Legal counsel for a divorce

[LADoug1]

How employable is she? If so maybe alimony isn't necessary.

 

But I concur. She probably would benefit from legal counsel.

[Rudynate]

We're luckier here in Australia, the family court is a federal court and there is a single set of rules for the whole country. Also alimony is not a thing, there is only child support, which is calculated on the income of the two parties. The law requires equally shared custody to be the starting point for deliberations, although it doesn't always end up that way, and there is still scope for lawyers to game the system. Matrimonial property is split at the time of the court ruling (and it includes de facto couples, not just married ones) and it's usually 50:50 including retirement savings, but the two people's income thereafter is their own issue, not their former partner's.

 

 

Couldn't happen here. A federal divorce law would most likely be unconstitutional, a usurpation of the "reserved powers"... the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution.

[mike carey]

Couldn't happen here. A federal divorce law would most likely be unconstitutional, a usurpation of the "reserved powers"... the powers reserved to the states by the constitution.

Marriage is one of the fields of legislation that our constitution assigns to the federal parliament. The High Court has held that that power includes the right of the Parliament to define marriage. So, we are stuck with no right to same sex marriage until Parliament so decides, no implied equal treatment right can trump the power of Parliament to rule it out.

[Kenny]

Well, for every situation with which I am familiar the system is either rigged in favor of women or women are light years ahead of men as far as being cunning, clever, and calculating in terms of knowing how to work the system. For some reason to my ears it sounds better as the Italians reference it.... "le astuzie femminili".

 

Why else would my female neighbor decide after two kids that she did not want to be married because she fell in love with her female therapist after having surgery on her leg and get the whole nine yards as far as receiving alimony and child support etc.?!?! Of course she sprung this on the husband the day after the addition, new kitchen, and improvements to the house were completed. Oh, and you guessed it! She obviously got the house as well. Plus, when the ex comes to pick up the kids for the weekend she won't let him set foot on the property he has to park in the street and the kids come to him. It's as if all of this was the husband's fault.

 

An aquantaince aged 56 got married in February for the first time. He obviously waited for the right woman. The guy remodeled and refurnished the entire house to her liking. A month ago she said the she was no longer in love with him. He thinks that it will be a quickie and cut and dry divorce. I'll keep you posted on this one. She's Russian and was using him to get into the USA, but he blindly could not see what she was up to. I would hate to know how one says "feminine wiles" in Russian... I doubt that it would sound very encouraging for the guy!!!!

In reality, heterosexual divorce typically has a much bigger negative economic impact on the woman, especially if she's working class or middle class.

 

(Russian grifters, like all grifters, are likely an exception.)

 

http://today.uconn.edu/2011/09/divorce-is-costly-for-women/

[Kenny]

My brother in KS had all bills and assets split 50/50, has to pay $9000/ month in alimony for 7 years, covered all healthcare premiums for those 7 years, fund an insurance policy payable to his ex-wife for the entire time, and was required to stipulate in his will should he die before the 7 years that she would get all that was due as a settlement to his estate

Another reason not to live in Kansas.

[Rudynate]

, no implied equal treatment right can trump the power of Parliament to rule it out.

 

That's good and bad. On the one hand, in the US, we don't know that the law actually is the law without the Supreme Court ruling on the law's constitutionality and the law can be determined by a small number of unelected officials that serve for life, but the citizens also have recourse against abuses of the legislative process. It seems in Australia, because the power of judicial review lacks teeth, the citizens lack an essential protection.

[mike carey]

We have no bill of rights, constitutional or legislated: the high court has teeth but it cannot enforce rights that are not there. It will strike down laws. but in a parliamentary system laws are brought to the legislature by the executive, and if it is even vaguely controversial in a constitutional sense, it will get impartial advice on whether it is likely to be overturned. On the other hand the high court here is not politicised to the extent that the SCOTUS is.

[LADoug1]

We have no bill of rights, constitutional or legislated: the high court has teeth but it cannot enforce rights that are not there. It will strike down laws. but in a parliamentary system laws are brought to the legislature by the executive, and if it is even vaguely controversial in a constitutional sense, it will get impartial advice on whether it is likely to be overturned. On the other hand the high court here is not politicised to the extent that the SCOTUS is.

SCOTSAS?

[mike carey]

SCOTSAS

The final court of appeal here, and constitutional court, is the High Court of Australia.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/

At Federation, each of the colonies (which became the states) had its own supreme court, so a different name was chosen to differentiate it from them.

[+ TylerandAce]

Coming to this thread a little late, but the worst mistake I made through the divorce was to have joint representation. It will always go the woman's way. And if there are kids involved, you can hang it up. Absolutely have your own independent lawyer looking out for your rights. 11 years after my divorce, we are still fighting in court. My ex is a bitter, homophobic, obsessed, self-centered, unhappy woman, but the court will only see that she needs supporting. I give her more money than the median household income of my state, but it's never ever enough. She remarried about a year after our divorce, but her main goal in life is to never move on and to revel in the ability to fuck with me whenever she wants. Definitely have your own representation. My lawyer does the best he can now, but it all starts with that original paperwork that is impossible to ever get amended in our system.

[LADoug1]

The final court of appeal here, and constitutional court, is the High Court of Australia.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/

At Federation, each of the colonies (which became the states) had its own supreme court, so a different name was chosen to differentiate it from them.

I just was curious what the acronym meant.

[mike carey]

I had wondered what you were asking. I wrote SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States. (At first I thought I had mistyped it and then thought you were guessing at an abbreviation for an Australian court.)

[Kenny]

My ex is a bitter, homophobic, obsessed, self-centered, unhappy woman

In my experience, we do things that support our deepest self-perception. Do you suppose that might be why you picked this awful woman in the first place? Unconsciously, of course. If you were closeted and getting hetero-married, you must have really been down on yourself. Choosing a bitter, homophobic, obsessed, self-centered, unhappy wife would surely confirm that your lowly opinion of yourself was right! You were "worthless," and partnering with her was proof. Now that you have left that misperception behind and in your past, you're still stuck with her, which is a total drag. But at least you are in a happier place, and giant congrats on achieving that. She's still unhappy!

[bigvalboy]

Interesting thread

 

And people say to me all the time, BVB, how come you never got married?... Really?

[+ TylerandAce]

I think I was just a repressed Southern Baptist who hadn't considered the possibility that attractions to men would mean being gay. I married my best friend because it was the right thing to do and I loved her. She was a lovely person, full of life at the time. We had children because we wanted a family. The realization that being attracted to men predicated a fulfilling marriage to a woman sent life onto a path I hadn't planned. Things changed and her obsession and competitive nature has consumed what could have been a life filled with joy. Instead, I am afraid that it affects everything she does. Plus, I kept a promise that if she made things difficult with the children, I'd move across the street. She looks at the front door of my house every day.

[MikeBiDude]

Coming to this thread a little late, but the worst mistake I made through the divorce was to have joint representation. It will always go the woman's way. And if there are kids involved, you can hang it up. Absolutely have your own independent lawyer looking out for your rights. 11 years after my divorce, we are still fighting in court. My ex is a bitter, homophobic, obsessed, self-centered, unhappy woman, but the court will only see that she needs supporting. I give her more money than the median household income of my state, but it's never ever enough. She remarried about a year after our divorce, but her main goal in life is to never move on and to revel in the ability to fuck with me whenever she wants. Definitely have your own representation. My lawyer does the best he can now, but it all starts with that original paperwork that is impossible to ever get amended in our system.

Well, I would cautiously disagree and still recommend mediation be investigated, if appropriate for your state AND your individual relationship and issues with said relationship.

 

I had zero issues with our (female) mediator in terms of child custody (50/50 and more like 90% me nowadays), fair child support, fair spousal support, etc. my wife and I parted friends (sometimes unusual I know!) with thou$ands not spent litigating the divorce.

[+ TylerandAce]

You are very fortunate to have married a reasonable person. I was not so. I am a firm believer that nobody will look out for your interests better than you can for yourself.

[Mount N Do]

Well, I would cautiously disagree and still recommend mediation be investigated, if appropriate for your state AND your individual relationship and issues with said relationship.

 

I had zero issues with our (female) mediator in terms of child custody (50/50 and more like 90% me nowadays), fair child support, fair spousal support, etc. my wife and I parted friends (sometimes unusual I know!) with thou$ands not spent litigating the divorce.

I agree. I'm not there yet and not sure it's gonna workout. If it doesn't, I'll do everything in my power to work this out amicably. I've had friends who've spent ungodly amounts litigating divorces and at the end of the day, the attorneys, more often than not, are the only ones emerging unscathed. And a little wealthier...

[Lookin]

She looks at the front door of my house every day.

 

All you need now is a new door knocker. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c3/97/a0/c397a05d9c216ec584a870725cebf9d8.jpg

[+ quoththeraven]

Joint representation and mediation are two different things. As I understand it, mediation involves working out a deal beforehand that the parties (not the mediator, who is a lawyer but is not representing the parties) then present in court. If the mediation goes awry, the mediator has nothing more to do with the matter and the parties start afresh in court. (Generally prior settlement offers are inadmissible.)

 

Joint representation involves the same lawyer representing both parties in formal divorce proceedings. While it's theoretically possible to waive the conflict of interest present in joint representation in a divorce case, because people can be unreasonable, change their minds, or fuck with you, it's not advisable. Personally, I think it should be per se unethical to engage in joint representation under those circumstances.

 

Laws favoring one party over the other without regard to the specific situation are an unfortunate outgrowth of the traditional (read: patriarchal) view of men as the providers and women as homemakers. That some women continue to look to it for security is as much society's problem as theirs. That some of them act selfishly or cruelly is on them as individuals. It is not an indictment of women in general.

 

Also, no one is anyone else's property. People may act in bad faith, but they cannot steal someone from someone else. No group is exempt from or unable to act in bad faith.

[Kuriousity]

Yes. I pay 4k per mo alimony and I have the kids AND she's remarried. Men get screwed.

 

Wait---she remarried & you still pay alimony? Why does she still get your money when she is sucking someone else's dick & getting to be the beneficiary on their life insurance?

[Kuriousity]

I think I was just a repressed Southern Baptist who hadn't considered the possibility that attractions to men would mean being gay. I married my best friend because it was the right thing to do and I loved her. She was a lovely person, full of life at the time. We had children because we wanted a family. The realization that being attracted to men predicated a fulfilling marriage to a woman sent life onto a path I hadn't planned. Things changed and her obsession and competitive nature has consumed what could have been a life filled with joy. Instead, I am afraid that it affects everything she does. Plus, I kept a promise that if she made things difficult with the children, I'd move across the street. She looks at the front door of my house every day.

 

Oh....I so love that last sentence. Would you two marry a dirty poor soldier?

[+ FreshFluff]

Also, no one is anyone else's property.

 

Why does she still get your money when she is sucking someone else's dick

 

I love this board. I really do.

[+ quoththeraven]

Wait---she remarried & you still pay alimony? Why does she still get your money when she is sucking someone else's dick & getting to be the beneficiary on their life insurance?

 

I wasn't going to butt in and answer, but some of the prior responses indicate that some states allow this. I agree that it doesn't make sense to leave an ex on hook for a superseded state-recognized financial partnership after a new one is entered into. I gather the idea is to ensure that the other party continues to enjoy the same standard of living as before. I believe Klifhangar said he could apply for a discontinuance due to changed circumstances but was not guaranteed one.

[MikeBiDude]

As I understand it, mediation involves working out a deal beforehand that the parties (not the mediator, who is a lawyer but is not representing the parties) then present in court.

Quoth...you reminded me of a key element in my (happy/successful) California divorce. You are correct re: the mediator, they just helped us work out a "legal" agreement, then I had to check "pro per" on my filing, i.e. representing myself. The mediator's staff did all the filling and work.