|
Jul 01
2010
|
 |
What irks me most is how selfish people can become during divorce and how little thought is given to the wellbeing of the children of the marriage. Spouses may become to resent and even hate each other, but children should never have to witness or even slightly pick up on that. They should not be deprived access to one parent because of selfishness, immaturity or as a punishment to the non resident parent. The system at the moment fuels greed and bitterness, it does not provide emotional support for either spouse or the children. And as one of the most stressful and emotionally draining things adults and children will go through, why is it left to solicitors not counsellors to help negotiate financial settlements and childcare arrangements? After all solicitors are rarely needed to set up financial matters within the marriage, why should they be needed at the point of separation?
If a couple have managed their finances without professional help in the marriage, why should it be needed on separation? The only reason is when one spouse wants to screw the other for all they can - and the current system allows for this injustice to happen. It not only allows one spouse to screw the other financially it allows for one parent to automatically have more power than the other with regard to their children. The 'resident parent' gets to decide when the 'non resident parent' gets to see the children and for how long. Now if this person is bitter, selfish and disregarding of the emotional wellbeing of the children, this power can be wielded to hurt or punish their spouse. How can a law be fair when it allows for one spouse to lose everything and one to have it all? If parenting is equal in marriage, why should it not automatically be equal upon separation? Why should a child be deprived access to one parent they have seen daily since they were born at the whim of their other parent and at the backing of the law?
To top it all off, the parent with all the power is also entitled to spousal maintenance. So not only can they demand a greater split of matrimonial assets, get child maintenance for children they refuse to let their spouse see any or enough of, they are also entitled to make that spouse pay them a monthly income, potentially for the rest of their life.
Women bemoan the fact that men are unwilling to commit. Marriage rates are falling year on year. Is it any wonder when divorce law is this unfair?
If a couple have managed their finances without professional help in the marriage, why should it be needed on separation? The only reason is when one spouse wants to screw the other for all they can - and the current system allows for this injustice to happen. It not only allows one spouse to screw the other financially it allows for one parent to automatically have more power than the other with regard to their children. The 'resident parent' gets to decide when the 'non resident parent' gets to see the children and for how long. Now if this person is bitter, selfish and disregarding of the emotional wellbeing of the children, this power can be wielded to hurt or punish their spouse. How can a law be fair when it allows for one spouse to lose everything and one to have it all? If parenting is equal in marriage, why should it not automatically be equal upon separation? Why should a child be deprived access to one parent they have seen daily since they were born at the whim of their other parent and at the backing of the law?
To top it all off, the parent with all the power is also entitled to spousal maintenance. So not only can they demand a greater split of matrimonial assets, get child maintenance for children they refuse to let their spouse see any or enough of, they are also entitled to make that spouse pay them a monthly income, potentially for the rest of their life.
Women bemoan the fact that men are unwilling to commit. Marriage rates are falling year on year. Is it any wonder when divorce law is this unfair?
Comments (7)
Show/Hide comments
mumtoboys
said:
| July 01, 2010 | ||
 |
I don't believe anyone marries the first thing thinking about the potential cost of divorce. I'm sure it's different the second time! The law fails both 'sides' - really depends on where you sit and how the other side behaves in each case. As a parent with care, I have lost my home as a result of my ex's poor attitude to money (an attitude which only manifested itself after our separation) and I certainly haven't been able to get any maintenance out of him - for me or the children! It may well help for counsellors to get involved - but really, that's what mediation is for. And both sides have to want to deal with the issues, you can't force anyone. As I often say on here, my ex is a psycho(therapist) and he's not been near a therapist in the last 19 months! If he wont' do it with all the training and experience and know-how he has, there are thousands out there standing right behind him! | |
AmberW
said:
| July 01, 2010 | ||
 |
Thanks for your comment. I too am a parent with care, the marital home was sold as part of my divorce and the equity split 50/50. I'm lucky, it took ages to sell so we didn't have to leave until we were more stable and used to things. I receive no maintanence (spousal or child) from my ex as he walked out on his job around the same time he stopped seeing his daughter. In both mine and my partners divorces the ex's have refused mediation. I just wonder if it was compulsary could more divorce cases and especially arrangemnets for the children be sorted out more amicably? But like you say even if you can legally make someone go, it doesn't mean they will participate whilst there. The unfairness is precisely that some people seem to get it all (my partners ex) and some people seem to not have a leg to stand on. | |
TallGuy
said:
| July 01, 2010 | ||
 |
There is a lot of mileage in making sure mediation and collaborative options are explored first. I've just recieved a proposed consent order from my STBX sols, its radically different to what was orignally offered and agreed. Its now very difficult to believe that the STBX and/or her sol is in it for anything other than the money. If I had known then what I'd now know, would I of still married the same person? I have two wonderful daughters that I would not have if I didn't. The main concequence is the I know have to find expertise (and associated time and money) not only on divorce financials, but also contract law and civil liability, to name but a few. On the positive side, the whole process to date is relatively mild compared to some others experiences on Wiki. |
|
supercali
said:
| July 01, 2010 | ||
 |
Amber, I have been bending over backwards to make sure our boys are not affected and that everything is fair. 50/50 parental responsibility is us. Does this stop my stbx sl*gging me off infront of the kids, no. Does it stop my stbx discussing every aspect of our divorce with the kids, no. Does it make my stbx respect that I have make an equal contribution to the marriage, no. I have bent over in compromise for so many years, I have neglected to look after myself and feel I have let the kids down recently. I have confiscated an illegal weapon that stbx has given the kids. I have continued to put their lives first and not introduced a new partner into their lives (met mar 2010). I dedicate my time and efforts on my boys and the divorce, to be rid of the controlling, manipulating narcisstical mysogynist. But I still think the kids need to see their dad. I will never take that away from them. I think it's important to have both parents. Roll on monday when the kids have finished school and I'm in charge for the week! I love them to bits! Supercali xx |
|
wscowell
said:
| July 02, 2010 | ||
 |
OK Cali, but I'm puzzled by the phrase "50/50 parental responsibility". PR is "the right to be involved in decision making - the big stuff, like medical, schooling, religion etc. Not the everyday stuff - that's for the parent with care. PR is different from residence. How old are the kids now? Will C |
|
horridbusiness
said:
| July 02, 2010 | ||
 |
My stbx wouldn't consider mediation when I suggested it after we first split. At the moment he is refusing to sign the consent order but wont give me a reason why not, although its a standard consent form...no hidden clauses. Its just another form of his bullying that I hoped would end when we separated. Don't look like it :-( | |
Bobbinalong
said:
| July 08, 2010 | ||
 |
never a truer set of words put together. When two people meet, if one has quite a lot of assets, maybe the other is humbled for a short while, even envyous. But eventually the things become joint and shared. At the point of splitting, one is always after as much as they can get. I had a house for 20 years worked all my life to keep it and maintain it, built a workshop with all the stuff an engineer needs. When we split ex seriously expected me to just leave, paying her for half of the car obviously, and leave everything as well as the kids, she expected me to walk away and pay each month, there were comments about what I was taking from the garage, like she had use for a compressor and a pillar drill!! Eventually I was in court telling a judge why I should have contact with my kids, I say my now because they have been hers for 2 years. |
|
Write comment
Show/Hide comment formYou must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
