Anonymous wrote:Did the couple have children?

Maybe that's why he isn't paying child support!

Sorry, hit submit too soon.


Did the couple have children?... and if so, why is it going to his sister's kids and not his?

Anonymous wrote:OP, you knew about what would happen to the ring in case of divorce, yes? This is not new news, right? Return the ring.

OP. Sigh. There's always a Miss Cleo in each thread. I'm neither the DH nor the DW and you're not psychic.

Did the couple have children?

Anonymous wrote:OP. Here's a twist: What if the trust won't sue DW because DH's family wants to avoid messiness and doesn't want to risk access to the kids. Should DW still return the ring?

Yes, morally. Plus, why does she want to keep something that is so much apart of his family?

OP, you knew about what would happen to the ring in case of divorce, yes? This is not new news, right? Return the ring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was pretty clear before marriage what legally happens to the ring. Sorry if he was an abusive DH/horrible father, but that doesn't change the provenance or legality of possession of a family heirloom. You can't screw a family over of their possession just because one of their scions is a loser from Loserville.

OP. Right, that's the legal angle. But is the answer different morally?

I mean, morally is totally irrelevant, though. I assume all parties knew going in what would happen to the ring in case of divorce, yes?

Morally, of course, his stupid ass should pay child support. If he needs to sell the heirloom to do so, that's what should be done. He has a legal obligation there, a debt.

But should an entire family lose a valuable asset because one of its members acted like a jerkface? No. It wasn't truly his to give, it was his to loan.

OP. Here's a twist: What if the trust won't sue DW because DH's family wants to avoid messiness and doesn't want to risk access to the kids. Should DW still return the ring?

She needs to return the ring but I think it would be OK to use it as collateral to get the child support.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, she should return the ring. Why would she want it anyway? Bad memories!

What if the ring is very valuable and may be all she can get from DH to care for the kids?

Anonymous wrote:It was pretty clear before marriage what legally happens to the ring. Sorry if he was an abusive DH/horrible father, but that doesn't change the provenance or legality of possession of a family heirloom. You can't screw a family over of their possession just because one of their scions is a loser from Loserville.

OP. Right, that's the legal angle. But is the answer different morally?

Yes, she should return the ring. Why would she want it anyway? Bad memories!

Of course she should return it. It's a symbol of a marriage that ceases to exist. Who would want that voodoo curse ring sitting around in a drawer anyways?

It was pretty clear before marriage what legally happens to the ring. Sorry if he was an abusive DH/horrible father, but that doesn't change the provenance or legality of possession of a family heirloom. You can't screw a family over of their possession just because one of their scions is a loser from Loserville.

A DH proposed to his wife with a ring that has been in his family for two generations. She knew at the time that it is a family heirloom. The ring actually belongs to a family trust and was passed to DH with the stipulation that it is his only for his lifetime and reverts to the family after that to be possessed by his sister's oldest living child. DH and wife are now divorcing after 11 years of marriage. Leaving aside the legal implications (that the family trust may sue DW to get the ring back), is DW morally obligated to give the ring back?

Does the answer change if DH is an abusive asshole who has yet to pay child support?

Does the answer change if DW is the abusive asshole who cheated on DH and left him and the kids for her lover?