Taking into consideration<BR>assets<BR>money before marriage, aquired after marriage<BR>childcare<BR>jobs<BR>age of children, should it matter?<BR>custody<BR>abuse<BR>affairs<BR>house<BR>stuff in the house<BR>cars<BR>pension plans<BR>benefits<BR>length of marriage<P>etc....<P>Don't forget while there can't be one law, keep in mind abuse can be on either side and so can not picking up your children (by choice)

I live in Minnesota which is a no fault divorce state. Everything we had was split down the middle 50/50. I have custody of the kids but since they are all teenagers they see their Dad when they want to. <BR>I would like to have been able to be compensated for being a faithful, good wife for 17 years only to be replaced by OW.<P>JIll<P>------------------<BR>live for today for there may not be a tomorrow

Here's my take (it mostly relates to children cause that is where I am):<P>assets and money before marriage, aquired after marriage<P>Everything that was acquired before marriage should remain with that party. Everything after marriage should be split, with extra shares going to the custodial parent and the parent that may need retraining to reenter the job market.<P>jobs<P>This is a sticking point with me. Each person should support the children to the best of there ability. You give up some rights when you decide to take this path. One of them is the ability to take a lower paying job if you want.<P>childcare<P>Both parents should agree who takes care of the children. Additionally, if one parent is working, the other should have the right to parent the children during the first parents work time, if they want to (right of 1st refusal).<P>age of children, should it matter?<P>I don't know what you mean by this. The "tender years" doctrine is a thing of the past. The children should go to the person to which they are most closely bound. This needs to be gender neutral.<P>custody<P>The parent who decided to end the relationship should not be primary custodian.<P>abuse<P>(Waiting for the slings and arrows) Abuse is overused in divorce cases. Not that it doesn't happen, but the pendulum has swung so far in the direction of the woman victim, all she has to do is breathe abuse and the man can go to jail. There needs to be some work on this one.<P>affairs<P>See above about custody.<P>house<P>See above about assets. In cases where the house is the long term family home, some consideration should be given to allowing the custodial parent to remain in the home, splitting the expenses based on ability to pay.<P>stuff in the house<P>Children need stability. The majority of the stuff in the home should stay with the custodial parent.<P>cars<P>Drive and pay for the car you had when you were married.<P>pension plans<P>Both partners, in most cases, shared in getting the pension, through activity or support. Long term marriages shold have some kind of split.<P>benefits<P>The person who has the ability at a reasonable cost should provide insurance for the children. Adults should get their own benefits.<P>length of marriage<P>Generally, the longer the marriage, the more benefits the stay at home parent (if theere is one) should get.<P><p>[This message has been edited by grandpabri (edited January 06, 2001).]

I would make it far harder to divorce. I think a six month waiting period is ridiculous - some countries have as much as 4 years, which makes far more sense. I would make it a requirement that the spouse could not bring the children to the home of the affair partner at all, much less have them sleep there. During the extended separation of many years, spouses would not be allowed to have anyone of the opposite sex spend the night when the children were present. Two or more years of counseling by pro-marriage counselors should be a requirement. <P>If you have children, and you choose to divorce your spouse, everything except for personal items should be left behind. Jointly owned items, including the house, should revert to the left behind spouse and children. Your children's standard of living should not change, even if it means that the non-custodial parent's standard of living drops considerably. If you choose to leave your children, you should not get joint legal custody. <P>My 10 year old daughter came up with what I thought was a good idea - couples who have been together a long time should not be allowed to divorce unless both parties want it. <P>Actually, I think the best thing would be to eliminate divorce all together when there are children, unless there was physical abuse - and if there was, it would have to be proven in a court of law and the abuser sentenced to jail. Basically, what it should amount to is that you shouldn't be able to divorce when there are children unless one party committed a serious crime. <P><p>[This message has been edited by Nellie1 (edited January 06, 2001).]

I don't have a good answer. But I raise the question that It takes two to get married, two to have children, So why can one destroy it all without the acceptance of the other? I to would make divorce much more difficult to obtain.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nellie1:<BR><B>I would make it far harder to divorce. ...Two or more years of counseling by pro-marriage counselors should be a requirement.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wantmyfamtogether:<BR><B>I to would make divorce much more difficult to obtain.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There is little point to trying to hold someone against their will. I like the idea of requiring counseling, and in fact the state I live in (Ohio) actually allows the courts to mandate it. But I'm told there is no enforcement, and so the law is meaningless.<P>What really bothers me is "no-fault" divorce. Between what the lawyers take and what the courts award, my wife can go and bleed me dry, and there's nothing I can do about it. I expect to have lost every asset to my name by the time my divorce is over. It's legal robbery, really.<P>A frivolous lawsuit can be dismissed, with attorney fees awarded to the defendant. There should be something similar for divorce.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by GnomeDePlume (edited January 06, 2001).]

rtn2,<P>you have been coming up with some great topic starters! I am TRYING to spend less time here and your making it difficult for me <P>I'll come back to this one, but I agree with everyone so far on all these issues. It definetly should be "harder" to divorce. The rest I need some time to write a good reply.<P>Dana<BR>

Sorry Dana.<BR>But don't leave completely.<P>My thoughts.<P>Upon filing for separation/divorce i think the assets should be audited and liabilities calculated. A sale should be taking place and everything split 50/50. This of coarse after you and your spouse have been given your assets back before marriage. But if your household comes up short then i guess your both walking away in debt....equally<P>Children<BR>younger ones should be with their mothers. Sorry guys.<P>I think it should be upto the children or at least taken into consideration what the child wants when they are 12.<P>In cases of abuse, i think that spouse should loose rights of custody. Obviously if your sexually or physically abusive you NEED help.<P>Otherwise joint custody.<P>But i also believe because some parents are neglectful of their visitation, for whatever reason. After 6-12 months of neglecting your child/children then you should loose your share of custody and pay more child support to compensate. <P>I also believe everything concerning a child should be split 50/50. Extra curricular activities, daycare, education, etc.<P>But as i list these situations there are always exceptions to the rules and people who know how to play the system. So because of this children will always remain some sort of prize in a battle where no one wins.<P>