jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (33 posts)

Divorce Settlements Out of Control in America!

  1. RKHenry profile image80
    RKHenryposted 7 years ago

    Divorce settlements are growing out of control.  Take this news story video copied from CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/200 … ideosearch

    I can see no justification for someone needing this amount of money.  When are the judges of America going to realize that allowing these big settlements will only lead to new government regulations on a federal or state level.

  2. kerryg profile image87
    kerrygposted 7 years ago

    Haha, I saw that story. That woman needs a severe dose of reality. I hope the judge laughs in her face.

  3. 0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    Oh it's just hatefulness. Who cares about either one of these spoiled rich people? I say if she can get it, more power to her.

    Most women come out of divorces piss poor but the media loves to slobber over any exception.

    Actually, lots of people can't even AFFORD to get divorced right now. They want to, can't afford it, so they have to stay married and live like roomies.

    1. RKHenry profile image80
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that the "staying married roomie" thing has taken off as the newest trend in the divorce saga.  But hatefulness on our part for thinking that maybe there might be some state or federal backlash laws is us being realistic.

  4. 0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    No I didn't mean you personally were being hateful, I just meant its a media hatefulness thing. Haven't you ever noticed how the media love to find some 'bitch' and then have at her? They do. Look at how they love to bash the octomom. It's some kind of media bloodsport.

    1. RKHenry profile image80
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh.  I got ya.

  5. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    The whole marriage thing is insane anyway.  It makes sense NOT to get married--just live together.  All (or most--with some added) of the benefits, not of the bs.

    I for one (and perhaps I am unusual) do see a man's point of view in this situation, as my own father (with his first wife--not my mother) was a target of the ridiculous child support laws and how they are enacted, as is currently my partner.

    Yes, a lot of women are dirt poor after a divorce.  (Though perhaps that is something of a generational thing, too). Thing is, maybe some (and sorry if this sounds tough or rough, ladies) need to start living in reality and not buy into the old traditional story...or use the old traditional story, maintain their careers, etc.  My mother always worked--I respected her for that.

  6. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 7 years ago

    Women generally do far worse financially from divorce, compared with men.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I definitely know that, or at least have heard that, LG.  I must just have an affinity for these kinds of men, literally then...   I mean if you knew whole mixed up story of my father, etc.

      I of course understand the problems with women in the past and low paying jobs in conjunction with kids, etc.  But what I'm saying is that it is no longer the case--and I do believe women and men would be much better off (in general) if a woman maintained her career (just as a natural part of life).

      I'd also point out that there are definitely deadbeat type dads out there.  But there are deadbeat type mothers out there, too (just perhaps manifested differently).  Right now, the child support laws in the US are so crazy that it seems no matter what a father does (goes to Alaska to work as an engineer and gets hit in the head with a piece pipe, ie, and spends months in the hospital, say, smile) he is required to pay.  If he cannot pay, he is considered in 'arrears' and subject to seizures of his bank account, etc.  I have even heard that in some states (not verified) men in this situation are denied air travel--sometimes required to work (I mean?).

      These laws supposedly support the women, but I think they are a little out of date, frankly.  I don't know what it is like in the UK.

  7. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 7 years ago

    Here, it's a % of your pay per child. I think it's 15% for 1, 20% for 2, and 25% for 3+. So if your pay drops, so does your obligation.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What if unable to work due to illness or something?  Is the sum owed on child support tacked on at a later date, 'in arrears' and accrued interest?

      1. LondonGirl profile image91
        LondonGirlposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, their payments are the actual %, so it goes up and down with your actual income.

  8. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    One former friend was balking because all she got was 1300 dollars a month and full benefits.  On the other hand I know people who cannot even get their ex-boyfriends to pay child support, so it seems to really vary from situation to situation.

    1. 0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      My kid's father and I worked out a system of shared custody where no one paid child support. I paid for their tuition, clothes, shoes, most everything but no one handed a check over to the other person.

      I think we'd have fewer problems with this if there were better social services in place for kids. It's expensive and difficult to raise kids, and many women have a very hard time after divorce because it's generally more of a 'hit' to a woman's income than a man's. Even when women work full time, in most households they make the smaller salary, so after divorce their income isn't cut in half, it's more like knocked down to a third of what it was.

  9. willpower123 profile image60
    willpower123posted 7 years ago

    That is right

  10. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    So, sorry to bug you further on this, LG, but I'm very very curious about the differences between Europe and the USA on some of these matters.

    You are saying the men (or whichever parent is responsible) is NOT at any time held in arrears if he is injured, loses a job and cannot pay the child support?  He would never owe back child support due to issues like that?

    That's how we do it here in America.  Lovely.  The same as shutting off utility bills at a moment's notice....

  11. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 7 years ago

    This isn't gospel, not my area of law. But a quick look at the Child Support Agency's website confirms that the amount paid changes if the income of the non-resident parent changes.

    "Parents should tell us if the non-resident parent's regular income changes, or there are any other changes to the information that we used to work out the amount of child maintenance that must be paid.

    A non-resident parent should tell us if they:

        * start or stop working for an employer
        * start or stop being self-employed
        * change jobs
        * become unemployed, or
        * start work after being unemployed.

    If we have told a non-resident parent's employer to take child maintenance from their earnings through a deduction from earnings order, the non-resident parent must tell us if they change their employer.

    A non-resident parent must also tell us:

        * the name and address of their new employer, if they have one,
        * the amount they expect to earn, and
        * their payroll or employee number, if they have one.

    Not all changes of circumstances will mean we need to change the amount of child maintenance that should be paid. We may not change the amount of child maintenance if the change to the non-resident parent's regular net weekly income is less than 5%.

    If your income changes, and child maintenance has been worked out using the current scheme rules, you can check to see if your child maintenance should change by using our calculator. "

    So if you were sick, and only getting Statutory Sick Pay, or lost your job, and were getting Job Seekers' Allowance, your payments would be re-calculated. If you then went back to work, they would go up again, when you actually started getting the extra income.

  12. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 7 years ago

    I stuck in a quick calculation on to the CSA's tool, based on the non-resident parent having a weekly post-tax income of £420, 2 children, and those children staying fewer than 52 nights a year with him. He also has no other children living with him (step-children, new baby, etc).

    He would pay £90 a week, or £4680 a year. Very roughly, he would be earning about £34k a year gross (before tax, NI, and pension contributions).

  13. ctpi262 profile image62
    ctpi262posted 7 years ago

    Wow. I never really considered the stats as they varry from country to country. Has anyone considered the divorce rate from country to country? I don't have the time now but I think I will be researching this topic.

  14. GeneriqueMedia profile image60
    GeneriqueMediaposted 7 years ago

    We're teaching our kids via the media, I think, to get hitched and have babies as soon as possible. Though, admittedly, I think its more directed towards one gender than the other.

    Personally. I'd like to see marriage revoked in the legal sense. Its a bond between one human to another and its in the context of culture and usually religion.

    I'm not saying I'd throw out "joint" laws. But its so easy to enter into marriage legally right now and then divorce on a whim...obviously, people are telling society they don't need marriage as its existed in society for so many years.


  15. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    In an English film on a 7th century BC story, a man dates with a woman and another man demands her. The leader of the group, intervenes and pulls out the second man with his sword. The leader was none other than Romulus, creator of Rome. The necessity for a bonded relationship between man and woman arose before 26 centuries before.
    The present happening that marriage breaks as and when they wish is like animals going together for sometime and change the opposite when they like. There should be some morality in our life. Without morality, there is no point in talking about terrorism, poverty, etc.  Children born out of gay marriages will surely become affected in some way or other. They are sure to be poorer, may take up terrorism, and may even go in for suicide.
    So, marriage between two committed persons, who are ready to live together for a whole life should only be solemnised by the churches.  Or else, all social evils will be recurring.

    1. countrywomen profile image76
      countrywomenposted 7 years ago in reply to this


      Your concern for the institution of marriage is commendable. I just would like to know whether did you mean by "out of gay marriages" that children born outside marriage or adoption by a gay couple. In both the cases where it is socially and legally acceptable it shouldn't be looked down upon. Secondly there are many criminals from perfectly "normal" families too and there have been geniuses from these other families. Social evils is a very broad term and I am not an expert and all I would say is that generalizations tend to be incomplete and sometimes faulty too. Have a great day sir. smile

      1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
        VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It is welcome if a gay couple adopts a child. That attitude to adopt a child will come only for committed couple only. They cant be said to be gay. My comment was that children "born" out of gay marriages.. that is whenever they like they may go the other way.... will be subjected to hardships. Perfect normal families will never have criminals, as long as they are perfect. There should be some errors..  Genius from criminal or underprivileged families means that they are always aiming high inspite of their background. Commitment to an ideology will make everyone a superhuman.... like Ratnakar becoming Valmiki.

  16. AEvans profile image75
    AEvansposted 7 years ago

    I do not believe a woman should rake their husband over the coals, it is mere hatred when they do this. As for child support,that is what it should be used for (child support)meaning activities , clothing , dentists etc. Not for the other parent be it male or female to get their hair , nails, shoes shined etc. again we our government is failing it is pitiful.sad
    Who ends up being hurt? The children due to all of the arguing and hate between parents. What does it breed? Dysfunction.sad

  17. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    The anthropologist Margaret Mead suggested that modern societies adopt two levels of committed relationships or marriages.  One for couples without children as of yet or who do not want children, a second committed relationship phase or marriage for those who plan to have children.  The second level of commitment would be much harder to extricate one's self from and would ensure there would be a plan for children to be taken care of.

    Ostensibly, this would cut down in a rational way the social ills produced by our current conception of modern marriage.

  18. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    The western world, which constitutes around 25% of human race cannot speak of social practices for the whole people. Asia, which constitutes around 60%, sticks to strict social practices. Those who came out of original lands in gangs, drive out local people and establish their supremacy have no right to talk of modern society. Their separation from their mainland and their quest for grabbing the richness of the new world may find it fit to have "modern" societies.

  19. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    And yet, you see fit to pronounce judgment on us--in particular, Americans, as you have labeled this post as you have.

    Margaret Mead was an anthropologist--a scientist who looked at many, many cultures around the world--Asian, Caucasian, Polynesian, African.  A scientist--meaning that she put away a lot of the cultural and religious strife and other human stupidity to look at things clearly.  Something which is not being done here.

    Of COURSE, Americans should not talk about modern society, their own country and their own people and those who are alive presently should be tried for the sins of their ancestors.  That is such excellent and humane reasoning ! wink

    1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No special animosity against Americans. Let them have their own society with decent culture, own their own country. No trial is needed for sins of ancestors. It is enough if you regret for them. It is proof of the strength of the conquerors and weakness of the native people, who were unable to protect themselves.   Eventhough several centuries have passed it is very much distressing to read their plight while they had to face the armed gangs, with wooden instruments. Scientific discoveries won over them. We should mention of "human rights violations" by American settlers against the red Indians.

  20. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    I am aware of that.  I physically, literally live among those Indian people--not far from places like "Bloody Basin" and "Skull Valley," where atrocities were committed. I took Native American Literature and History in school.  Presented by a real live member of the Creek tribe from Oklahoma. One of my favorite writers is Joy Harjo, who is Native American.

    The sins of ancestors are not just limited to Western European colonialists.  But I don't see any modern day members of those 'tribes,' at least here now, criticizing modern day members of Asian or Middle Eastern former empires.

    Perhaps all the fuss is truly about the mindset of all of mankind, and not about the superiority of one culture to another.  And as always, science or technology can be used to help or to harm.

    1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Dear Lita, can you describe native Indians as "tribes"? It is their place and you (ie., your ancestors) went there as tribes.
      Some cultures are in fact superior and we should accept. All manking could not have identical mindset. You can see saints and god-men living side-by-side in a terrorist infested area in India. No one can change the mindset of both.

      1. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I can call them that.  That is their official and legal term here, used on a daily basis.  In news articles and other things I've published, that is always the term.  That or "Nation."  Depends on the tribe.

        I am aware of the history of Europe.  I had that in school, too.  And I actually wrote a book proposal for a historical novel concerning the Celtic and Goth tribes circa 100-300 AD.

        I am egalitarian in my approach to peoples.

  21. cindyvine profile image85
    cindyvineposted 7 years ago

    Wish I'd got a divorce settlement! All I got was sole custody sole guardianship and NO child support!

  22. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 7 years ago

    Lita, did you see I posted the information you asked for about child payments higher up on this thread?