Men get put in JAIL when they can't afford to pay child support, but women get rewarded with a WELFARE CHECK.

[sly_wolf 199]

It's all about evidence presented. Regardless of what you say, the paper is what they're looking at.

Yes, in criminal law and no in family law.

[sly_wolf 199]

+1

I got a $500 contempt of court fine for asking the judge if she could add 2+2 or if she needed a calculator (in regards to tax returns). It's a rigged game is what it is.

####### yes, never ask a lawyer or judge to do math. They don't have enough fingers or toes. I couldn't believe how math stupid they were. Like I said before .... 50/50 was she got all the asssets and I got all the liabilties. I guess the judge figured that was a good balance sheet.

One time I was asked by my lawyer if I would be willing to take a particular judgment that I had to be heard in front of the supreme court of Canada. They wanted to take my case and and another one at the same time. Sounded great until I found out it would cost $30K just to prepare to get heard. So I guess justice is potentially available ...... for the rich!

[james&olya 1,121]

I know several divorced people and to a man, the dudes mess up. The ladies are pretty good at conniving and plotting and when they're not prepared, they cry. Works every time.

There is a disparity in judgements but, for the most part, I don't see it as a bias against men, I see it as women being better prepared for court and painting the picture of the bigger need. The reason you don't see a lot of women on here talking about how their ex-husband screwed them over is because most of the women on here are intelligent and intelligent women don't get screwed over. They're conniving and they plot to get what they want. Men, on the other hand, are too busy getting drunk and sowing their wild oats to think about things like skimming $20/week off the grocery bill to pay a divorce lawyer.

That's the difference.

Slim, you seem to suffer from the same stereotyping and prejudice (pre-judging!) that so many judges and court officials do. It is much easier for women to plan for a divorce since there are some winning strategies they can use that have little dependency on the actual merits of their cases. One of the biggest factors, in my opinion, is that most judges are male and are just as ready as you seem to be to throw other men under the bus, justifying it based on nothing other than stereotypes and that the woman is there in front of them needing the big, strong, manly judge to rescue poor little damsel in distress from that drunk, cheating husband of hers!

I found out, after my divorce, that my ex-from-hell had actually already lined up her divorce attorney prior to our marriage!

FWIW, I don't drink alcohol or use drugs, ever. I work hard, am respected in my community, have never been abusive, etc..... NONE of that matters!! All that matters is the stereotype out there and the willingness of so many women in our society to pretend to be a victim, even when they are not!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I'm beginning to wonder if that's actually slim posting or maybe fishdude jacked slim's account.

[^_^ 5,021]

I like how fishdude isn't even here yet his specter continues to haunt you.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I like how fishdude isn't even here yet his specter continues to haunt you.

If you go back a page or two you will see he's posted on here already contributing his usual nothing of interest.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

One time I was asked by my lawyer if I would be willing to take a particular judgment that I had to be heard in front of the supreme court of Canada. They wanted to take my case and and another one at the same time. Sounded great until I found out it would cost $30K just to prepare to get heard. So I guess justice is potentially available ...... for the rich!

You've hit upon a major issue here -- you need to pay for the very best representation you can afford, and alas, those with deeper pockets often get better representation. If, as slim (probably correctly) surmises, women plan for a divorce and save up for fees in advance, they're going to have a better chance at stronger representation, notwithstanding any presumption in their favour for greater support when there are children from the marriage.

I didn't have any kids when I got divorced, and even though I could have taken my well-off ex-husband to the cleaners, I didn't. We sold our one joint asset (a flat in London) and split the proceeds 50/50. It wasn't an acrimonious split, I had my own career, and even though I had spent many hours supporting him at home (chores, cooking, household management and dinner parties) I didn't put a monetary value on any of that -- I'd done it out of love, which has no price. I had, however, paid towards the mortgage so I had no compunction about the flat. Honestly, I don't know why women who have no reason to stick it to their exes except malice and spite do what they do. Children, of course, complicate matters, and I can't say if I would have felt entitled to more had we had children.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You've hit upon a major issue here -- you need to pay for the very best representation you can afford, and alas, those with deeper pockets often get better representation. If, as slim (probably correctly) surmises, women plan for a divorce and save up for fees in advance, they're going to have a better chance at stronger representation, notwithstanding any presumption in their favour for greater support when there are children from the marriage.

I didn't have any kids when I got divorced, and even though I could have taken my well-off ex-husband to the cleaners, I didn't. We sold our one joint asset (a flat in London) and split the proceeds 50/50. It wasn't an acrimonious split, I had my own career, and even though I had spent many hours supporting him at home (chores, cooking, household management and dinner parties) I didn't put a monetary value on any of that -- I'd done it out of love, which has no price. I had, however, paid towards the mortgage so I had no compunction about the flat. Honestly, I don't know why women who have no reason to stick it to their exes except malice and spite do what they do. Children, of course, complicate matters, and I can't say if I would have felt entitled to more had we had children.

Who says you would have gotten custody if you did have children unless you already know that the court is biased and you would have gotten custody.

If a woman and a man both have lawyers of the same ability and skills, the advantage still goes to the woman in the US as far as the courts are concerned.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Who says you would have gotten custody if you did have children unless you already know that the court is biased and you would have gotten custody.

If a woman and a man both have lawyers of the same ability and skills, the advantage still goes to the woman in the US as far as the courts are concerned.

In England and Wales, children most frequently have the mother as the custodial parent. I also can't say if I would have chosen to be that custodial parent. Had my ex been the custodial parent, it is unlikely he would have been awarded any support from me, given his personal family wealth and salary. He earned about 4 times what I did.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

In England and Wales, children most frequently have the mother as the custodial parent. I also can't say if I would have chosen to be that custodial parent. Had my ex been the custodial parent, it is unlikely he would have been awarded any support from me, given his personal family wealth and salary. He earned about 4 times what I did.

Here in the US, even if the man makes less money than the woman he still pays child support if she has custody.

[TBoneTX 46,003]

Whoever is the custodial parent payus child support to the non-custodial parent. Parents that do not pay can go to jail. As it should be.

A rarely spoken inequity is that there is NO accountability in regard to the spending of that child-support money. Every dime should be thoroughly accounted for, every month, as having been spent on or for the child.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you go back a page or two you will see he's posted on here already contributing his usual nothing of interest.

Nothing of interest to you perhaps but that's of no interest to me.

I just find it odd that you're seem on a mission to tarnish all women because you had a negative experience. It does explain quite a bit. Everyone deals with breakup kip, most people get over it.

[SMR 368]

Nothing of interest to you perhaps but that's of no interest to me.

I just find it odd that you're seem on a mission to tarnish all women because you had a negative experience. It does explain quite a bit. Everyone deals with breakup kip, most people get over it.

I think you missed the point of the thread. It's not about tarnishing women but about tarnishing the courts. If the courts are biased, it's not the fault of women for using it.

[kytwell 179]

A rarely spoken inequity is that there is NO accountability in regard to the spending of that child-support money. Every dime should be thoroughly accounted for, every month, as having been spent on or for the child.

right on

[sly_wolf 199]

Nothing of interest to you perhaps but that's of no interest to me.

I just find it odd that you're seem on a mission to tarnish all women because you had a negative experience. It does explain quite a bit. Everyone deals with breakup kip, most people get over it.

I think this has more to do about the inequity that happens in many divorce cases. There is also the financial consequence that most men deal with which can take many many years to recover from. My divorce cost me $80K .... because my ex-wife was constantly forcing me back to court. An ex-spouse can force you into court as much and as often as they want until you are financialy and emotionaly broke. The system is at fault for allowing this abuse.

A rarely spoken inequity is that there is NO accountability in regard to the spending of that child-support money. Every dime should be thoroughly accounted for, every month, as having been spent on or for the child.

Sounds like a good idea but I think that would be unreasonable. It would become another excuse for even more litigation.