Women more likely to ask for divorce

ThinkProgress

Medusa22 wrote: »

I'm in a civil partnership with a woman, soon to be a marriage once the legislation comes through. So am I doubling my chances of getting divorced then since we're both women? I suppose we'll both try to screw each other over then financially if we do get divorced. :rolleyes:

Hard to say. The dynamic in a same sex relationship might be different.(shock/horror/outrage... did he say same sex marriage is different to hetro marriage?? How dare he?) lol

I don't necessarily blame all women for screwing men over. It's the system that's fcuked up... some women might use it to their advantage, others might just accept the judgement of the courts as the reality of life without questioning it's fairness.

Colser

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

No, you are increasing your chances of becoming cash rich,..Getting married as a woman is better than investing in stocks and bonds and 99% of women make out like a bandit, houses, cars, as many kids as you want. With those odds you both will be loaded and are free to do it again and again. It's the way to go if you have a vagina. :;)

:D...Think I will head into work and hand in my notice,probably stop buying lotto tickets also..I always said that there must be an easier way to get rich;)

B0jangles

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

No, you are increasing your chances of becoming cash rich,..Getting married as a woman is better than investing in stocks and bonds and 99% of women make out like a bandit, houses, cars, as many kids as you want. With those odds you both will be loaded and are free to do it again and again. It's the way to go if you have a vagina. :;)

If Medusa22 and her partner get married and divorced then remarry repeatedly will they just keep getting richer and richer??? :eek:

Of course this will be balanced out by the unfortunate male couples who will just get poorer and poorer if they try the same thing

hatrickpatrick

Pupzep wrote: »

I think women often marry men that they don't, fancy, I think this contributes to the divorce as it's hardly ideal to be with someone who doesn't make you wet.

Generally speaking, women don't like it when there boyfriends/husbands are sexually attractive to women in general as it it reduces how much they can control their boyfriends/husbands. They will want to have sex with him though as he has options with women and that is in essence sexy.

Monogamy has to be one of the funniest pranks on society, it makes life difficult for men and women.

There certainly are complete w@nkers like those you describe, but the majority of women aren't like that at all. Referring to those who object to their boyfriends being attractive because it means less control. If someone, male or female, is showing that kind of mindset, then any potential partner would be well advised to run a thousand miles.

I've seen it happen with both genders and it's just insanely creepy. One of the first signs is objecting to their partner working out in the gym, under the pretence that "it's too time consuming / boring / you can't hang out with me as much" when in actuality it's "I don't want every lad/lass on the street chasing after you"

There was an article in the Daily Fail a few years ago about women objecting to their husbands having cosmetic surgery specifically because it meant they couldn't manipulate them as easily into staying in what were obviously unhappy relationships. And given that the Daily Fail has always been a sexist rag, I have absolutely no doubt that there are plenty of men who share the exact same mindset.

It sort of ties into what I'm saying about divorce though. It should be easier to leave that kind of toxic or abusive relationship unscathed. The fact is that removing the threat of an easy breakup doesn't turn good people into bad people, but it allows the bad people to let their "good" mask slip. That's really the only difference. Someone who was never manipulative in the first place won't turn into a monster once they have that security, but since it can be incredibly difficult to tell when someone's persona is an act, I don't blame people for avoiding the risk altogether. Male OR female.

Old Jakey

I like how it's sexist and hateful for men to point out the fact that men get screwed during the divorce process.

Cold War Kid

Old Jakey wrote: »

I like how it's sexist and hateful for men to point out the fact that men get screwed during the divorce process.

It's not at all when it actually happens. It is though when this is used as an excuse to have a go at women.

ThinkProgress

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It's not at all when it actually happens. It is though when this is used as an excuse to have a go at women.

And it happens on an alarmingly frequent basis... so it's perfectly fair to highlight it.

I think some ladies just want to have their vagina and eat it too! :pac:

Cold War Kid

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And it happens on an alarmingly frequent basis

It does?

hatrickpatrick

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I think some ladies just want to have their vagina and eat it too! :pac:

How strangely erotic :pac:

Medusa22

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Hard to say. The dynamic in a same sex relationship might be different.(shock/horror/outrage... did he say same sex marriage is different to hetro marriage?? How dare he?) lol

I don't necessarily blame all women for screwing men over. It's the system that's fcuked up... some women might use it to their advantage, others might just accept the judgement of the courts as the reality of life without questioning it's fairness.

Well I have no objection to you thinking that the dynamic in a same sex relationship is different, it is different. Maybe you think that two women won't screw each other over though because you think that women only like to screw men over?

daisybelle2008

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It does?

Just look around you at all the separated parents, they are all loaded. Every woman I know is getting tonnes of cash and none are struggling to make ends meet. I have plenty of friends in that position and all (99%) are living the high life, flash cars, holidays. :rolleyes:

I am divorced myself, my first hand experience is this is not happening with 'alarming frequency' or anything close. Have the people posting this been through the courts themselves?

My experience is people struggling for a rare night out with back to school expense, and desperately trying to get a better paying job (even the qualified ones) to make ends meet and balance childcare. meet ups are where's the cheapest food/early birds because everyone is on a budget. Especially where the man was in the building trade etc. and now unemployed and house in negative equity. They are not able to provide even half what it takes to raise a child never mind pay the mortgage.

I'd really love to know where all these cash rich divorced mums are, because I have honestly never met a single one and I'd be fairly sociable with a wide group of friends.

The Corinthian

Modern marriage is in need of some major reform, TBH. It's become a temporary institution, masquerading as a permanent one.

Think about it, once divorced, the marriage is over. Finished. You are no longer joined. Yet, if you have a breadwinner and a homemaker, the former still have to act as breadwinner for the latter and, last I checked, the latter does not have to act as homemaker for the former.

Assets, even those that long predate the marriage and potentially those that come long after it, have to be divided up? Why? It's no longer a unit? What did the spouse who gains from this division do to earn assets that were already earned long before he or she appeared on the scene - or years after they left it?

The whole concept is broken, TBH - that one may marry at 25, divorce at 40 and still be paying for them at 70. Does that make sense?

How it works out is who is poorer will profit from a divorce. They may not be as well off as they were during the marriage, but they'll still be a lot better off than had they remained single.

This does not make everyone who is financially less well off than their husband or wife a potential golddigger, but the option for abuse is all too readily available.

And this can be a man or a woman - just happens for various reasons (most notably because we still assign certain roles to genders) that it'll be a woman the vast majority of the time who will gain from a divorce. There's nothing sexist about pointing that out, neither does it mean that anyone is loaded at the end of it. It's just the statistics.

But even if in the minority, women will get burnt too, if they're unfortunate enough to be earning much more than their husbands (classic case I've come across, the husband was an 'artist', while she worked for a living). Or their husband has a disability.

So to those men, or women, who want to avoid ending up on the short end of the stick in divorce, be careful who you marry. Don't marry someone who already earns 20% of what you do before marriage. Choose someone who isn't going to decide that staying at home is the pinnacle of their ambitions in life. Avoid people with histories of mental health or debt problems. Or both.

Won't cover everything and things can change along the way, but you'd be surprised how many weddings I've seen over the years that were like car crashes in slow motion because one spouse decided to ignore such red flags.

It's common sense really. Not very romantic, but neither is losing half or more than you own and being in indentured servitude to bankroll someone you divorced 20 years ago for the rest of your life.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Modern marriage is in need of some major reform, TBH. It's become a temporary institution, masquerading as a permanent one.

Think about it, once divorced, the marriage is over. Finished. You are no longer joined. Yet, if you have a breadwinner and a homemaker, the former still have to act as breadwinner for the latter and, last I checked, the latter does not have to act as homemaker for the former.

Assets, even those that long predate the marriage and potentially those that come long after it, have to be divided up? Why? It's no longer a unit? What did the spouse who gains from this division do to earn assets that were already earned long before he or she appeared on the scene - or years after they left it?

The whole concept is broken, TBH - that one may marry at 25, divorce at 40 and still be paying for them at 70. Does that make sense?

How it works out is who is poorer will profit from a divorce. They may not be as well off as they were during the marriage, but they'll still be a lot better off than had they remained single.

This does not make everyone who is financially less well off than their husband or wife a potential golddigger, but the option for abuse is all too readily available.

And this can be a man or a woman - just happens for various reasons (most notably because we still assign certain roles to genders) that it'll be a woman the vast majority of the time who will gain from a divorce. There's nothing sexist about pointing that out, neither does it mean that anyone is loaded at the end of it. It's just the statistics.

But even if in the minority, women will get burnt too, if they're unfortunate enough to be earning much more than their husbands (classic case I've come across, the husband was an 'artist', while she worked for a living). Or their husband has a disability.

So to those men, or women, who want to avoid ending up on the short end of the stick in divorce, be careful who you marry. Don't marry someone who already earns 20% of what you do before marriage. Choose someone who isn't going to decide that staying at home is the pinnacle of their ambitions in life. Avoid people with histories of mental health or debt problems. Or both.

Won't cover everything and things can change along the way, but you'd be surprised how many weddings I've seen over the years that were like car crashes in slow motion because one spouse decided to ignore such red flags.

It's common sense really. Not very romantic, but neither is losing half or more than you own and being in indentured servitude to bankroll someone you divorced 20 years ago for the rest of your life.

Marriage can be either permanent or temporary. There is no masquerade, it's pretty evident.

Marriage is that space between public and private, and liminality is always hard to pin down, maybe impossible.

Friends are elective, family is not. Marriage is or was the way to legally establish , that is to say publicly establish that someone is your family, and at one stage changing this was not elective, now it is.

At least the relational parts became elective, but the financial ones did not, they remain permanent.

Divorce is an industry in and of itself. Lots of money to be made off conflict.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Marriage can be either permanent or temporary. There is no masquerade, it's pretty evident.

I'm afraid it is. Division of assets that pre or post date the marriage or maintenance for life for your ex spouse are not temporary. They are permanent measures of an institution that was once permanent and for life.

With, especially, no-fault divorce, it stopped being permanent. It because something that two people could enter and leave whenever either one of them wanted to. Or got bored. Or fell out of love. Or met someone else. Or whatever. When that happens it's finished. Done. Whatever family still exists, no longer exists in any legal sense.

Just because one does not avail oft his exit, doesn't make the institution any less temporary.

Medusa22

The Corinthian wrote: »

Modern marriage is in need of some major reform, TBH. It's become a temporary institution, masquerading as a permanent one.

Think about it, once divorced, the marriage is over. Finished. You are no longer joined. Yet, if you have a breadwinner and a homemaker, the former still have to act as breadwinner for the latter and, last I checked, the latter does not have to act as homemaker for the former.

Assets, even those that long predate the marriage and potentially those that come long after it, have to be divided up? Why? It's no longer a unit? What did the spouse who gains from this division do to earn assets that were already earned long before he or she appeared on the scene - or years after they left it?

The whole concept is broken, TBH - that one may marry at 25, divorce at 40 and still be paying for them at 70. Does that make sense?

How it works out is who is poorer will profit from a divorce. They may not be as well off as they were during the marriage, but they'll still be a lot better off than had they remained single.

This does not make everyone who is financially less well off than their husband or wife a potential golddigger, but the option for abuse is all too readily available.

And this can be a man or a woman - just happens for various reasons (most notably because we still assign certain roles to genders) that it'll be a woman the vast majority of the time who will gain from a divorce. There's nothing sexist about pointing that out, neither does it mean that anyone is loaded at the end of it. It's just the statistics.

But even if in the minority, women will get burnt too, if they're unfortunate enough to be earning much more than their husbands (classic case I've come across, the husband was an 'artist', while she worked for a living). Or their husband has a disability.

So to those men, or women, who want to avoid ending up on the short end of the stick in divorce, be careful who you marry. Don't marry someone who already earns 20% of what you do before marriage. Choose someone who isn't going to decide that staying at home is the pinnacle of their ambitions in life. Avoid people with histories of mental health or debt problems. Or both.

Won't cover everything and things can change along the way, but you'd be surprised how many weddings I've seen over the years that were like car crashes in slow motion because one spouse decided to ignore such red flags.

It's common sense really. Not very romantic, but neither is losing half or more than you own and being in indentured servitude to bankroll someone you divorced 20 years ago for the rest of your life.

I agree with you in the sense that marriage needs to be reformed, especially in relation to having to support an ex-spouse for the rest of their life. Like you said, women tend to be the ones who are given maintenance after divorce because they tend to be the primary carers and therefore give up their careers and are financially dependent on their spouse. I am aware that the system works the same for men who are stay at home fathers but like you said, that's a more rare occurrence and to do with traditional roles in society.

However the bit that I bolded is the part that I disagree with. In many instances when a couple has children they make a decision for the wife to stay at home to look after them because it is not financially sensible for the wife to work as the cost of childcare would be prohibitive.

If the wife decides to put her career on hold, or indeed to give it up entirely, in order to look after the children that she shares with her husband and to allow him to continue to work, that is a financial saving for the couple. Also, if they divorce, the wife may find it difficult to return to the work force after years of unemployment or she may not be able to progress in a career. In this instance I do believe that the main wage earner should support the ex-spouse who sacrificed their career to stay at home and look after the children. I agree that it should not have to be forever, perhaps until the ex-partner is financially stable or in gainful employment.

ThinkProgress

Medusa22 wrote: »

Well I have no objection to you thinking that the dynamic in a same sex relationship is different, it is different. Maybe you think that two women won't screw each other over though because you think that women only like to screw men over?

Actually, I meant exactly what I said - the dynamic is different. I don't know how the courts treat two women in a custody/asset dispute during divorce!

Perhaps the judge favors whichever partner puts on the best waterworks show, or gives them the best sob story? I really don't have a clue... I imagine there's not too many examples to choose from.

Like I've said numerous times (you seem to be ignoring this point), it's the system that's broken. Many women abuse the system, but it has to be flawed in the first place before you can manipulate it in your favor!

Triceratops Ballet

Forgive my ignorance but in instances where there are no kids do courts still award maintenance settlements to the lesser earning spouse? Or is it a case that both just walk away with what they brought to the table and 50% of the assets accumulated in the marraige?

That is surely the fairest way to handle the dissolution of a marraige where there are no children. As both parties are capable of walking away and providing for themselves and are arguable no worse off than if they had never married.

However in cases where there are kids I think that changes things hugely. Whoever leaves the marraige as the primary care giver to the kids is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to earning potential. I remember watching a documentary and have seen examples in real life where one partner opted to become the primary care giver and homemaker in order to allow their partner to persue their dream career working all hours, and yes, earning plenty for the family but those in that position said that they had only achieved the pinnacle of their careers because their partner had sacrificed their chance at a career. Their partners sacrifice had effectively allowed them to "have it all" reaching the top of their field and having a doting family. In instances where this is the case surely the party who gave up their career is entitled to some recognition for that?

In particular I know of an accountant and a surgeon in this situation the accountant gave up a very promising career when the kids came along so that the surgeon could pursue theirs. The family could have ended up as well off should either of them reached the top of their fields but neither of them could have managed it without some sacrifice from the other. What is the fairest settlement in a situation like that

daisybelle2008

Corinthian, you are working off an assumption (and for alarming frequency to be the default)
that most women stayed at home 'not working' (raising kids isn't work?) and rode their rich husbands coattail with a cushy life maintained after divorce and tonnes of their husbands hard earned cash thrown at them.

Most women I know work especially separated ones, the ones who didn't did so because childcare was too expensive and with tax credits it made sense to do it that way as a couple. Raising children in the home is work and the decision was always made as a couple because there wasn't much to be gained financially.

Now separated and struggling to cover costs, their income potential is lower (if the were off the career ladder) Negative equity and loss of jobs (construction) don't help. I do not know a single separated mother who is not working or desparately looking for more hours/pay.

'Losing half you own' ??? 50/50 is fair. You are one financial unit in a marriage.

Every woman I know is as willing to work as men. Are you saying women are lazier and don't want to earn there fair share in a marriage or divorce?

Also are the majority of stay at home mums doing it against their husbands better judgement? Tax and childcare costs seem to tip the desision.

Honestly looking at all the broken marriages around me I have yet to see anyone on the pigs back financially. One of my closest friends, much older lady who had never worked went back to work as kids had left home and she had to buy the husband out on the property. It was the only way she could do it. He was in construction.

The Corinthian

Medusa22 wrote: »

However the bit that I bolded is the part that I disagree with. In many instances when a couple has children they make a decision for the wife to stay at home to look after them because it is not financially sensible for the wife to work as the cost of childcare would be prohibitive.

TBH, I wasn't really taking about this. I was referring to those who have probably spent their twenties either largely unemployed or as students or in low-paying dead end jobs with little or no ambition to improve their lot. They're the one's who'll tend to find the first excuse to give up whatever job they had as singles and settle into a comfortable existence as a kept man or woman.

My point is you can generally spot such people long before you marry or there are any children present, if you bother to do so.

The Corinthian

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Corinthian, you are working off an assumption (and for alarming frequency to be the default)
that most women stayed at home 'not working' (raising kids isn't work?) and rode their rich husbands coattail with a cushy life maintained after divorce and tonnes of their husbands hard earned cash thrown at them.

Where did I say any of that? I think you're presuming I was talking about women, but what I wrote can apply to either gender.

The only time I even addressed gender is only that it's probably more likely to be a woman than a man, because of how gender roles are still seen, but beyond that it can happen regardless of gender.

Honestly looking at all the broken marriages around me I have yet to see anyone on the pigs back financially.

I also never claimed anyone was and even said that this is not necessarily going to be the case. Lot of misreading going on here.

Huntergonzo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Shared custody is the default. If you mean that the kids should split their time evenly between both parents residences then this is not what is best for them, especially when they are young. The less upheaval they go through, the better. So that means staying in their primary residence with their primary carer (who most often happens to be their mother).

Well that's just a long-winded way of saying you don't support equality, you support the current situation where mothers get primary custody the majority of the time. I'm for 50/50 custody where it's viable, ie both parents want it, they have the time to do it, they live close by and there's no drink or drugs problem etc, anything else is just unfair, plain and simple.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's most often not a choice to give up work in my experience. Childcare is expensive and having to accommodate drop off and pick ups as well as any sick days etc can be detrimental to a job.

What support do they get from the state to stay at home? I wasn't aware there was any.

Well having a child while married is most often a choice for couples, so if one of you has to leave work for an extended period then so be it, that's your choice. If you choose to have a child then a whole bundle of new choices comes with the child, that's only natural.

I don't know of any support people get just 'to stay at home', I never said those words, but if there is such support let me know, I might try and claim it at some stage. Anyway listen if you have a point to make here then please just make it, don't be going the long way around.

daisybelle2008

dottie_lottie wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but in instances where there are no kids do courts still award maintenance settlements to the lesser earning spouse? Or is it a case that both just walk away with what they brought to the table and 50% of the assets accumulated in the marraige?

That is surely the fairest way to handle the dissolution of a marraige where there are no children. As both parties are capable of walking away and providing for themselves and are arguable no worse off than if they had never married.

However in cases where there are kids I think that changes things hugely. Whoever leaves the marraige as the primary care giver to the kids is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to earning potential. I remember watching a documentary and have seen examples in real life where one partner opted to become the primary care giver and homemaker in order to allow their partner to persue their dream career working all hours, and yes, earning plenty for the family but those in that position said that they had only achieved the pinnacle of their careers because their partner had sacrificed their chance at a career. Their partners sacrifice had effectively allowed them to "have it all" reaching the top of their field and having a doting family. In instances where this is the case surely the party who gave up their career is entitled to some recognition for that?

In particular I know of an accountant and a surgeon in this situation the accountant gave up a very promising career when the kids came along so that the surgeon could pursue theirs. The family could have ended up as well off should either of them reached the top of their fields but neither of them could have managed it without some sacrifice from the other. What is the fairest settlement in a situation like that

A deed of separation (as opposed to juridical) where both parties agree how and what to divide is usual when kids are not involved.

It is very common especially in recession that the higher earner in the marriage loses their job and cannot pay so maintenance payments are revised according to income.

Do people know lots of divorced mothers not working and raking it in with tonnes of cash to spare and live a good life after kids expenses are paid??. I don't know any. Is this a common thing?

Kaiser Sosay

Two of my best mates have recently gone through this divorce process. One because he fell into bad health, lost his status and big paying job, so his wife traded him in for a 10 years younger version of him. Ironically my mate could have had any woman he wanted down the years. Most of his colleagues were women and he spurned a few moves that were made on him. So it was with cruel irony that his missus ran off with a younger guy after 12 years of marriage.

My other mate in the UK, was forced to change career and become an accountant (something which he hated) all because his wife thought he be better paid leaving IT. She walked out because she couldn't be bothered working part-time to support them while he finished up his finals. And wait for it, she herself was an accountant and couldn't even be bothered working part-time from home. She also wanted to pursue a new career as a movie director and have a champagne lifestyle. And despite then fact that my mate was the mother and father to his kid for the first two years of his life, meant nothing because as usual, his ex got custody. Meanwhile her mother had to move to the UK and become the kids mum, due to her daughter now being a party animal.

When I see guys who fit all the ideal husband criteria, then getting treated like **** by their women. It certainly is a big red flag to me to stay clear of a dying institution. Marriage certainly doesn't seem to represent the commitment and bond it once did in decades past. But in many ways it isn't a surprise, because we live in a completely self-obsessed world where sacrifice and loyalty have been discarded and replace with complete narcissism.

daisybelle2008

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where did I say any of that? I think you're presuming I was talking about women, but what I wrote can apply to either gender.

The only time I even addressed gender is only that it's probably more likely to be a woman than a man, because of how gender roles are still seen, but beyond that it can happen regardless of gender.

I also never claimed anyone was and even said that this is not necessarily going to be the case. Lot of misreading going on here.

I agree it can be either gender, do you know of lots of separated parents (either gender) earning enough in maintenance payments to live a high quality life and not work after the expense of children have been paid out? I can't think of one that is why I am cynical. I see a lot of people struggle, both sexes.

The Corinthian

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I agree it can be either gender, do you know of lots of separated parents (either gender) earning enough in maintenance payments to live a high quality life and not work after the expense of children have been paid out? I can't think of one that is why I am cynical. I see a lot of people struggle, both sexes.

Actually I do, but I recognize this would be the exception rather than the rule. Still, I'm not sure why you're asking me, because I've never suggested anything else. Maybe you would be better served by directing your questions to someone who has claimed that this commonly happens?

ElvisChrist6

There are definitely some bitter people in the thread, however the idea that because divorces come out in favour of women more shouldn't be really a slight at the gender but more that it facilitates the act of divorce more when the person initiating is more likely to have custody of children and all that. Because of arcane custody laws in many countries (our children's referendum made some great strides in this country), it is obviously less scary a prospect for one party. If a marriage is irreparably unhappy, then the obvious and healthy solution is to divorce, but for one party in it that might be a scarier idea for what they could lose so they might be less likely to pursue it. Someone pointed out it's pretty equal here for who instigates, with slightly more men doing it, but that's not the case in some places so I'm only really pointing out that it's not an indictment of women to say it's easier practically speaking to instigate. But, there are some here who do seem to think it's because they're all lying sluts... you get them types everywhere!

ceadaoin.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well that's just a long-winded way of saying you don't support equality, you support the current situation where mothers get primary custody the majority of the time. I'm for 50/50 custody where it's viable, ie both parents want it, they have the time to do it, they live close by and there's no drink or drugs problem etc, anything else is just unfair, plain and simple.



Well having a child while married is most often a choice for couples, so if one of you has to leave work for an extended period then so be it, that's your choice. If you choose to have a child then a whole bundle of new choices comes with the child, that's only natural.

I don't know of any support people get just 'to stay at home', I never said those words, but if there is such support let me know, I might try and claim it at some stage. Anyway listen if you have a point to make here then please just make it, don't be going the long way around.

Splitting custody exactly 50/50 is totally impractical in most situations and upsetting for children. In the majority of cases, both parents are granted shared custody so what's the problem? Unless you don't actually care about what's best for the children?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well generally speaking women choose to have children and hence often choose to give up work (not every woman does) and rear their children, it's not inflicted upon them and they get support from the state as well.

The bolded part implied that stay at home parents get state support? This isn't true as far as I know.

zeffabelli

There's a bunch of guys in this thread where it really is the lady doth protest too much.

No ones forcing you to get married. Get over it.

You're in a day and age where you can have all the sex you want without getting married.

Holy ****. Whingarama.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

No ones forcing you to get married. Get over it.

That's not entirely true in Ireland, as someone else pointed out earlier in the thread. Just living with someone for a few years leaves you liable to much the same consequences of divorce thanks to the cohabitation act.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not entirely true in Ireland, as someone else pointed out earlier in the thread. Just living with someone for a few years leaves you liable to much the same consequences of divorce thanks to the cohabitation act.

Oh that's kind of true.... Bar the four year waiting period...

No ones forcing anyone to cohabitate either but I do agree this legal manoever crosses a line ......it's not right....

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

No ones forcing anyone to cohabitate either but I do agree this legal manoever crosses a line ......it's not right....

It was designed to shift the responsibility from the state to individuals to financially support their ex's.

irish gent

I have told my kids to never marry full stop..as its a joke now.

Huntergonzo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Splitting custody exactly 50/50 is totally impractical in most situations and upsetting for children. In the majority of cases, both parents are granted shared custody so what's the problem? Unless you don't actually care about what's best for the children?

Well that's a very sweeping assumption that in most cases it's upsetting for the child, for a start no 2 cases are the same because no 2 people are the same, so how do either you or I know what's best for anyones else's child? All I'm saying is where 50/50 custody is viable then it's only fair that it's implemented, you obviously disagree with that as is your right.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The bolded part implied that stay at home parents get state support? This isn't true as far as I know.

I can see you have no intentions of making a point till I say the magic words, so I'll bite, em you wouldn't consider child benefit state support for parents and children no?

Ps, if you think I meant you get paid by the state to quit your job then you took me up wrong, I was merely pointing out that the state does help when you decide to have a child. Anyway I was under the impression that you get child benefit whether both parents are working or not, although maybe I'm wrong on that?