Also, what would make divorces less nasty is the horrible practice of making one party pay for the legal fees of both parties.
Also, 50/50 custody as a norm.
50/50 Child support as a norm.
Maybe 90% of the nastiness would absolutely disappear.
Also, 50/50 custody as a norm.
50/50 Child support as a norm.
Maybe 90% of the nastiness would absolutely disappear.
I see no reason why such person deserve anymore than bare minimum. That is bare minimum that society considers acceptable. So clearly it should be acceptable for absolutely everyone.
Yes, if you want to be sure that you don't end up badly, either accept that minimum standard is social security. Or safe up yourself. Don't expect to be able to exploit someone else for your heightened standard of living.
Obvs prenups etc tweak the split/vesting schedule effectively, and that's fine, but don't expect to be a CEO of a startup, sell £1M of product and be able to walk away with the entire value of the business.
Divorce was indeed lower when women typically had no way of supporting themselves, and therefore were often forced to stay in a marriage. That hardly seems like the better end of the deal.
Sure, that's why I stipulated 'sometime you're up against impossible odds'. But I don't see how there can be talk of an equal partnership when one party is expected to bring in all the money and do half the emotional labour, and typically a good chunk of the housework in the process.
The reason is that that's the standard marriage contract both of them signed. If they wanted a custom pre-nup, they could have done that instead.
Of course, the default contract itself could be changed, but I think your ideas are pretty far from most people would consider fair or reasonable.
Abortion, ok.
But do you mean putting your own, healthy kids up for adoption???
And there are different degrees of "more important". "Throwing the kids away" is a super extreme measure few would take.
I hate it when during internet discussions, suddenly the other side slides on a slippery slope all the way to Level 99.
Your single without children?
Adoption may be the best option for some people in some situations. I can imagine that. But presenting it as an obvious solution to this problem indicates a glaring gap in their understanding of human beings.
50/50 custody isn't always good for the child, though. I know a kid that really had anxiety issues, in no small part because 50/50 makes for somewhat unstable housing.
There isn't really a such thing as 50/50 child support. The bigger reason for child support is because one parent obviously makes more than the other one, and the support is supposed to ease the burden. I'd rather expand the safety net so that less support is needed. Not only that, but I'd make sure that the support receiver gets the money every month regardless of whether or not the other parent pays. You can pay support to the government instead of directly to the other party. Also of note: Support tends to be higher or lower depending on custody - and to be fair, it applies to never-married relationships as well. I'd also note that we should be sure that both parties can keep up proper residences for the children. Visitation means you need the house space (bedrooms) for the children, for example, and support shouldn't mean that you lose access to your children.
Here over 50% of kids are born from unmarried parents, and that proportion has steadily increased through the years. 20% of couples separate before their first child is 5 years old. 50/50 parenting is the norm. Might sound scary, but as someone in that situation, it took some time to get used to, but worked out fine.
Common law covers child support but not spousal support. It can be a major risk if one spouse is financially dependent on the other (see Cirque du Soleil, Éric vs Lola).
Except it says that mediation is better than legal fees, regardless of who pays. The article's claim is that this shift away from the adversarial process is probably the biggest factor, though others also contribute.
And 50/50 custody is already the norm in many places, according to the article.
"Laws in Australia, Sweden and some American states require judges to consider splitting custody time more or less down the middle."
The first one started with mediation. The process was highly feminized, and all the mediators were women. I felt very much that they were predisposed to the view that I was "at fault". The process failed, in that we weren't able to agree a settlement. It was useful only in that we were required to perform disclosure, and to discuss the disclosed documents in a fairly non-judicial forum; disclosure would be necessary anyway when the settlement went to court. In court, my solicitor was a woman; my wife's was a woman; and the judge was a woman.
This is the UK; Family Court proceedings were subject to very strict secrecy. The press couldn't report Family Court proceedings, not even anonymized, so basically the public had no idea what kinds of things went on in Family Court. It's become a little looser now, but only a little. It's high time for reform of UK family law.
[Edit] I advised people "don't get married". Then I went into my second marriage, which ended 3 years later. Dogfood much?
I wanted to add that I have also taken part in marriage guidance. That counsellor was also a woman; I remember her describing me as "a tough nut to crack". This was the premier marriage guidance outfit in the UK.
It seems an incredibly stupid thing for a trained counsellor to say; who wants to be "cracked"? It certainly alienated me from that process.
Perhaps most of the men these people encounter from troubled marriages are objectively arseholes, but I doubt it. I don't think many arseholes go to marriage guidance, and I don't think they engage with mediation. I know that many psychotherapists are people who have been through therapy; I wonder if these cousellors and mediators are women who have experienced spousal abuse themselves.
I'm forbidden to say any more.
I think it's fine to protect the identity of the participants; but I think that if the way these courts work were more widely known, then reform would come quicker. It's a sort of Catch-22.
If the system’s goal were merely to ensure that they land on their feet, it would look very different.
Specifically, in the case of child support, the idea is that the children should not (the idea that the spouse should not tends to be factored in to alimony.) e.g., to quote the California law on child support: “Children should share in the standard of living of both parents.” Family Code § 4053(f)
If it were just about continuation of lifestyle, my mother wouldn't have been entitled to anything as my parents were never together.
It's glossing over a bit to not acknowledge that one's standard of living is taking a much bigger hit than the other. It's also not the case that 100% of income in a marriage contributes to standard of living (or equally between spouses), so there absolutely are cases where an ex-wife with sufficient alimony and child support could end up with a nicer house, car, etc. than when she was married. This dichotomy is what drives a lot of the angst that comes up when dealing with these legal processes.
> Both parties' standard of living will go down.
This isn't quite true is all I'm saying. The higher earner's standard of living almost certainly will go down. The other spouse's standard of living may or may not.
But to me it seems that if one of them is going to go up, it's more likely to be the higher earner whose standard will go up. The divorce caused the higher earner to lose access to a lower income (possibly zero), so thus possibly not much financial downside. The divorce caused the lower earner to lose access to a higher income, so a large financial downside.
> It's also not the case that 100% of income in a marriage contributes to standard of living
Are you saying a divorce could lead to more efficient use of money? That doesn't seem like the case to me. When married they were in 1 bedroom in 1 house. Now they're in 2 bedrooms in 2 houses. Less efficient. If there are kids and shared custody, the kids need double the bedrooms as well.
>(or equally between spouses)
Ok, I sort of get that point. If for example while married the higher earner spent 60% of his/her income on hobbies that didn't benefit the lower earner, then the lower earner was given 50% of the higher earner's income as alimony, that would mean the lower earner could possibly benefit. But those numbers are crazy. Most money is spent on housing, which benefits both spouses. To spend such a giant amount on a single spouse's hobbies is very unusual.
Maybe in a few decades we will recognize that you should incentivize both parents to be active in the child's life.
Sounds like the worst possible outcome for the kids. A constant state of chaos in your life, even if both parents are reasonably good at taking care of a kid, interested in it, have the financial means, etc.