If you divorce when kids are teens

[Anonymous]

SAH and parents who claim their careers “took a hit” talk about children like they’re a tech startup. Your sweat equity isn’t special because you couldn’t have done it without the other “investor” (I.e. partner).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess--and would hope--that neither your ex or your child will put your cheating in the past. You sound horrible.

Wow. As I mentioned above, I didn't have an affair. I'm curious why you think I sound so horrible?

New poster here. The reason you sound a bit horrible is that you seem kind of intense and angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m fascinated by all these “kids need equal time” arguments when in most married couples I know there is one parent that spends significantly more time with the kids but than the other (often mom, but sometimes dad). Why in divorce is equal suddenly the priority vs status quo?

Good question. I would THINK it's because in a marriage the spouses work as a team for whatever is best for the family. And unfortunately in divorce, there are probably feelings on animosity and territory when it comes to the kids. Sometimes there is even poisoning them with "Mommy/Daddy is bad because...".

It's a tough situation and obviously one size does not fit all, which may be the main argument for this 50/50 thing; so each parent has an equal opportunity to parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m a different poster, but seriously...

- anyone, man or woman, who takes multiple tears off during their prime earning years to raise kids will NEVER be able, financially or work-advancement-wise be able to recover completely.

- the person who did work benefitted from the SAH spouse beyond just the raising of the kids. For men especially, having a SAH spouse actually boosts earnings. [And the SAH partner benefited from being married to someone who could afford to let them stay home, so that's a wash]

- if you haven’t spent a decade managaing schedules, transportation, laundry, etc, it’s not the sort of stuff you can just start adequately performing. My DH asks me three times a week what time he picks up our son from soccer and at which field even though it’s the same every week and on the calendar. You don’t have to SAH to be a good organizer of family life, and SAH isn’t a guarantee that it’s a skill you have. But make no mistake - it is a skill. [Total nonsense. You cannot extrapolate from your husband's supposed incompetence to "you can't suddenly start managing schedules adequately". if he can manage his work schedule competently, he can manage his family schedule. IT IS NOT THAT HARD. Women just love to pretend it's hard so they can moan about how they do all the "emotional labor". ]

- the bottom line: you can’t erase the different sacrifices and benefits that two parties to a marriage have born or enjoyed once they want a divorce. A divorce decree and custody plan must account for the decisions the couple made while together. [Typically in divorce, women want to keep all the benefits and have their ex-husband keep making sacrifices. And yet women wonder why men are reluctant to sign up for marriage...]

Oh jeez, you must be MRA.

If a lawyer stops working when she has kids and is out of the field for 10 years, her earnings will never be what they could have been, not unlike someone who graduated into a recession. Meanwhile, her husband’s earnings will be greater than what they would have been without a SAH spouse. He will continue to enjoy that earnings bump post-divorce. Neither of them will be able to have the same standard of living post-divorce that they enjoyed together. Assuming she gets a job at $100k per year rather than the $250k she’d be making without those years out of the workforce, she has taken a huge hit to her lifetime earning capacity. It will affect her HHI forever as well as her social security payments when she’s older. Husband, otoh, will continue to benefit until the day he dies. (This is one of many reasons why I would never get divorced or agree to SAH).

It’s absurd to say women want to keep everything. It’s inarguable that their standard of living drops after divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why? Because I speak the hard truth?

I am not the one bankrupting myself to keep things "50/50." I married a great guy 30 plus years ago, so I have 100 percent access to our kids, who are about to launch into adulthood.

No wasting money to divorce lawyers -- instead it goes into family enrichment like vacations and college tuition funds. A much better use of family resources than Mr. 50/50.

Who you marry can make the biggest difference in your life. As Mr. 50/50 is finding out the hard way, crappy wife, crappy life.

hi

NP. You sound insufferable.

But yet, I am not divorced, and my kids aren't shuffled from house to house so things can be "50/50." They come from a happy home, not a brloken mess.

I get angry when adults are so selfish and don't put their children's well being above their own desires. Marriage can be hard work (although mine had been challenging only a few years out of the more than 30) and people give up too easily.

To repeat: you sound insufferable. And judgy and rigid. I’d actually hate to be your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got divorced when my D was 12-14ish. It was hellishly contentious and leading up to it my D went through various periods of up to several months where she would not see or speak to me.

However, I was adamant that we would have 50/50 custody and I simply told my ex and her counsel that I would accept nothing less. I said that without this I would fight in court until the very day D turned 18 and we would likely be bankrupt and possibly in deep debt for legal fees. I was willing to absolutely destroy our financial life over this and never wavered from making sure everyone knew that.

The reason I took this position was that I love my D and as far as I was concerned, my heart and door was always open. If she chose to not walk through and be in each other's lives, that was her choice (and frankly due to no small amount of her mother's influence).

I wanted the final judgement to be 50/50 and then I would deal with whatever the reality was after that. If my D refused to come see me then I would be patient and do what I could to heal the relationship because it would be on our terms. If there was a Court order that had skewed custody in it and denied equal time with both parents then I would not have the same chance.

My advice to anyone in a divorce proceeding and sorting out custody is to stand firm on 50/50 because it's in the best interest of the child to have the family (even in it's new divided form) work things out, not the Court System or Judge who looks at things for 20 minutes and makes a decision that will affects lives for years and years.

sounds like you were a cheater / walked out on your family and then tried to force your kid to stay in contact. nice.

50/50 comes with less child support. Of course he isn't going to insist the spend 1/2 her time with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If a lawyer stops working when she has kids and is out of the field for 10 years, her earnings will never be what they could have been, not unlike someone who graduated into a recession. [And what she got: to stay at home and be supported for 10 years at his expense. Why should she get that for free AND THEN get more of his money after the divorce?]

Meanwhile, her husband’s earnings will be greater than what they would have been without a SAH spouse. [Nope.]

He will continue to enjoy that earnings bump post-divorce. Neither of them will be able to have the same standard of living post-divorce that they enjoyed together. [Why should they?]

Assuming she gets a job at $100k per year rather than the $250k she’d be making without those years out of the workforce, she has taken a huge hit to her lifetime earning capacity. It will affect her HHI forever as well as her social security payments when she’s older. [She stayed home, at his expense, by her own choice. If that's what it cost her, so be it.]

Husband, otoh, will continue to benefit until the day he dies. [No he won't, and in real life he'll have to pay to get rid of her.]

It’s absurd to say women want to keep everything. It’s inarguable that their standard of living drops after divorce. [Of course women want to keep everything. It is absurd and unjust to insist that their standard of living, if it drops, should not drop after a divorce. She does not have to provide any of the obligations of marriage after the divorce, and therefore he should not have to, either.]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a lawyer stops working when she has kids and is out of the field for 10 years, her earnings will never be what they could have been, not unlike someone who graduated into a recession. [And what she got: to stay at home and be supported for 10 years at his expense. Why should she get that for free AND THEN get more of his money after the divorce?]

Meanwhile, her husband’s earnings will be greater than what they would have been without a SAH spouse. [Nope.]

He will continue to enjoy that earnings bump post-divorce. Neither of them will be able to have the same standard of living post-divorce that they enjoyed together. [Why should they?]

Assuming she gets a job at $100k per year rather than the $250k she’d be making without those years out of the workforce, she has taken a huge hit to her lifetime earning capacity. It will affect her HHI forever as well as her social security payments when she’s older. [She stayed home, at his expense, by her own choice. If that's what it cost her, so be it.]

Husband, otoh, will continue to benefit until the day he dies. [No he won't, and in real life he'll have to pay to get rid of her.]

It’s absurd to say women want to keep everything. It’s inarguable that their standard of living drops after divorce. [Of course women want to keep everything. It is absurd and unjust to insist that their standard of living, if it drops, should not drop after a divorce. She does not have to provide any of the obligations of marriage after the divorce, and therefore he should not have to, either.]

bolded person writing seems very angry and bitter. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m fascinated by all these “kids need equal time” arguments when in most married couples I know there is one parent that spends significantly more time with the kids but than the other (often mom, but sometimes dad). Why in divorce is equal suddenly the priority vs status quo?

Good question. I would THINK it's because in a marriage the spouses work as a team for whatever is best for the family. And unfortunately in divorce, there are probably feelings on animosity and territory when it comes to the kids. Sometimes there is even poisoning them with "Mommy/Daddy is bad because...".

It's a tough situation and obviously one size does not fit all, which may be the main argument for this 50/50 thing; so each parent has an equal opportunity to parent.

I think the issue for some people is about time spent where and that's what the focus is, but 50/50 custody isn't just about where you sleep at night. It's about who has decision making power, who the school calls when there is an issue or question (could be about academics or health), in many cases "joint custody" that isn't 50/50 will consider all of this, but often once a parent gives up more than 50% they loose the ability to weigh in on other issues. I also think it's easy to cast stones and make judgments when you are not in the situation. Having married into a 50/50 custody situation I can honestly say what seemed unusual and hard on the kid from the outside looking in, was really much more manageable and stable than many situations I have observed where there are two parents in the same household or a single parent.

Suffice it to say, there are people who will make custody decisions and decide on living arrangements based on money, fear of getting a bad reputation, spite and/or the best interest of the child/children involved and it happens in divorce as well as other family situations. (Even known a family to move b/c one parent wanted to be in a bigger house when it meant a longer commute for everyone and stretching the budget so thin it created other problems? Adults can be selfish)