Posted on 03/12/2009 7:34:22 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
And then she should relocate in due time.
Protest too much? No. I do believe fathers should provide for their children. But I also believe there needs to be some sense of fairness in the child support system.
The wife has a website up to state her version of the truth, but what about the husband?
Very good advice. In fact, she should have been salting away emergency funds to accomplish that BEFORE they saw a judge.
Better late than never. She doesn't need the adulterer, the judge, the public school OR the house to have a happy and Christian home with her children. There are other states, other homes...and they don't cost $1000 a month. And the authorities in her state don't have to resources to chase after her.
Ironcially, the father, whose adultery was the reason for the divorce, want the children in a publik skool. Doubtlessly, there they will be taught how to put a condom on a cucumber, will be assigned Heather has Two Mommies (or was that Two Daddies) for a reading and class discussion project, ad nauseam.
Judgie Poo should be removed from the bench.
Madam, you cast the first stone at the mother in this case. My understanding of this Forum is to discuss the merits of a given news article and what the article reflects about conservative values vs. socialism and corruption. To disclose a great deal of personal information and to take dramatic umbrage at other posters who disagree with you is quite beside the point.
No amount of emotion expressed on an online forum can ameliorate the rafts of trouble many people besides yourself enter into headlong when they enter a marriage with pre-existing children. Doing so takes most people by surprise; it's a great challenge to the well-intentioned second spouse not to believe that everyone else is to blame. The statistic I'm familiar with is that second marriages have a higher risk of failure than first marriages, and thirds even higher. In choosing a life partner, it's caveat emptor.
So, yes, you are to be congratulated if you have avoided a break-up. I am most interested, however, in the topic, the law, the statistical results of the divorce judiciary and the implications of this particular judge's decision constitutionally.
For the years I have participated on this forum, most FRiends always look below the surface to find the truth of the matter in a reasonable and logical discussion.
I can believe you are now aiming toward personal attacks, and shall draw the line now.
And besides, you are really beginning to get me to the point of wanting to pick up a cigarette (all smiles).
It was interesting to read your viewpoints and thank you for your discussion.
Excellent point - I’m of the belief that the wrong party should have the upper hand in these deals. But it appears that the husband may have the better attorney who is framing the schooling issue as a financial one.
Who’s stopping him from putting up his own website with his version of the “truth”?
I agree there should be some sense of “fairness” in the child support system. When I was receiving child support I was awarded a whole $80 a month from my ex-husband who was making $30,000 a year. Didn’t seem very fair to me.
I’m really sick of this garbage that women steal all of men’s money and spend it on themselves. At least my son knows the truth.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but this may be the absolute worse thing she could do. Wouldn't sending the kids away from access to their father put her in very deep hot water from a legal standpoint? The type of hot water that could end up with her in jail, the kids living with the father or in foster homes, and going to public schools anyway?
Actually, no, especially if there is a temporary location-based custody order in place, which prosperous men routinely do first when dumping a cuckolded spouse. (The man in this case earns six figures.) In adultery, the straying spouse, not the one "who is the last to know", is the one who has had the time to prepare to shelter his/her income, to fund the second relationship at the expense of the first spouse and children.
A custodial parent who skips town could be punished and stripped of custody for it. Divorce judges are interested in clearing their docket, and treat most emotionally-charged issues with personal bias for their own points of view and contempt for their own prejudices. And divorce from a prosperous partner who can afford an aggressive attorney is an entirely different set of dynamics from a divorce between middle- or lower-income spouses.
That is, in short, why God hates divorce. It automatically makes the children wards of the State and the parents serfs of the local judiciary. For every workaday man on this Forum who has been treated badly by a judge, there is also a custodial mother who has been shafted. Divorce is an equal-opportunity crapshoot; but the trend in our liberal system of "no-fault" divorce is, logically, that it hits the more faithful partner the hardest. Also logically, the more morally culpable partner yells the loudest about injustice.
This is the great cruelty of the no-fault system to the children. Their standard of living is dependent on the man's faithfulness or lack thereof; there is no legal justice for his having broken the vows. Adultery and abandonment of the marriage are serious assaults on the well-being of the wife and children from which many women and children never fully recover. No-fault makes "bait'n'switch" possible.
Formerly, under English common law and the marital laws pre-Pill and pre-Roe, the spouse who committed adultery was denied custody of the children. Princess Diana's mother was sent away from her children for cheating -- it wasn't just men.
While the children in these situations suffered, the numbers of children affected were SUBSTANTIALLY fewer than the numbers of today's children living in broken homes as a result of social engineering to remove traditional morality from family law.
I am a woman. I am not aiming for personal attacks, but to discuss the real consequences of the feminists' and socialists' 45 years of Supreme Court attacks on traditional marriage that have trivialized the most important "means of production" in the nation and that have trickled down to harm many children. Thank you as well for agreeing to drop a no-win approach to the discussion. Again, I salute you for succeeding and persevering where many others have failed, and wish you and your family well.
I am well aware of that. However, a custodial parent who does NOT skip town, but instead relies on the wisdom and fairness of some black-robed jackass to decide the fate of his/her children, is playing russian roulette with those children. Not a mere "crapshoot" as you called it, though that would be bad enough -- do you parent by crapshoot?
I have had some experience with family law, none marital thank heavens. One should not put one's life, or one's child's life, in the hands of strangers (whom you yourself describe as being interested in clearing dockets and deciding by their personal biases).
If I were married to a cheating husband, I would not trust him, or his girlfriend, or his lawyer, or my lawyer, or any judge to act out of love or benevolence. I wouldn't let the typical judge drive my kid (if I had one) to school, never mind decide where he'd grow up. I would simply stash cash and then get the hell out of there, with the kids and all the assets I could safely make off with.
I'm sure that sounds horrid and ruthless to some people.
Your post does bring up a very important issue -- that most Americans, even those who are knowlegeable enough to be conservatives -- often do not realize the IRS-like authority that family court judges wield over the lives of individuals. If your state or municipality allows election of judges, you would be well advised to look into their records and campaign for the ones who make reasonable decisions. It is the appointed judges at the appellate and Supreme Court levels have done the most damage to the family. But they had to start somewhere.
Better to risk losing them? Better to submit to a mental evaluation, the results of which could be fudged, and which could lead to a loss of one's right to possess firearms (self-defense), among other unfortunate consequences? Why would anyone assume that a spouse who would commit adultery, would not behave dishonestly in other situations? Why trust him not to bring false accusations, to frame the innocent spouse, to accuse her to the IRS, the CPS, or some other agency?
People who go to court and give judges the opportunity to determine how they and their children will live, are about as realistic as that pacifist who got run over by a bulldozer; as her friend said, "We were horribly surprised..."
You said, “Their standard of living is dependent on the man’s faithfulness or lack thereof...”
But you meant, “Their standard of living is dependent on both parents’ faithfulness or lack thereof...”
Right?
We’ll agree to disagree, then. But if I found myself married to a man like that, I would not put the childrens’ fate, plus my own, in the hands of a stranger. Might as well pick up a gun and fire it before you know whether it’s pointing forward or backward.
I fully understand the ire surrounding this case, but I do not understand posting this man's salary and expenses for all to see. I'm not talking about you (SoftballMominVA), but the creators of the website. It seems to add heat rather than light to the entire mess.
The 1380 a month she already receives is 16560 dollars a year. If she stays home and home schools rather than works, it could easily run another... let's say 1380 a month or so (conservatively) to allow her to stay home. I pick that number since both sides are usually supposed to provide half of the support in a divorce.
Setting aside the father's stated disagreement with the mother on homeschooling, does he really owe her 33120 so that she can stay home and educate their children in defiance of his wishes?
At least, that is how I read her numbers and situation. It’s a tough one. Can the courts force the dad to pay more $$ so that the kids can be homeschooled?
Good question.
I see your point entirely, but unless she is willing to move to New Zealand a la Dr. Morgan to keep her kids out of the hands of the judicial system, there is not a chance she will lose them, she WILL lose them as she sits in a jail cell on a kidnapping charge filed by the husband.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.