ronthecivil Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 And Single moms across the world are rejoicing. I for one am glad I didn't limit myself when I re-entered the dating scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 If you are content to take on that much financial risk go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 If you are content to take on that much financial risk go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 If "financial risk" is a check mark for someone looking for a relationship, then any relationship they pursue is probably already in jeopardy... Basically, you're saying one should never get involved in a relationship because of finances. Guess what happens when you get divorced - you lose half of everything you ever made (financially). Which means, if you were to divorce a second time - you've lost everything. Being in a relationship far outweighs any financial risk IMHO....after all, we were made for relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Um not quite true - it means you've lost 75% of everything. If you've lost 50% of everything in the first divorce that leaves you with 50% of your stuff. But if you now lose 50% of that due to another divorce technically you've only lost 25% of the original amount, so really a second divorce is a bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Kind of...I was thinking along the lines that you re-acquired more wealth in your second marriage...so I guess it's somewhere between 75% but not quite 100% (as you say that would be technically impossible). I guess you can't really "accumulate" it at all as several factors come into play, like cost of living. I guess it would be best to just say that it would suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 so really a second divorce is a bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 "Being in a relationship far outweighs any financial risk IMHO....after all, we were made for relationships. " we were made to procreate but I'm not so sure about the relationship point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You're right - it's not the man's fault. Nor is it the children's fault. There are two innocent parties here who are suffering because of the mom. So the question is, which innocent party should bear most of the burden? The man, or the children? I would argue that the children should not bear the burden since the man is in a better position to replace his lost income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyzer Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 ah yes, wholesale divorces. what a steal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Option 3: Make the mom find out who the dad is and give responsible dad an opt-out chance, making the mom pay both portions if she can't find out. Kids are already taken care of with government benefits/programs. Child support in this fashion being required for the father even though he really isn't the father (not his fault he didn't know) is a method of screwing a dad for being both lied to and being responsible. In no way, shape, or form is this the decent thing to do, and it encourages loser dads who skirt child support. I'd suggest people consider the bigger picture here but a section of people only wish to obsessively look at the children rather than all in the equation. This is why such laws written are horrendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 The actions of the mother are completely irrelevant, legally and morally. The welfare of the children are the priority, in both contexts, and the man was supporting the kids up to that point, he should do so, regardless of paternity.....he might not be their father, but he is their dad, and I'm sure he will continue on in that role.......he should if he's any kind of man anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 dbl post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 The mom, and neither of the innocent parties. Or maybe the government for having such dumb ass rules like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpinDrive Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me. EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Why oh why don't we hold women to the same standards of personal responsibility and accountability as men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I'd be cool with a law in such cases that had the stand-in father continue to provide for the kids until they're 18. After that, the mother pays the father back in equal payments over the same # of years that he provided with some slight alterations. Perhaps give the mother a bit of a grace period if the kids are still living at home and going to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Why should the government pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me. EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me. EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.