Seeking Arrangement: College Students Using 'Sugar Daddies'

Post Reply New Topic

and my mom makes about 3 times more than my dad, and he still has a 6 digit income. yet in a divorce he would have to pay childsupport because that has been the precedent in court.

Yes, it is so sad that both parents are expected to contribute to their children's lives emotionally and financially.

Look, I'm crying now.

*sob*

Lawyers specialize in causing conflict in already tense and combative situations. It's called "Billable Hours". The average contested dissolution of marriage costs an individual $40,000. If you don't think the attorney has a dog in the fight to make sure the process is as long and problematic as possible, you're ignoring our society's capitalistic and selfish spirit as well as its sadistic exploitation of the legal system. This includes your parents' buddy who likely never has to worry about making his car payment or mortgage payment.

Of course, your parents know a lawyer and I've known and worked for many lawyers, as well as hiring a few to handle my family law cases. Obviously, you know more about it than I do. You even have a little sexist joke to prove your point. Good lord, how could I have been so wrong all these years?! Why didn't I know about I wan all the money all the money all the money allthemoney allymoney alimoney alimony!

*sob*

Hehe. Laws are foolish.

rofl. you still fail to see what i say and continue bantering on the dumb parts. little has changed. The fact of the matter is that divorceis something that has been set as a precedent in court. The precedent being the woman keeps the kids and gets the alimony. And seeing how my lawyer buddy himself is going through his own divorce I think he was a good example.

while it is expected for both parents to contribute to THE CHILDRENS lives in the vast mayority of divorces the children dont see all of that support. It usually goes to the ex wife. If it was just for the kids Id have no issue with alimony. But now a days it is expected to give the exwife her life back in a silver platter. I think it should be up to the person that wanted the divorce to pay or leave clean handed.

MXH, I see where you're going wrong, now. I'm glad you expanded on your previous thoughts.

1) Alimony does not equal child support. They are two separate items, determined separately. Please look them up.

2) What happens in a divorce depends largely on the circumstances of the marriage. This "precedent" that you keep going on about a) does not stay fixed over time, b) largely depends on what state/county/locality you live in, and c) usually exists to make all parties equal. In the unlikely event (I just don't see it any more) that a couple has decided that the wife should stay home and not work and only work to maintain the household (unpaid), of course alimony could be considered. Otherwise, she could not eat once the gavel banged. Do you understand that? But it would not be limitless, and more and more it's not for life, it's scaled depending on the length of the marriage and it's tailored to make it amenable to the stay-at-home spouse ultimately to integrate into the workplace. But this is not tied to the sex of the spouse. If the wife worked and the husband stayed home, he could file to collect alimony. In situations where both work but the income is vastly uneven, there are special considerations, decided on a case-by-case basis.

3) all parents should contribute equally to the protection and care of their children. If you disagree with how the courts decide on how to value "contribution" that is your problem. If the primary caregiver has been a particular parent, or if the children are better suited living with one parent for one reason or another, that is where the court is going to place them. Period. The end. Several states now have mandatory classes on parenting that have to be taken before the parents are granted a divorce.

4) Rarely are things "awarded" in a divorce unless it's that highly contentious. Those kinds of divorces are way, way too expensive for most people to endure, so more and more people are going through "collaborative divorce". Most divorces are agreements that are negotiated and drawn up and, I can't stress this enough, SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES.

5) for every buddy you have seen going through what you think a typical divorce is, I can name ten couples and detail their divorces, and it doesn't match your experience. This is not one-upsmanship, I'm simply older and have more friends who've gone through this.

This is why I negotiated a settlement where I pay most of the children's expenses directly rather than just handing her a wad of cash, About half of my support (which far exceeds the "legal" requirement anyway) is paid this way.

But even though my kids are well-off materially, I still feel horrible for the fact that they have to grow up in a broken home - no amount of money will fix that...

And i repeat myself. In a perfect world everything you said would be 100% right always and without a doubt the best way to go. But it is not how it happens. Why would someone that earns 1/3rd of their partners still have to pay alimony to them just because the precedent is that guys pay in divorces? And yes i have seen divorces that happen that way. It is a flawed system and no matter how much you try and quote what the law is you will never quote how it is applied because its too varied.

Grisha, please stop saying "broken home". I find it really insulting. A truly broken home is where the dysfunction of the parental relationship has been allowed to govern the lives of the children.

Then provide less dumb parts. Oh, and take your personal insults and shove 'em.



Actually, alimony is rare nowadays. In many states there is still a precedent that the wife is the residential parent of the children, however there are states, like FLORIDA, that don't even provide Sole Custody. It's all Joint Custody, renamed Shared Parental Responsibility and paternal rights are upheld. A husband can very easily become the residential parent if he wants it and can handle it. The non-residential parent then provides child support.

Florida law originally made these changes in consideration of homosexual parents, where the concepts of mommy and daddy aren't defined by outdated marriage definitions nor confined to the process of dissolution of marriage. In other words, some people who have kids aren't married so they can't get divorced, but they might still need a custody agreement and, also, some of these parents might be the same sex. How can the law favor the mother when they're both mothers or when there's no mother at all?

The fact that Florida needs to oust the cavemen restricting gay people from getting married is another issue entirely but, thankfully, is unrelated to the structure of family law and its application in the courts.



Your parents' lawyer buddy. And an emotionally bitter male lawyer going through a divorce himself is not a logical and rational source.

Oh that reminds me an attorney I interviewed for my divorce. I started with, "My ex-husband is an abusive alcoholic and I just want to make sure the kids are safe while in his care." and he LAUGHED and called me a liar. Obviously, I didn't hire that swell upstanding guy. Ooo! Maybe he knows your parents!



Here's another dumb part I get to banter about. Child support is paid to the residential parent. Full stop. The residential parent pays bills, extracurricular activities, school supplies, food, fun, and savings with this money. These are expenses the residential parent is paying regardless of whether s/he is receiving child support so whether it is physically the residential parents' money or the non-residential parent's money is immaterial because the non-residential parent owes the residential parent money in contribution to their children's well-being. Child support in Florida is calculated based on what the earnings and expenses are of both parents and then is shifted to be more realistic. Parents often agree on this amount in the Mediation and a judge just has to make sure it seems fair before approving it. Some other states calculate child support as a percentage of the non-residential parent's income, like Illinois. I receive $50/week for two kids from my ex-husband because jurisdiction is in Illinois. Let me tell you all the partying I do with that money! I'm living large! Or maybe I would be if he actually paid it. Unless one manages to marry and divorce a professional basketball player or one of the living Beatles, the child support amount is merely a fraction of what is necessary to provide for the children.

There is only one exception to this format that I can think of and it was an agreement made between the husband and wife, where he pays certain expenses directly and probably pays for a lot more for his kids unprompted by any court order because they are his kids. That case is in California and the person involved participates on this forum.



My ex-husband was physically, emotionally and sexually abusive. I barely escaped with my life. I wanted the divorce. He was perfectly happy with how things were. After my years volunteering at a women's shelter, I realized my experience wasn't anything unusual or unique. Therefore, your suggestion is invalid. People are equals. One spouse does not become a victim simply because the other spouse wants a dissolution of marriage. You obviously have opinions based on the limited exposure and knowledge you have and want to cling to them as if they are accurate and relevant. In a moment, I'm going to close Chrome and leave my computer desk, then what you believe will not matter to me. But while you have my attention, I hope you accept some accurate information instead of resting in some bizarre opinion that just doesn't make any sense in Florida family law.

after divorce, on average women's income goes DOWN, and men's income goes UP, even though the men are supposedly handing over cash.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... n-research

on average in the US, women's income drops 37% after divorce.

http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/love ... ivorce.htm

so i dunno where you are getting your information from, but it seems anecdotal.

EDIT: women are apparently the major breadwinners and they do pay alimony, just like men do. there's no institutional discrimination there (theer are probably some isolated cases, but the preponderance of case law tends towards considering finances and lifestyle only - not gender).

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Co ... imony.aspx

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend - you do know that I am divorced with young children myself, right? I was really just referring to my own situation...

Oh, I know, and I also know you didn't mean to offend, and I'm probably too sensitive, too. I bust my ass making the nicest and best home for my children (and I even bust my ass sometimes making sure my ex-husband's home is nice for them, too), so the concept that no matter what I do their home is still "broken" is just really offensive to me.

I won't use that word any more, OK?

I hated the bad neighborhood my children were living in (with their mother) but they (her and her live-in boyfriend) didn't have the income/credit to be approved to rent a better place - so I co-signed their lease with them just because it would make my children's lives better...

Child of divorced parents here, honestly not a bad thing. Many friends with married parents had it much worse. Its really all about the people...

See, I knew you'd get it, and I don't mean to stifle your expression in any way. Sorry I'm so hot button on this. Go read my arousal response, instead!

Why did she divorce you?(or was it really mutual decision?) You don't sound like a man and a father who deserves to get divorced, what really happened?