ethics
06-10-2003, 10:02 PM
Ask a buddy at work. Ask your neighbor. Even a relative will probably have heard of one. And the stories are always the same: she took his house, his car, and his kids. She made more money than him and he still had to pay alimony. She accused him of physical abuse and the courts didn't even ask for evidence. It seems that no matter who you talk to these days, someone knows of a man who came out of a divorce robbed and humiliated. And there is no end to how harrowing such stories get.
Thus starts a decent (albeit angry, and most of it rightfully so) opinion piece in the AskMen Web site.
Consider these fine points in the unfairness of the male laws:
Courts consistently refuse to lower child support fees when the father's income drops. Known as the "Bradley Amendment," this law forbids any reduction in child support arrears, even if the father is disabled. We already discussed this and I believe one member (Wacko?) is still affected by this.
If a man remarries, his new wife's income can be used as proof that the man can pay alimony. If the ex-wife (and mother) remarries, however, not a cent of her new husband's earnings goes to child support. The court's rationale? They are not his children, thus not his responsibility.
Current data indicates that women are becoming the biggest perpetrators of domestic abuse. Furthermore, many women brainwash children into saying their fathers were abusers. Courts will nonetheless believe a woman over a man, just because she is the mother.
In California, if the higher-earning spouse, who is typically the man, is hurt during marriage and gets a monetary settlement, the court can award some of it to the wife even if he suffered all the pain and permanent loss of earning capacity.
The earning spouse will be ordered to pay the attorney's fees of the dependent spouse, which is usually between $5,000 and $20,000 US, even if the latter initiated it.
I have to admit that even 5 years ago, I would not think that something like this column (http://www.askmen.com/fashion/austin_60/92_fashion_style.html) would be printed. Thank goodness for the Internet! :)
Thus starts a decent (albeit angry, and most of it rightfully so) opinion piece in the AskMen Web site.
Consider these fine points in the unfairness of the male laws:
Courts consistently refuse to lower child support fees when the father's income drops. Known as the "Bradley Amendment," this law forbids any reduction in child support arrears, even if the father is disabled. We already discussed this and I believe one member (Wacko?) is still affected by this.
If a man remarries, his new wife's income can be used as proof that the man can pay alimony. If the ex-wife (and mother) remarries, however, not a cent of her new husband's earnings goes to child support. The court's rationale? They are not his children, thus not his responsibility.
Current data indicates that women are becoming the biggest perpetrators of domestic abuse. Furthermore, many women brainwash children into saying their fathers were abusers. Courts will nonetheless believe a woman over a man, just because she is the mother.
In California, if the higher-earning spouse, who is typically the man, is hurt during marriage and gets a monetary settlement, the court can award some of it to the wife even if he suffered all the pain and permanent loss of earning capacity.
The earning spouse will be ordered to pay the attorney's fees of the dependent spouse, which is usually between $5,000 and $20,000 US, even if the latter initiated it.
I have to admit that even 5 years ago, I would not think that something like this column (http://www.askmen.com/fashion/austin_60/92_fashion_style.html) would be printed. Thank goodness for the Internet! :)