Master Index of Archived Threads


Divorce

patona314 Feb 14 2007 08:40 AM

anyone here divorced, or in the process?

KC Feb 14 2007 08:52 AM

yes

patona314 Feb 14 2007 09:06 AM

i think i've just entered the 1st stage.... we've realized we can't stand each other

RealityChuck Feb 14 2007 09:08 AM

A long time ago, but yes.

metirish Feb 14 2007 09:10 AM

patona314 wrote: i think i've just entered the 1st stage.... we've realized we can't stand each other Sorry to hear that patona,I hope things work out for you both.

patona314 Feb 14 2007 09:57 AM

metirish wrote: ="patona314"]i think i've just entered the 1st stage.... we've realized we can't stand each other Sorry to hear that patona,I hope things work out for you both. "working out" was a phrase my w%$#e and I used about 2 years ago.

patona314 Feb 14 2007 09:58 AM

so (i have ideas) what do i do now?

ScarletKnight41 Feb 14 2007 10:00 AM

Sorry to hear that :( I'm not talking from experience, but if you're not totally at odds with each other, I think you should consider Divorce Mediation. It's a good way to get through the necessary legalities without doing it in an oppositional manner. Best of luck to you.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 14 2007 10:02 AM

patona314 wrote: i think i've just entered the 1st stage.... we've realized we can't stand each other Sorry to hear that. How long have you been married? Any kids?

KC Feb 14 2007 10:12 AM

To be clear, I meant there are divorced people in the pool ... I'm happily married. Well, I mean I'm married. There I go again, I can't help myself. Best of luck 314.

metsmarathon Feb 14 2007 11:38 AM

my parents divorced when i was a little bitty kid. other than that, i have no meaningful input here.

Nymr83 Feb 14 2007 01:53 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote: I'm not talking from experience, but if you're not totally at odds with each other, I think you should consider Divorce Mediation. It's a good way to get through the necessary legalities without doing it in an oppositional manner. i'm a bit more cynical than scarlet... if you are really sure that a divorce is on the horizon get a lawyer and get the process started on YOUR terms instead of hers.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 14 2007 02:24 PM

It's not a question of being cynical. It's a question of being practical. Mediation is quicker and cheaper, and you might even come out of the process still talking to each other. Going at things tooth and nail from the get go ensures a bitter fight and a lot more money going into the pockets of the lawyers.

KC Feb 14 2007 02:36 PM

ny: >>>on YOUR terms instead of hers<<< Get real. I have three friends who are paying a mortgage and child support while having to pay their own rent, car payment, and stuff to boot. I don't know how they do it. I'd be leery of any wide-eyed lawyer who thinks they can do otherwise ... un- less the wife is like suicidal or a heroin addict ... and even then, the courts most often side with the woman. OE: or at least half a mortgage payment, but still.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 14 2007 02:57 PM

It's not generally a picnic on the other side either - statistically, a woman's standard of living goes down substantially after divorce. Let's face it - maintaining two households instead of one will strain a family's finances.

KC Feb 14 2007 03:12 PM

Says the woman.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 14 2007 03:14 PM

Says the stats.

Nymr83 Feb 14 2007 03:24 PM

divorce is definetaly an area where men get screwed, women say they want equality but that goes out the window the moment they want a divorce when they (and their lawyers) seem to feel entitled to half of what they didn't earn. hey, if you care about remaining on speaking terms (i don't know if you have kids or not) and you don' t think she'll be out to screw you go ahead and try mediation... but if you get along so well why do you need a divorce?

metsmarathon Feb 14 2007 03:33 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 14 2007 03:35 PM

well, the idea is that when you get married, instead of two independent entities, you become one cooperative entity. there is no "earning your share" so much as sharing what you both earn. if i work, and my wife doesn't, then that is her contribution, which enables me to make my contribution. and please don't fall into the trap of trying to put a value on that. it cannot be done. yes, there are gold diggers out there, but that's hardly representative of the vast majority of married couples. to assume that all prospective divorcee's are golddiggers is beyond cynical - its absurd. i would also suggest that in the majority of married couples, it is the woman who sacrifices her career aspirations to take care of the family (let alone the glass ceiling thingy). splitting up the settlement according to cumulative financial contribution ignores this.

KC Feb 14 2007 03:35 PM

SK: >>>Says the stats.<<< Stats probably compiled and published by some woman's advocate group or a script writer for a soap opera or Sex in the City. Unless the woman is a toad, she can improve her standard of living within a few months while the guy usually can't afford to date a woman worth dating. I may sound cynical, but that's what I've witnessed on several occasions in real life. My friends won't be out of their ex-wives clutches until the last kid is of age and they can sell the house.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 14 2007 03:48 PM

="KC"]SK: >>>Says the stats.<<< Stats probably compiled and published by some woman's advocate group or a script writer for a soap opera or Sex in the City. Unless the woman is a toad, she can improve her standard of living within a few months while the guy usually can't afford to date a woman worth dating. I may sound cynical, but that's what I've witnessed on several occasions in real life. My friends won't be out of their ex-wives clutches until the last kid is of age and they can sell the house. Yeah - it's the easiest thing in the world to find a well-paying job with a boss who will let you take off for school activities, unexpected sick days, after-school chauffeuring, et.

Nymr83 Feb 14 2007 03:49 PM

]well, the idea is that when you get married, instead of two independent entities, you become one cooperative entity. there is no "earning your share" so much as sharing what you both earn. my issue is not so much with splitting property acquied during marriage 50-50 as it is with the husband paying support after the marriage has ended. this isn't 1800, women can and do make a living on their own, they should not be receiving constant support from their ex-husband.

metsmarathon Feb 14 2007 03:58 PM

if they get the kids, then, yes, they should

KC Feb 14 2007 04:21 PM

SK: >>>it's the easiest thing in the world to find a well-paying job<<< How well-paying a job does someone need who has half or more of their housing payment taken care of and gets a check to take care of the rest? Plus, let's not forget that nice dinners out and other recreation (standard of living stuff I assume you spoke of) are picked up by the new guy in the BMW.

DocTee Feb 14 2007 04:25 PM

I have heard that couples divorcing in the Garden State MUST sell the house and split the proceeds-- is this true?

patona314 Feb 14 2007 06:40 PM

DocTee wrote: I have heard that couples divorcing in the Garden State MUST sell the house and split the proceeds-- is this true? you can set up a situation where the house must be sold when the youngest child reaches the age of 18.

metsmarathon Feb 14 2007 06:41 PM

wow. glad that wasn't around 25 years ago...

patona314 Feb 14 2007 08:53 PM

whatever... we have two kids. an 8 year old girl and a 5 five year old boy. both are rabid mets/giant fans. both started going to games at the age of 2. right now, i'm numb. not to trivialize why i started this thread, but the phrase "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" is rattling through my head... i think you guys know which one i'm feeling.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 15 2007 07:15 AM

Whatever you're thinking, you need to put the welfare of those little kids above it. Parents who are at each other's throats is never good for children.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 15 2007 07:25 AM

="KC"]SK: >>>it's the easiest thing in the world to find a well-paying job<<< How well-paying a job does someone need who has half or more of their housing payment taken care of and gets a check to take care of the rest? Plus, let's not forget that nice dinners out and other recreation (standard of living stuff I assume you spoke of) are picked up by the new guy in the BMW. I said nothing of dinners out. I said nothing of recreation. New guys in BMWs are not a given, to say the least. I'm speaking of a job that allows a person the flexibility to take off when necessary to care for ones kids. For someone who hasn't been in the job market for a while, finding a job like that with a salary that offsets the extra childcare costs is not so easy. I said it earlier, divorce means that what used to support one household now has to go further. I'm not saying that it's not tough on the guy, but don't think that it's a cakewalk for the woman either. The kids who are stuck in the middle shouldn't have to take the brunt of their parents' frustrations.

KC Feb 15 2007 09:54 AM

I feel like I'm arguing with Ms. Met over the importance of a good glove at 1B. How does a woman's "standard of living" lessen when she's in the same house, getting child support, gets half or more of her housing paid for, and can date someone and (generally speaking) have everything paid for then too? You're also assuming that the woman isn't already working. There are very few middle class couples nowadays where both people aren't working to make ends meet. I could sympathize with someone who isn't already out there, having to adapt and find something that works for the reasons you say, but my guess is that's a very small percentage these days.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 15 2007 09:58 AM

I think my wife would have a harder time if she had my money but not my presence, helping feed the kids, get them ready for school, putting them to bed, keeping them entertained, picking them up, taking them to doctor's appointments, etc. And a single mother taking care of young kids probably doesn't have an easy time dating, either, I wouldn't think.

Edgy DC Feb 15 2007 10:07 AM

My brother is paying double rent and has the kids fully half the week. Wifey works but it's a fandango operation that's not bringing in money. That said, I think Nymr misses a point to an extent. Marriage is a legally binding contract. And getting out of contracts takes painful concessions.

KC Feb 15 2007 10:08 AM

The bottom line is the man gets the short end of the stick in most cases. This is based on my experiences and observations. I'm sure we all agree that divorce sucks for everyone involved, especially the kids, and that it's not easy for the man or the woman. Sorry to hijack your thread, 314 ... again, best of luck!

Nymr83 Feb 15 2007 11:07 AM

Edgy DC wrote: My brother is paying double rent and has the kids fully half the week. Wifey works but it's a fandango operation that's not bringing in money. That said, I think Nymr misses a point to an extent. Marriage is a legally binding contract. And getting out of contracts takes painful concessions. no, you've made my point for me. those "painful concessions" to get out of a contract have to be conceded by the one who wants out, not by the contracting party who is perfectly happy with the arrangement (the spouse who isn't filing for divorce.)

Edgy DC Feb 15 2007 11:11 AM

Nymr83 wrote: no, you've made my point for me. No, I haven't.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 15 2007 01:32 PM

KC wrote: The bottom line is the man gets the short end of the stick in most cases. This is based on my experiences and observations. I'm sure we all agree that divorce sucks for everyone involved, especially the kids, and that it's not easy for the man or the woman. Sorry to hijack your thread, 314 ... again, best of luck! I disagree with your first point. On average, statistics show that five years after a divorce a man's standard of living rises, while a woman's go down. What's more, your sample of three doesn't take into account the number of guys who don't live up to their obligations and leave their kids without support. Obviously I agree with your second point, since I made it in the first place. The Ms. Met throw-in is unwarranted. Just because I don't agree with you is no reason to start flinging mud around. Your standpoint that women are always wrong and that men always get the short end is far from the real picture of divorce in 21st Century America.

KC Feb 15 2007 01:42 PM

The Ms. Met throw-in was pretty evil ... even for me. Retracted with apologies. My final word on this is if you know any women who did worse than the their hubbies in divorce court, I'd say they had a shitty lawyer who didn't know their ass from their elbow because the scales of justice are tipped in the woman's favor.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 15 2007 01:51 PM

I do know women who fared badly in divorces. Representation aside, it happens much more frequently than you imagine. And if I get through my next Metadata assignment in any kind of reasonable amount of time this weekend I'll show you the stats on men vs. women post-divorce. Back to 341's original question, though - Mediation is still worth exploring. It will leave him and his soon-to-be ex with more money to divvy up between them, as opposed to an adversarial proceeding with two attorneys who get paid by the hour and, thus, have no incentive to wrap this thing up quickly.

Willets Point Feb 15 2007 01:59 PM

KC wrote: The Ms. Met throw-in was pretty evil ... even for me. I've never thought of you as evil. I hope you don't see yourself that way.

KC Feb 15 2007 02:24 PM

Thanks, Willet. No, I'm not literally evil ... I mean more like the animated devil I have on my left shoulder beat out the angel on my right that time.

iramets Feb 16 2007 09:45 AM

I offered my ex- mediation and her response was "Why should I? I'll do much better with a lawyer" and she did. The first six months after we separated, I was living in a one-room apt (after living out of my car for two weeks) on ten grand a year, while she was living in our (now her) four bedroom house, on over 35,000 (her salary plus my child-support). (All sums after taxes.) Her lawyer's logic (and eventually the judge's) was that my living situation was my problem, but the court's lookout was the kids' welfare, meaning that they (and of course she) had to live as they were living before we split up. If this meant that I had to be homeless, or borrow thousands from friends and family to live on, so be it. It took me five years of working two jobs (and living like a churchmouse) just to pay my friends and my brother back. In those five years, btw, I got to see two Mets' games, both on gift tickets, the only time in my life I lived in NY City and got to attend fewer than a ballgame per season. The courts are so far biased in the woman's favor (in the guise of protecting the kids, purely so the state will not have to chip in if the wife goes on welfare) it's practically criminal.

patona314 Feb 17 2007 11:40 PM

iramets wrote: I offered my ex- mediation and her response was "Why should I? I'll do much better with a lawyer" and she did. The first six months after we separated, I was living in a one-room apt (after living out of my car for two weeks) on ten grand a year, while she was living in our (now her) four bedroom house, on over 35,000 (her salary plus my child-support). (All sums after taxes.) Her lawyer's logic (and eventually the judge's) was that my living situation was my problem, but the court's lookout was the kids' welfare, meaning that they (and of course she) had to live as they were living before we split up. If this meant that I had to be homeless, or borrow thousands from friends and family to live on, so be it. It took me five years of working two jobs (and living like a churchmouse) just to pay my friends and my brother back. In those five years, btw, I got to see two Mets' games, both on gift tickets, the only time in my life I lived in NY City and got to attend fewer than a ballgame per season. The courts are so far biased in the woman's favor (in the guise of protecting the kids, purely so the state will not have to chip in if the wife goes on welfare) it's practically criminal. i'm dead meat. i busted my ass to lay down 20% on my house.

iramets Feb 18 2007 04:33 AM

I brought money into the marraige and sunk all of it into the down-payment for the house. Lost every cent: "shared property," they said. And "The kids need a place to live, so we're not ordering the house sold." Divorce is hard for everyone, especially non-custodial fathers, whose basic needs just don't enter into the equation. As Norman Mailer says, and he should know, "You only know a woman after you're divorced. All else is illusion."

patona314 Feb 18 2007 07:42 AM

iramets wrote: I brought money into the marraige and sunk all of it into the down-payment for the house. Lost every cent: "shared property," they said. And "The kids need a place to live, so we're not ordering the house sold." Divorce is hard for everyone, especially non-custodial fathers, whose basic needs just don't enter into the equation. As Norman Mailer says, and he should know, "You only know a woman after you're divorced. All else is illusion." I loved my wife when she was my girlfriend.....................

iramets Feb 18 2007 09:33 AM

There are two types of married people in this world, those who wish they weren't married to their current spouse, and those who will wish it. My girlfriend was the most wonderful person I'd ever known, until we got married. Then I turned into one of these people who wonders, every time she was late arriving somewhere, "Oh, well, maybe she got killed--there's always hope." Sad as it sounds, Patona, you're probably lucky, though these next few years it may not seem so. Get through the tough times ahead, though, and your life will be much improved. As unhappy as my divorce made me, now I'm just unhappy I didn't get divorced years sooner.

Nymr83 Feb 18 2007 10:45 AM

theres another kind of marriage you're forgetting...the kind where you stay together because you both love and don't want to upset the children.

metsmarathon Feb 18 2007 11:31 AM

then there's also the type of marriage where you marry the right person...

KC Feb 18 2007 12:11 PM

I don't know what I'd do without my wife, who else could put up with me?

iramets Feb 18 2007 02:13 PM EDITED FOR GRAMMAR Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 18 2007 02:28 PM

metsmarathon wrote: then there's also the type of marriage where you marry the right person... It's comforting to believe that "the right person" actually exists. Everyone who ever married felt that he or she had found "the right person" but no one thinks so forever. Eventually, all couples either get divorced, stay together detesting each other, or get good at lying to themselves about how blissful they feel married to the same fucking obnoxious twit. Marriage was a good idea when life expectancy was about 35 years, and murder investigations were in their infancy, but now it's just disastrous. Of course, this is only true of the human race. Present company is an exception to these iron-clad rules of mine, and no personal offense is intended.

ScarletKnight41 Feb 18 2007 02:22 PM

No offense taken. But after 20+ years of marriage I'd renew his option in a heartbeat. I'm reasonably sure that D-Dad feels the same way about me.

Rockin' Doc Feb 18 2007 08:38 PM

patona, I sincerely hope that your divorce is as painless as possible for all parties involved. iramets, I'm sorry that your marriage experience was not a good one, but thankfully not all marriages are quite as disastrous as you seem to believe. Mrs. Doc and I will celebrate 25 years of marriage this summer. I won't say that it has always been a picnic, but I can't think of anyone else that I would have rather spent the time with. Marriage, like friendship, takes work, but when it works it is well worth the time and effort you have invested into the relationship.