Basic Principles of Divorce Settlements

[lazs2]

thruster.. I beg to differ...

It fits everyone.    If you are in the military.. you get out and live where the kid is being raised or pay the child support..  at least under my rules you have a choice.

I don't understand about the love lottery thing.. do you mean bastard children?

No problem..  If one or the other parents don't want equal custody they can pay for support.

No parent owes their child higher education... 18 and they are on their own or can be helped if one of the parents so desires.

lazs

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund..  why am I not surprised that you are a divorce lawyer?  

lazs

LOL

[Thruster]

God Bless

I think I just read that one should quit their occupation (among other things) because they get divorced. That should make it real easy to adjust.

Beside the obvious new age child-centric focus of such a move, it opens the door for even more manipulation and duress to be introduced into an already ugly mess.

love lottery- when you marry a person who becomes a gozzilionaire. Although much is to be said that behind every great man/woman...... I'm not convinced Ivanna deserves half  of Donald's baseball card collection. Of course the rules change in the case of folks like the Clintons. If not for Hil's investment moxie they'd probably still be renting.

I tell my kids they can expect for their 18th birthday:

- A new suit of clothes
- $100.00
- a change of address card

They can trade the change of address card for a letter of acceptance from any accredited institute of higher learning.

As far as alimony goes.....
I have known women that I would understand someone paying to keep away. But unless there's been a demonstrable contribution to the other spouse's earning potential (supporting through school), a sacrifice of economic potential (quit job to raise a family) or obvious need (divorcing a terminally ill or disabled spouse)  then alimony just doesn't fit with modern sensibilities.

[Halo]

One more hallucination:  Have any of you ever heard of alimony and/or child support being indexed to the annual cost of living change (i.e., increase)?  Like federal and some state and company pay raises?  

If a divorced alimony/support payer still wanted to be as fair as possible to his or her ex and kids, presumably something like a 2 or 3 percent annual increase would be accepted as the fair thing to do to help preserve buying power.

If not, it would be one more insult to injury.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Halo
Thank you all, excellent and thought provoking insights.  

Would like to hear more from women too, and more on the following specifics:

1.  How long children are expected to be supported, e.g., to age 18 or 21.

[/b]

Children have the right to be supported until they reach the age of 18 or finish high school, whatever comes LAST.

2.  Whether children are "owed" college or other education or training beyond high school.

[/b]

LOL, no. Again, it would be impossible to set generic rules here, since we might end up forcing a widow on minimum income to pay for her sons tuition, or if we swing the other way, a multi-billionare who wont have to pay for his son going to community college (or whatever, you get the idea).

Children are supported until thye are 18 or finish high school, after that they are on their own.  

3.  If children are involved and if alimony is ordered, the reasonableness of my formula proposed in the thread starter.  Since no one has commented on its specifics so far, I'm assuming either it's too complicated to bother with or it's okay.  

[/b]

First, let me start out by saying there are two kinds of alimony, one is to the spouse, one is to the kid. I see alimony to the spouse as a form of socialism and I hate that, its complete BS.

Now, alimony to the child..
The idea behind alimony to the child is that the child should not be any better or worse off depending on which parent it lives with. The idea is that the child should live with the parent that is best for the child, and that any difference in living standard for the child depending on which parent it lives with should be compensated by the alimony.

The formula for this we have over here is something like this
A = Economic need of the child (or cost for food, clothes etc)
B = Costs regarding childcare, school, etc
C = Other costs (sports activity etc)
D = Income of the child

A+B+C-D = The need of the child

Economic situation of the parent (calculated for both parents)

E = income (both from work or capital)
F = taxes
G = expenses

E-F-G = surplus

If the child lives with you, you get to decuct more expenses, if you are remarried, part of your spouses income will be added to yours. There are rules regarding which expenses are accepted in this formula or not.

Now, here comes the formula

Need of the child x (surplus of the "other" parent/sum of both parents surpus) = alimony

So, if dad has a surplus of 100, mom has a surplus of 20, the child has a need of 50, we get
50x100/120 = 41

Numbers can never be negative, instead the surplus is set to 0. If the dad has 0 surplus, the government steps in and pays a certain sum to the child every month, this sum is then becomes a debt for the dad.

[lazs2]

thruster.. I am the one who said you need to adjust to the child you made.

It is not a puppy... your job is not the only one in the world and... you are the one who made the child.  You have an obligation to take care of the mess you made...  it is about responsibility for your actions more than "child centric" or whatever.

You keep the job you have.. you both do.   you stay in that job or that area until the kid is raised or... opt out and pay the other parent to raise the kid. Or... work out an agreement.. both move say.. or move close..  sheesh.. if you are that inflexable then you are probly unemployable in any case.

If you get rich while you are married.. the spouse deserves half.. they were their.. they were your partner... anything you had before is yours.

you both have equal visitation rites.   unless one moves away.. there is no such thing as alimony.   child support only exists if one moves away.

It is not complex.  the more complex you make it and the more you make it like doing some kind of sleazy tax form.. the more people will divorce and try to game the game..

this is of course all good for divorce lawyers.. just like accountants love complex tax forms... divorce lawyers love complex and unfair divorce laws.

divorce lawyers have a vested interest in seeing more and more divorces.


lazs

[Thruster]

Sorry lazs, doesn't wash.

Obviously your method is suggested to correct some specific issue of a divorce but it's clear you can't see the can of worms your ideas will open up.

It's good to see you can distinguish between offspring and pets but what you suggest reeks of the hippie mentality that assumes children can somehow be insulated by the breakup of a family. They can't.  And the idea that a divorced couple is going to "work out" any agreement be it about custody, geography, or financial splits is naive at best.

The idea of compelling a child to have two separate but equal homes is just dumb. If you take a second to work out the details I'm sure you will tend to agree.

But I'm old school. I believe in keeping promises, honoring commitments and making accommodations for the greater good. The idea that a marriage and family are transient constructs easily abandoned is one that I can't abide. I personally think single parenthood should be a felony, barring widowhood or incarceration. Not very realistic I know but if it were I bet these topics would come up less frequently. And I bet we'd take the idea of family more seriously also.

[Halo]

Hortlund, thanks much for your detailed insight.  Very helpful.  

On Google, one of the best sites I found was one talking about California divorces; the principles probably are similar in most states:

http://californiadivorce.info/index.html

I think the greatest difference in my naive assumptions and the state's viewpoint is this:

I start with the premise that spouse x and spouse y have only so much net income (100%) to be divided, including for child support.

States apparently often start with the premise that children are owed the marriage standard of living even after the spouses divorce.  And sometimes if the main support spouse (or ideally both spouses) cannot provide that standard, then the state will pay the difference and hound the support spouse who was supposed to pay the state's idea of what the child was owed.

Kinda like a kid riding in a cart pulled by two horses being transferred to a rickshaw and expecting to go just as far.  

The referenced site refers to alimony for half the duration of a marriage lasting 10 years or less, but then gets vague about longer marriages.  There is definite emphasis that alimony should not go on forever.  

The bad news is anything can happen in a divorce.  The good news is anything can happen in a divorce.  

Thanks again to all for sharing experiences and perspective.

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Halo
We know quite a few people who have divorced, and their experiences vary widely as you probably would expect.  Another person we know is getting divorced and is asking for advice beyond what will be received from paid mediators, arbitrators, lawyers, and the courts.  

A

If your friend is male, and the divorce is hostile, simply direct him to the closest gun store to buy a gun.  

For suicide would be a far kinder fate for him to experience.  

SIG 220

[lazs2]

thruster.. I am old school to.   you don't just make a kid and then pawn off responsibility for that child with a little cash.

there is nothing unworkable about my plan.. there is no can of worms save to the selfish.  there is no need for the parents to agree to anything save in a paralegals office or a court.   It simply needs to be fair.

I am far from a hippy.   I have no illusions that you can shield children from your or your spouses selfishness..  it is only that you owe them a parent.  You owe them your time and pretty much... your life.. till they are grown.  at 18 they should then be able to make good choices based on the example of honesty and sacrifice and responsibility that you have given them.

Something has changed.. your way is the real hippy way...  when I was growing up maybe 2 kids in the entire school came from divorced homes.

your way is the way that started with the love generation and continues on..  are things getting better?  is "if it feels good it must be right" working?   Is "my only responsibility to my children is to give money to their mom" working?

Do you think it is a better moral base for children to know their dad gave money every month to their mom and lived a life apart... or.. that he made the sacrifice and was there at least half the time for the growing up?

What lessons are learned by each example?   Make enough money to buy your way out of bad situations or... love your children and take responsiblilty.

lazs