Divorce settlement alternatives?

[Broken Arrow]

BA, and in what state?

North Carolina.

If both parties consent and have it in legal writing, it supercedes state laws, and I think that's probably true in any state.

I also want to emphasize one last time that, when this started, she owed ME money.

[lovcom]

Not when it comes to child support.

The NC courts ALWAYS reserve the right to modify child support agreements regardless of what is in writing and even when both parties agree.

[lovcom]

lovcom, I think you are being extremely judgmental. No two marriages are the same, and it's even more so with divorces.

My ex owed me child support, and when I finally came asking for it, her response was that she wanted "more time with the children". I was just about to go to court over that when my oldest son came to me and told me that the kids agree it would be best to stay with mom more often.

I asked him why, and he said that they do miss having her around, even with her issues, and moreover, to quote my son, "I know you'll be fine on your own, dad. But mom needs me. I have to take care of her. That's why I've decided to stay with her, not because I care more about her than you or anything."

I grilled him some more and asked the kids to be absolutely sure if that's what they want. They still nodded. So... that's what I went with. Child custody is suppose to be the toughest and messiest part of divorce. But, ironically, it was dead simple for me.

But in the end, I agree that we do have to do what is best for the children. I certainly didn't want this reduced arrangement. In fact, I could have fought for it in court, and get more child support money from her. But I didn't, because that would have been what I wanted and not what the kids wanted.

Anyways, today, the kids and I get along great!

You are confused.

The decision of where the kids should live should NEVER be placed on their shoulders. This is an adult decision, and never a child's. By allowing your son to make the parent's decision conveniently takes you off the hook of responsability.

The rare occassions when a child can influence the court is if the child is late teen aged, and only on rare occassions.

Only a fool would ask their young kid "where would you rather live the most time"? Again, this is a parent's decision and almost never the child's.

[Broken Arrow]

Not when it comes to child support.

The NC courts ALWAYS reserve the right to modify child support agreements regardless of what is in writing and even when both parties agree.

That may be possible. I haven't gotten to that part yet. Wouldn't mind having some extra passive income.

[Broken Arrow]

You are confused.

Are you sure?

The decision of where the kids should live should NEVER be placed on their shoulders. This is an adult decision, and never a child's. By allowing your son to make the parent's decision conveniently takes you off the hook of responsability.

Your assumption is that children, or at least mine, are incapable of having their own opinions regarding their own life, and that therefore, someone "adult" obviously needs to make it for them.

Maybe that's true in some cases depending on age, personality, and condition. But... do you even know how old my kids are? Did you even stop to ask that maybe my situation may not fit yours?

Do you always plow ahead blindly towards everything and automatically assume that you must be correct?

Only a fool would ask their young kid "where would you rather live the most time"? Again, this is a parent's decision and almost never the child's.

Then I am a fool for trying to communicate with my kids. It would appear that I don't have your superior intellect to be able to tell other people how they should live their lives.

[lovcom]

Are you sure?



Your assumption is that children, or at least mine, are incapable of having their own opinions regarding their own life, and that therefore, someone "adult" obviously needs to make it for them.

Maybe that's true in some cases depending on age and condition. But... do you even know how old my kids are? Did you even stop to ask that maybe my situation may not fit yours?

Do you always plow ahead blindly towards everything and automatically assume that you must be correct?



Then I am a fool for trying to communicate with my kids. It would appear that I don't have your superior intellect to be able to tell other people how they should live their lives.

I assumed the children are 18 or younger. Am I correct? If they were adult kids, then you'd not have to consider their living arrangements now, would you?!?

I never said they should have no opinion. Rather, I said that YOU, the parents should own that decision, and only you two.

It is foolish to place such questions on kids, forcing them to choose between one parent and the other.

You would not find even one Psychologist in America that would agree with you on this.

And all that time you were not with your kiddies would cause intenst pain if I were you. You missed out on a hell of a lot of time with them if you didn't insist on 50-50.

[Broken Arrow]

I assumed the children are 18 or younger. Am I correct? If they were adult kids, then you'd not have to consider their living arrangements now, would you?!?

Just because someone is younger than 18, doesn't mean they won't have an opinion.

I never said they should have no opinion. Rather, I said that YOU, the parents should own that decision, and only you two.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I own EVERY decision I make. I don't let anybody else tell me otherwise. Not you, not my ex, not anyone. I make my own choices.

I simply choose to listen to others for input before I do. What's wrong with that? Doing so does not make one lose "ownership" of your own decisions. The very insecurity over such a notion is ridiculous.

It is foolish to place such questions on kids, forcing them to choose between one parent and the other.

I didn't force them. I simply opened dialogue about their feelings into the matter, and talked about whatever they wanted to talk about, which included the living arrangement.

I didn't hold them by their shoulders, shake them, and yell, "DECIDE!"

I think I should also remind you again that the custody arrangement isn't what I had wanted. It's what my kids specifically requested for.

I wonder who is the real fool? The one to tries to communicate and listen? Or the one who calls another foolish for trying to communicate and listen?

You would not find even one Psychologist in America that would agree with you on this.

Is that a fact?

And all that time you were not with your kiddies would cause intenst pain if I were you. You missed out on a hell of a lot of time with them if you didn't insist on 50-50.

Why does it have to be 50/50? Why can't it be 45/55? Why can't it be 40/60? Why is there somehow a loss of quality of life with your children if you didn't get that precise... 50/50? I would think your children's happiness should supercede some exact quantity of time.

[DayByDay]

The rare occassions when a child can influence the court is if the child is late teen aged, and only on rare occassions.

I believe the age is usually 14. A judge told this to my father when I was under 14 (decades ago), and a quick google search seems to confirm this.

Only a fool would ask their young kid "where would you rather live the most time"? Again, this is a parent's decision and almost never the child's.

How young are you talking about? I'm in my 40s and still resent that my emotional well being while under 14 was not considered.

[Scanner]

You want to parent your children just 4 days a month?

What a self-serving, selfish man you are!!! If you were a good father, you'd INSIST on parenting the children at the very least 15 days a month. They deserve better then just 4 days, and it seems you want it that way because it is more convenient for you, and would cost you a lot less money...what a selfish boy you are!

I INSISTED on at the very least 15 days a month shen I divorced the mother of my two little girls, and it would have been a lot more fun, easy, and convenient if she just took them most of the time, but unlike you, I thought of the little girls FIRST and FOREMOST and so I had them at my place 15 days a month.

You disgust me, as a man.

LOL. You sound like my wife - immature, judgmental and emotional.

What I want and what can happen are two different matters. Just please try to grow up. Sure. . .I want us to be one big happy family like June and Ward Cleaver with Wally and the Beave. That ain't happening.

The financial settlment and me having an appropriate environment for them to parent are two issues tied at the hip. Without an equitable settlement (her and her lawyer are bringing my take from 38% to 24% now), I am not going to financially extend myself.

Frankly, the less she gives me, the less help she gets because I have to work more. Luckily. . .luckily. . .I have 2 jobs and have been earning more the last 6 months. . .which I am happy to share. I am paying rent to my parents second place where I am now.

But I won't be baited into that ruinous decision to just go out and get my own place and doing the King Solomon thing you did.

Anyway, I would say don't pretend to be so "Holier-than-Thou." A lot of men want 15 days/month like you just so they dget out of paying child support. Poor decision.

But sure, I'm a negoitatiing kind of man. . .how about I come into the house and parent 15 days/month, she buzzes off for those 15 days? Why do the kids have to be inconvenienced and shuffled around and her alone in a 4bdr. house? No child support, no alimony. We both just fund the household depending on who contributes how much and how much equity stake?

I would consider that.

You see? That's how you "colloborate". Nothing is off the table for me.

But the way you communicated is a great example of how my wife communicates - nasty. So, I just disengage. IF she decides to go contested. . .my response is simple. . .just file away the $250 letters from the lawyer and not respond.

They use the same tactics you just used - "You are selfish. Your client is a dead-beat. He's a bad father." LOL. Then my lawyer writes back - "SHe's a bitch. She's gold-digging." Not happening. At least on my end. I'll just do as I please and it will settle.

It always settles.

Again, I thank you for the demonstration.

[Scanner]

PS: Broken Arrow is right. Age 14 is an age of "sentience" and they will take the child's opinion into account. The child doesn't get to decide, ultimately the parents and the courts decide. . .but if there is an even split on legal facts, the court will probably side with the child.

Pre-14. . .they will usually default to the mother. Courts are still gender-biased in that regard.

Other factors they will consider - how good a school district is, proximity to extended family, health concerns. . .the child just doesn't get to decide his/her fate but they have official input at that point.

[Scanner]

Broken Arrow:

Ironically, lovcom just posted this today on another thread, dispensing marital advice. Of this I couldn't beleive he wrote:

Today, 10:56 AM
lovcom
$ Saving HS Junior Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orange County, Calif
Posts: 201
Points: 1050.00
Donate



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
Trust your feelings about this (and about all things in your personal life); only you can know what's right for you.

This is the worse advise I ever read.

It is people's "feelings" that get them in trouble in the first place!

Never go with feelings. Better to go with the head, never the heart.

Be objective, pragmatic, dispassionate about money, wealth, and love life, and it is those types that are the happiest, have the least divorce, acrimony and the paradox is, these types have the most love and fulfillment in their lives too! Whats more, these types nearly always have a fat savings, little or no debt, and big net worths...

Yet he gets all emotional and vitriolic on this thread towards me and you.

If he would listen to himself, he could see that I am making an unemotional decision that will lead to greater happiness and fulfillment for the children in the future. That's the paradox he spoke of but conveniently forgot.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

that's cause kids are on the same level of intelligent as animals. You shuffle them as you see fit, and put them in their place. LOL.

Whatever settlement works out best for the parents. I never saw my biological father and we never saw a penny of child support. Better off that way. According to the law, my mom would have had to have paid him alimony in lieu of him paying child support.

[snafu]

Going back to the original question...if you have an uncontested divorce, you can choose from several common procedures...arbitration, collaboration or mediation for division of property, goods and access to the children.

Your lawyers do the legal procedures but a trained arbitrator, or a counsellor works with you each separately using the collaborative or mediated procedures. I have observed a great many divorces between neighbors, friends, colleagues and parents of kids I've taught.

The common element is that the children's lives change drastically as a result of divorce. Children are very resilient and can adapt to change quite well if they get a bit of help. You may as well sell the family home and give them a new environment as parental divorce changes the parameters of their lives. The more acrimonious the split, the harder it is for your offspring and they don't deserve that drama.

My suggestion is to put your kids first, second is the 'injured' party, 3rd is the instigator and lastly the lawyer who plays a huge role whether you realize it or not. Heck your divorce will pay for several months of his kids private school tuition if either of you is feeling feisty.

[mom-from-missouri]

No state allows you to waive child support, no not one.

So how did you do this?

Regardless of what the contract says, child support is ALWAYS chanagable buy either party or unilaterally by the judge, and this is true for all states.

Uh.....Missouri allows you to waive it. I told the judge I wanted the kids and nothing from the ex in the way of support-I just wanted the cheating, disease carrying lazy partying jerk gone.

In fact, my paper work even uses the word "waive" in one spot and "relinquishes the right to" in another.

I've had full custody since our divorce (several years) and not one penny from him.

However, it also states I have the right to request it at a later time..."waiving all rights to the demand and collection of child support for three minor children at this time, "

In the event of a major (over $2000) medical issue, he is to pay 1/2 of medical cost not covered by my medical insurance. But that is addressed in a seperate area of our divorce paperwork, not under child support.

[MonkeyMama]

Certainly both parties can agree to not do alimony or child support. I know many people in California who didn't do either, though they were "on the hook" for alimony or child support if not for their mutual agreement.

I suppose it could come down to, who enforces it if it is the "law?"