LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
quote:
ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2
The legal landscape is hostile not so much to men, but to people who work. In marriages with a working woman/non-working man, she is just as SOL as a man would be (in California). Since I work I would be very reluctant to marry. Even if your spouse is working at the outset of marriage, if he/she stops voluntarily or by circumstance, the working partner is screwed.
Uh huh. How shall I put this delicately? That does not match my experience in California. It sure as hell doesn't match the just recent acquaintance's experience in TX. Did you know that a man is automatically a child abuser if the woman says so? OK, perhaps not in a criminal sense... but enough to have zero custody and be required to make payments and have no visitation rights simply on her accusation. No investigation was ever done. What's there to investigate? We all know that women only lie about abuse 2% of the time, right? Oh, and when it came out that she had lied nobody felt any need to ... you know... throw her in jail. In point of fact nobody even felt the need to reverse the judgement based on the claim of child abuse. So I'm afraid you're going to need to work prety hard to sell me on legal equality in family law.
The good news is that Canada is so much more sane about so much family law than the US that I think there's a pretty good chance that getting married in Canada is not a fool's move. The even better news is that I have Carol and I really hope it stays that way.
I realize you only have your own and some "acquaintance's" experience to go by, so I was going to let it go until you started going on and on about things you quite obviously don't seem to really grasp. Sorry, but I will be as "delicate" as you.
Your acquaintance? I'm sure you haven't read all the paper work on his case, but I'm sure he is spitting mad and tells everyone "exactly" what happened. Only problem is that it likely didn't happen that way. Twenty years specifically in family law, I saw a lot more divorces than you and your acquaintance, so I actually know what the laws say, how to read them, interpret them and apply them.
So while I've no doubt you believe you got "ripped off," and "raked over the coals" in your divorce, there is no doubt much that you don't understand about how the law was applied. As for your acquaintance, I've no doubt you know his side of the story only, so you really can't even speak about it. I will say though, that courts don't go around reversing previous rulings without an application being made to the court.
Spiritedsub is right for CA and for basically every state in the US. Although CA has that pesky community property law. Fucks you guys over every time.
So there is one very simple solution to those of us who are older and have acquired "stuff." It's called a prenuptial agreement. Protects all those assets you are worried about, spousal support, etc. Of course, if you have children, that won't mean squat about child support, even if you include it, but hey, it offers this protection all you dreadfully wealthy people are worried about. In all seriousness, in this day and age anyone who has acquired assets prior to marriage, or is likely going to acquire significantly more assets without the assistance of their spouse, should have a pre-nup. It's common sense. Nothing in "iron clad," but if drawn up properly, they are as close as you can get.
|
RE: Would you be open to marrying your submissive half? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread