Quote:
Originally posted by Raven
We are human; therefore, we procreate.
There are easier ways.
Rather than go through the state, get yourselves lawyers who negotiate, rather than court date.
Realising that if you got along that well with your spouse, you'd still be married...allow the lawyers to do their jobs.
There are excellent child advocate lawyers out there.
The problem is not just the women..let's not forget the disappearing guy.
Alimony, in some states, is now referred to as rehabilitation payments or whatever...and, it's designed to allow women who have stayed at home or had menial jobs so they could be with the kids...the opportunity to get vocational training so they can support themselves.
The dilemma, as I see it, is this.
When there are children, it's best if someone stays home. Period. There should be a bank account which allows the one who stays home ....a salary, as much as can be spared.
If the marriage stays intact, then it's a great retirement fund. If the marriage goes astray, the one who stayed home for that time, gets it as a lump sum settlement.
Child support should not go away; but, both parties need to contribute to a general fund.
Parents who divorce should be forced to live in the same school district to allow their children access to both of them.
|
except in this day and age, a good majority of households are dual income already just to stay afloat. So if both are working, what reason is there for awarding alimony? She's already got a job. Fortunately, when I divorced, I was in a non-alimony state. Alimony today is archaic. It's not 1950 anymore.
As far as living in the same school district, that's not always a good thing either. Some divorces end in restraining orders and all kinds of other bad shit. Not everyone has the faculties to conduct themselves like a decent human being. And for the ones that do, I still must disagree. Providing no one has done anything criminal, you can't force them to live somewhere if they don't want to.