lifestyle based' CS.

It would be nice if somehow the children could come out with a similar
living situation with either parent. It would be best if the parents could
work that out between them. But, with the adversarial system we have in
place today, it's every person for themselves, with the children used
largely as "reasons" to get more money. And, too, sometimes it is
impossible to balance the households. If both parents remained single, had
no more children, and focused their energies on the children they had
together, then there would be a chance of things working out. But when you
add second families, more children, into the mix, the "best interests" of
the children (meaning ALL the children involved) get really complicated!