Here's where I stand on the things you mention in the paragraphs above:
1. Nobody should be taken to the cleaners. I concur. However the courts take a different stance that there must be (and this is what the courts try to do) some assignment of equity to say, a stay at home spouse who relinquished earning an income to instead contribute to the wealth of the family by enabling the working spouse. The courts are pretty formulaic about this honestly. And most typically that applies to marriages with children born of the marriage. Step children and kids who are not products of the marriage (unless they were legally adopted) are not seen in the same way. Think about it this way. If the non-working spouse had earning power of 100K per year and didn't work for 10 years, that's a million dollars of non-realized earnings. The courts factor stuff like this in when they figure alimony and child support obligations.
But who told her to stay home? Most of the women I'm meeting who want the "marriage stuff" all talk about how once they have a baby, they are going to DEMAND to be home with the baby for at least the first 1 to 5 years before the baby heads off to grade school. So let's say she can earn $60,000 that would be a loss of $300,000.
So the woman can DEMAND and make herself a stay at home spouse, and I have to be on the hook to pay for it?
As you know, I'm black, nearly 80% of our households are single mother households. The argument that you need one spouse to stay at home to "watch the kids" is a very outdated argument as the black community is prime example as to how you don't need that at all.
The spouse that could earn $75k to $100k per year should have remained working and the couple could have paid a day care or other family members to watch the kid. That's the plan I would want to follow, but literally NO WOMAN I'm meeting with the "marriage stuff on her mind" believes in that. Hmmm...I wonder why (
*cough* they want that alimony *cough*)?
2. Nobody's child should be taken away or "time with the child" reduced down to 4 days out of a 30 day month. Again I concur.
Now obviously there are exceptions to that in the case of abusive or dangerous or negligent parents, but barring that I agree with you. This is why in most states you have the week with mom/week with dad joint custody arrangement as the default setting in no-fault divorce cases. The court is the advocate for the interests of the minor children first, and the adults second. Or at least that is how its designed to work in most states in the US at the current time.
The problem is that it happens far too often though. You know how easy it is for a chick to put a guy in jail for Domestic Violence? Literally, the rules are that if the cops are called for it and show up, somebody has to be put in jail. A chick could call DV on you for literally nothing and the cops believe it. You could have just gotten your a.ss beat and she could say you beat her a.ss. So chicks can LIE and the system far too often believes their lies.
3. Nobody should have to pay a lifetime monthly check to someone they are no longer married to. To this I say it depends.
One of my friends is a doctor. When he was in college he married his first wife. She paid his way through medical school with her income. Once he was in practice she did not work outside the home as he preferred and she assisted him in running his practice without a salary. She raised the children until they divorced and was a full time at home spouse. She's got a college degree and her paycheck and career supported him through his professional education to the tune of six figures. He didn't have med school loans or the associated interest because her income put him through school. She had the ability to earn 80-100K annually, which she gave up at his request. They were married 10 years so this is approaching a million dollars in unrealized income she could have generated. Alimony is reasonable in a case like this because she made the financial investment and bet on his future and the family future. He was assigned to pay her 75K annually.
So this is one of those "perfect examples" for assigning alimony, even though in this example I don't believe alimony should have been assigned. I don't believe in alimony at all. If a chick legitimately HELPED me build my business, she should get an upfront CUT of that and be done.....no on-going fvcking residuals for life. That is insane.
Plus if alimony is to maintain the lifestyle of one spouse (the non paying spouse) why isn't the lifestyle of the paying spouse not required to be maintained? So in your example, why isn't the chick required to STILL come and help him run the practice if he's going to be required to keep paying her? Answer that question...........
So believe me
@Tenacity I understand the beef you have with the marriage contract. At this point I have essentially the same beef where I'm concerned personally.
This is a very PERSONAL thing to me as well. If I marry some chick and the divorce occurs, I run back on this forum and I have to listen to you or
@guru1000 tell me that I was the MAIN CAUSE of the divorce because I missed steps #13 and #135 in the "150 Things A Man Must Follow To Maintain A Good Marriage",
I will be further enraged.
Story short, you see how I blow up on here? There will be no more blowing up. This time I would actually do something that would either put me in prison or in a grave, or hell.....both. So it's best I do not participate in this. Maybe yourself, Guru, and others can be taken to the cleaners, or have a bad divorce, or whatever....and "just SMILE about it and go on with life".
I can't do that.
If a chick takes my fvcking hard earned money, that she had NOTHING to do with helping me build....I will be on CNN News. I guarantee you that. It's not a threat, it's a promise. I don't play around with bytches trying to take my hard earned money from me.
She had NOTHING to do with helping me get it, I don't give a fvck about some
"she stayed home with the kids" argument (when I didn't even WANT her a.ss to stay home, she demanded to stay home), in the black community the GRANDMA usually raises the kid(s) while the Momma and Daddy are off working. So why doesn't GRANDMA get a fvcking lifetime residual check then?
The whole Family Court system is bullshyt and I will never participate in it.
Everrrrrrr. There isn't shyt that's efficient about it. Hell, I know chicks right now with kids from Ray Ray and Pookie, the Family Court doesn't make Ray Ray get a job, get a degree, or do shyt to even buy a Happy Meal for his kids. But the good man, the working man, the educated man, and the stand up man....all have to be fvcked in the a.ss?? I will neverrr participate in this shyt. Everrrrrrr.