We're a liiiiitle short on water out here Galen :D-->
It's not a perfect system, by any means though. I know of instances where women, who are perfectly capable of getting a job, will refuse to do so, in order that their child support will be higher. Thankfully, my ex-wife has not chosen this route, while it would hurt me if she did, the extra child support in our case would not make up for the income she earns. On the flip side, there are men who will stay in a low-income, dead-end job, or frequently quit their job and collect unemployment in order to avoid paying.
Galen, your comment about income is insulting at best, what about sahms?
These women spend their lives taking care of home and family, what income did they ever get?
Another fact is that men still get paid more that women, they are still the main money earner. After a divorce, children need stability, and that includes continuity in as many things as possible. It is unfair for PARENTS to change the childs lifestyle, if you could afford to pay for Johnny's hockey lessons before hand why not after?
And you have really focused on the "bad woman"
what about men who leave their first family, get married have a whole new faimly and totally disregard the first one. Happens, alot.
Unless we're talking about the really high income folks, there are going to be reductions in lifestyle choices on both sides.
Whether we're dealing with a stay-at-home-mom or a career woman, the same money that supported one household, now has to support two.
Add to whatever expenses there were before, at minimum there is an additional rent to pay, a second set of utilities, a telephone, etc. Plus, the new apartment has to be furnished somehow, meals for a single person cost more per capita than feeding a family...it all adds up.
Some of us can't afford Johhny's hockey lessons any more because the money is going to rent.
This is a hot spot topic for alot of people, (me if you didn't notice, and I smile as I write that) saying that, I hope and pray that I never get divorced again, and that none of you suffer that pain as well, if you are in the middle of one I pray it will move quickly.
Noone gets married planning for divorce, they are heart wrenching to be involved with even as an observer.
My point in all of this is that 2 adults decied to get married, have children then these 2 adults for WHATEVER reason get divorced.
It is the right thing for both parties to put the children 1st, the adults had them, it is their moral and legal obligation to take care of them, thats all.
Oh, I also HATE when woman use child support to manipilate visitation, I wish that people would step back and try(as hard as it is) to look at both sides.
And for the record my Ex. is the best father and friend I could ever ask for, I love him dearly and want nothing but the best for him. ( just in case some one thinks my anger comes from ex. it doesn't)
"Galen, I do not mean to be argumentative but I find it absolutely impossible to believe that a woman could be granted a divorce on dessertion, while her husband is at sea. That is the most ludracris thing I have ever heard."
Happens.
"And a question, how long are your tours? Because I can not find one state that will grant a divorce on the grounds of dessertion with out the spouse being gone for at least 18 months, I could be wrong but I don't think so."
Four months.
"Not only that divorce papers would be sent to the soldiers last known address, which I would assume would be their base, which means to me that a fellow soldier would sign for them. Would you like me to believe that this soldier would not foward them accordingly, or notify his superior officer?"
Mail to the sailors goes to their 'command'. Their command being under-water, they do have office spaces but the offices are empty with a clerk to recieve mail and file the mail as it is stored in an empty closet. No body can access that mail, accept that named person. When the command finally does return to their office and mail is emptied from the closet and distributed to the sailors. If any sailor has been transfered to another command, before the command returned then the mail goes back into the system. Mis-addressed mail only gets so long floating in the system, before it is destroyed, following the law.
"I seriously doubt that an officer in the United States Navy, having recieved legal documents ..."
What? NO officers are envolved. In fact they would do as much as possible to not be envolved with this process. I have seen CO's get mail that parents would address to the command, and as soon as they determine that it is from a parent, they hand it over directly to the sailor. They really dont want to get envolved with that whole issue. Not legally, not morally.
Letters addressed to sailors will either be opened by that sailor or it will be destroyed. No body else will open that letter. Whether it comes from his parents, or from a court.
"I could be wrong, but I do understand the milatary (having grown up in and around it) and I find this paticular senario unlikely at best."
Served on active duty for 20+ years. Seen this acted out before my eyes many times, in various decades.
I had to go to court once, in 1982. I had been busted by a towny, carrying a knife on my belt. The arresting office told me that I could choose what he wrote me up for. To carry a knife on my belt was illegal in the commonwealth of Virginia, if it was a concealed weapon, and since the blade was in it's sheath it was concealed. Or I had the option, that as we were in NewPort News, I could be charged with exhibiting a weapon, since the handle of the knife was showing since it stuck out of the sheath on my belt. I was also charged with being on the beach, since where I pulled over my bike was alongside of a stretch of beach, I was in violation of the signs where the laws were posted saying "No dogs or sailors allowed on the beaches". For my court-date, my command let me off for that day, but refused to send anyone with me. I had asked my LPO for assistance and I thought that someone should help to represent me. They refused and sent me to deal with the courts myself, after all it is a learning experience. I was fined for both offenses [exhibiting a weapon and being a sailor on a beach].
JAG is cool to watch on TV.
It is possible that Navy legal may well show up to civilian courts, but I have never seen it happen. They negotiate contracts and labor disputes for the bases. They provide: wills, power of attorneys, and will help review paperwork that is being presented in a civilian court, but they themselves don't normally appear in any civilian court room. Navy Legal provides advise when asked, but can only advise one side of an arguement, not both partys to the argument.
SJA serves a different purpose. SJA serves to write-up charges against servicemembers that are about to go before NJP Mast or Courts-martial. To go to prison for a really long time, they want the legal paperwork to be just right. I did work closely with a SJA for about a year at Capodichino, she did watch JAG on Italian TV, and she thought is was funny. She did not do independant investigations. Investigations are done by the CIs and by NIS. She did not appear in any court outside of the Courts-martials that were being convened at Capodichino, and we provided her office with a steady-stream of them.
Most individual commands in the Navy, do not have any lawyers. They have no Navy Legal office, nor do they have a SJA office. Really big ships like carriers may have them, I dont know. Most commands are much smaller and dont any lawyers. Junior officers commonly rotate their a long list of responsibilities. Among that list is one that [man, I can not recall the name they have for this one duty] they prepare paperwork for NJP masts, and as such they may interview who is presenting the charge and who is being charged. But again the officer performing this role, is doing it as a temperary role and willhand it off to the next junior officer as soon as he can. They dont have any legal training outside of maybe reading the UCMJ. If the charged servicemember declines NJP mast, then that same junior officer must, form a list of who will serve on the courts-martial. He must see that each member of that courts-martial understands his duties, and he picks what other officer on-board will represent the accused servicemember. The possible fines and 'awards' of a courts-martial are far more severe than a NJP mast are. But a Courts-martial is the only way to hope that the 'judge' is going to hear solid evidence and not just hear-say.
In either case, most commands that I have served at [4 out of 6] had no lawyers attached to them, nor legal advisors, no SJA, no Navy Legal office. Officers can very possibly be great and wonderful, but if their degree was in engineering, or in history, or physics; how comfortable are they going to be addressing a civilian court? The commands that did have lawyers, had a SJA office and a Navy-Legal office, but again no one to represent the servicemembers in a civilian court room, unless perhaps for felon charges.
" ... I know of instances where women, who are perfectly capable of getting a job, will refuse to do so, in order that their child support will be higher."
Bonnie has stated many times, that should she divorce me, she knows it would lower her standard of living. As a retiree, she would automatically get 50% of my pay, according to the law. After that she could have access to the rest of it, but if you took out even a single percent of it, then her standard-of-living would be lowered.
There is simply no way to maintain the same standard-of-living through the divorce process.
And the only way to stop her from getting 50% of my retirement is for me to die. Should I die, she gets none of my pension.
Financially we must stay together, it is the only thing that makes sense financially. Both of us would suffer, financialy. Adn she is not abut to do anything that does not have some profit in it.
"Thankfully, my ex-wife has not chosen this route, while it would hurt me if she did, the extra child support in our case would not make up for the income she earns."
Good for her.
"On the flip side, there are men who will stay in a low-income, dead-end job, or frequently quit their job and collect unemployment in order to avoid paying."
"Galen, your comment about income is insulting at best, what about sahms?"
I did not intend to insult, sorry.
:-)
"These women spend their lives taking care of home and family, what income did they ever get?"
Okay.
"Another fact is that men still get paid more that women"
Only in the limited context that women tend to leave the job market, off and on again and they dont tend to build 'careers' the same way that men do.
My sister in-law however earns 6 digits a year, far more than her ex-husband does or ever did.
"After a divorce, children need stability, and that includes continuity in as many things as possible. It is unfair for PARENTS to change the childs lifestyle, if you could afford to pay for Johnny's hockey lessons before hand why not after?"
Did womeone tell you taht life is fair? They were mistaken.
Yes children do need stability, which would be a good argument for them to stay with teir fathers. Thank you very much. :-)
You still dont see that maintaining two households costs more than to maintain one?
Hmm, You both together had rented an apartment for $500/month, because you were a family and could afford it. But now after the divorce, only one of you can live there, so the $500 is still paid, but the other adult needs to seek other accomodations. That will cost. YOUR apartment at $500, plus HIS new apartment at $150/month, will cost HIM $650/month. Which is more than rent previously had been for the both of you.
It does cost more to run two seperate households than it did to run the one single household. Even though one of them will be substantially less or lower than the household with the children.
"And you have really focused on the "bad woman" "
Sorry but that has been my experience. Had I been in a career field which included females, I might have seen something different. But alas, no females have ever volunteered for submarine duty.
"what about men who leave their first family, get married have a whole new faimly and totally disregard the first one. Happens, alot."
Okay, if you say so. Again in my career, if a servicemember knowingly fails to support his family, it is a violation of the UCMJ, he will be charged for that crime, lose his security clearances and be thrown out, with a BCD {Big Chicken Dinner, or Bad Conduct Discharge].
If a servicemember commits adultery, it is a violation of the UCMJ.
"Divorce papers must be signed for, who is signing?"
Stuff that requires siging for, like return receipt requestes mail? That is signed by the mail-orderly-clerk before he un-locks the mail closet and stuffs it all in.
"Are we to believe that the milatary accepts service of a divorce notice (or any other legal matter) and does nothing?"
No the legal chain-of-evidence is maintained. It is signed for and locked up. The clerk will have attended a course and willhave been qualified as a 'Postal Mail Orderly'. I even wore tha that for a while. There are times, when you need someone to drive a truck down to the base post office and to take reciept of the incoming mail. You have to carry a 'mail orderly' card to do that job. So all middle to senior petty officers will routinely qualify for tha tjob and will carry the card. You go to the base post office and sign for the incoming stuff, throw it in the back of the truck, and get a burger, than drive back to the office, or down to the pier [if the boat is pierside] and haul those mail-bags in. If they are going to the office, then you get the keys and soemtimes we sort the mail according to what department each guy is in. A big box for each department. When one box is filled, you put it in the back of the closet and go find fresh boxes. If your in a hurry, just stuff the un-opened mail-bags in the closet.
The big problem is magazines. Everyone wants to rifle thourhg the magazines, and routinely guys get busted for doing that. Whole surveilance things are setup to catch somebody going through other guys mail. That is a felony, will get you a long sentence in a bad place.
After months of it piling up [each boat I was on had a crew of approx 135 guys] when it finally comes out, it is usually a big mess.
"I still find that hard to believe. I also think that the courts would be asstute enough (especially in a milatary town) to pick up on the address of the plaintiff."
Nobody outside of the military seems to know what goes on in the military.
"4 months does not equal desertion in a marriage
in any state.:
Okay, ma'am, if you say so.
It is not like anyone is available or knows about what is happening to argue with what she is saying in court.
"I am not sure about the legal aid in the navy, what you say unfourtunately rings true (so very sad) it should be a rule that only the enlisted/retired soldier can use the legal services for divorce."
Should be, but ...
"Never saw Jag"
Too bad.
Cool show. In Italy it was one of the few American shows that they showed on TV still in English.
Men and woman in the exact field doing the exact job=men more $.
That gap is rapidly closing, in fact if you were to compare actual years of experience in the same job, that gap is virtually non-existent.
And the only reason there is an apparent gap any more at all is because of the off-again on-again nature of women that have children.
Let's say that Joe and Mary both get hired for the same job in 1990.
Joe and Mary both get reviews every January.
Mary takes off 6 months in 1995 to have a child, then again in 1997 to have a child, then again in 1999, then again in 2001.
It's now 2005. They both have 15 years experience, right? Wrong! Joe has 15 years, Mary has 13 years.
Should Mary have gotten exactly the same raises every year as Joe? No!
If Joe had taken 4 sabbaticals of 6 months each and Mary had not taken time off for children, Mary would have gotten 2 years worth of raises that Joe did not.
Yes, I do know that here and there are examples of *actual* rather than perceived disparity.
But that kind of gap is now illegal.
So when you take into account the amount of time taken for child bearing, and figure that in, poof! all of a sudden the gap disappears.
Again, that's when comparing apples to apples. If you say that women in general make less than men in general, I would tend to agree - but that's because of the nature of the jobs held. Women with children, especially in urban areas, tend to have less education than men, and therefore end up in lower paying professions.
When you look at the numbers on a job-by-job basis, and figure in *actual* experience, the gap is a myth.
"Men and woman in the exact field doing the exact job=men more $."
Yes, ma'am.
I thought that it was illegal to pay anyone person more than any other person for doing the same job, with the same qualifications. I seem to think that I have seen news articles about companys getting in trouble for doing that?
"My brother is an attorney in Washington he sent me this:
Under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, 50 UCS section 521 and in the discretion of the court, the legal proceeding may be stayed (delayed) for the time the service member is on active duty and for 60 days thereafter. This law also aplied to divorce actions. The court may appoint an attorney for the service person for the purpose of preventing the default."
Yes the act of 1940, to precent towns from foreclosing on property due to un-paid back-taxes. Here in Ct, they interpret that law to mean back-taxes on your motor vehicle. Other state interpret it to mean real estate. I have a full copy of it around here somewhere.
Do you think that a court is going to wait on a divorce for the guy to get out of the service? that would be sweet.
It is all up to the discretion of the individual court.
Which is why states dont even agree on how to interpret this.
States dont know [or at least they did not know previously to the Patriot Act] who is on active duty, or when they will get out, if they get out in this decade at all. Remember that I went in 1976, I may have 'retired' but I am still a servicemember recieving pay and benefits, still subject to the UCMJ, and still subject to being recalled to active duty at the discretion of the DOD.
Having been stationed in many different states, I have been in town halls and attempted to utilize the Solder and sailor releif act of 1940. Sometimes with good results, sometimes with poor results.
I think that US code that your brother is reffering to may not be the relief act of 1940, but I see from a Google on the subject that President Bush singed US code 50's releif act in 2003.
So maybe with this new law, and the beter inter-departmental communications that we now see post-patriot Act, things will get better. [thinking about it, I had never heard of it being used for divorce, that is why I just googled it]
Hello Sharon. I haven't been offended by anything you've said.
quote:
The courts will more likely than not try to keep the children with their mother and siblings, because the children of divorce have to deal with the loss of so many things that keeping somethings the same is the kindess thing we can do. You and Galen, have been batering around how well women do after divorce, that is simply not true. It is a fact that women more often then not suffer economically after a divorce.
1. Yes, is it factual that women suffer financially after a divorce.
2. It is an accepted statistical fact that women performing the SAME functions as men, generally get paid less than equally educated and qualified men.
Bathering anound as we may be, I wasn't really trying to say how well women do after divorce. My real point is that states make men support women after divorce.
Thanks for the complement about my appearing honorable. Trust me, I know MOST men are not. I have yet to speak about how I feel about true "deadbeat dads." At this point, I'm speaking to how the system WILL "get you."
I also understand how short CS falls when it comes to actually SUPPORTING children. BOTH of my ex-wives received support for one child each and it was significantly less than your medical insurance.
Pointing out a fact, does not amount to whining in my book. OK? :)-->
Traditional divorce thinking, as someone else said IS, that children go with Mom & Dad visits and pays support. I also know the statistics that support the tradition thinking. I'm appalled that so many fathers spend so little time with their children.
My points in my post were also presented in this light, "If you lose control, here is what CAN happen to you - - It happened to me."
I also wanted to say, "You can still fight and 'prevail."
But is IS an uphill battle for men for men to get custody of their children and a downhill slide for women.
As far as Child Support goes... my personal position is that the whole system needs an overhaul. eg: In marriage #2. I had other children who were equally mine as the daughter from marriage #1.
I was FORCED to pay child support to "Child #1." under constant threat of incarceration and all of the other stuff I've already mentioned. After paying for medical insurance for all of my other children there was so little left that my spending was drastically disproportionate between #1 and chilren, #'s 2, 3, and 4.
The problem was not so much that I had to pay support. The problem, as I see it is that there is no requirement that Mom share in MY cost to purchase health insurance for HER/our child. I support and insurance, Mom gets HER child insured "for free" plus I give her money to pay "for the needs of the child."
Any parent knows that it takes a potentially never-ending fountain of funds to raise a child.
I believe it is the fact that women generally DON'T get paid as much as men that contributes to a disproportionate view that women should be strapped with custody over men.
I believe the real solution starts with paying women appropriately. It would be an easy thing to identify women in companies doing similar work as men & getting paid less. How many companies are willing to cut into their profits to equalize female salaries?
Another statistic is how overwhelming the ration of male company owners, board members/ decision makers to women of the same.
How about state legislators? Same misbalanced statistic. I'm not saying we need more women in positions like that I'm saying we simply need to REALLY be FAIR to women.
Sometimes we as a society forget that "the best intrest of the child" is better served with the child staying with thier father.
I actively helped a dear friend of mine regain custody of his 2 teenage daughters, and you are right it was not easy (the mother was a piece of doo doo and still not easy), time after time she would not show up to court, or show up under the influence and the judge (man) continually ruled in her favor, I am glad to say after 2 years he was able to obtain custody, and no she does not pay child support and imo, she should.
The entire system needs overhauled.
Back to my original post, a heart-felt honest discussion could prevent a lot of this.
Yes. It isn't axiomatic that the stability come from the Mom, ask my kids, all five of them, espeically the national merit scholar would say their Dad is the best one to provide that.
Giving men custody frees a woman to prosper in the ever leveling playground of professional America. Same as I male.
- It is appalling what they do to our sailors there is nothing in MY job description that includes actually having a gun stuck to my head. Why do they get paid so comparatively little yet they are REQUIRED to live to such a higher standard under UCMJ???
I'm talkin' bout fairness right?
I can finally see, based on my own experience...
quote:
there are men who will stay in a low-income, dead-end job, or frequently quit their job and collect unemployment in order to avoid paying
I can see why they're temted to do that - - although I still think they should be shot.
Absolute jerks, & a$$holes aside. The system doesn't catch them. They system grabs ME & guys like me who report to them as required. The INDIVIDUALS who work it on a daily basis take out their frustrations from the absolute deadbeats on US.
- In Ohio divorce papers come by certified mail. If you don't get your certified mail, and you don't show for your hearing, you get what you lose. They have recently started sending them regular mail also.
- I believe obligees, who receive Support, should be required to document their spending of it on the children or lose it. Presently their only "requirements" are that they keep their addresses current.
- I believe obligees should be required to seek work to pay their end of the percentage formula, same as obligors do; under the SAME consequences.
" ... Should Mary have gotten exactly the same raises every year as Joe? No!"
I have seen instances where preferential advancements were done.
Supposedly Congress saw the statistical differences between men and women in the military, and required that females be promoted up to fill the same billets as were filled by men.
Unfortunately this meant promoting women who had not even accomplished the normal prerequisites for those promotions.
In my last duty-station, I served as an E-6. At that point in my career, I had 14 years of sea-duty and say 18 years of active duty. My immediate supervisor was a minority female E8. She had 10 years of service and had never served at sea. Our next immediate supervisor was a white female E9. She had 13 years in the Navy, and she had served on-board a ship, for 6 months [she got off the ship when she got pregnant]. Neither of them had as much time in the Navy, as I had at sea, but they were my supervisors. I on the other hand, was not competitive among my peers because I did not have enough sea time to be selected for chief [E7].
I have had the honour of serving with two Master-chiefs who had served on the ‘selection-board’. To be promoted to E7 or higher you must have been ‘selected’ by this board. IN both cases of these two Master-chiefs, during their selection board debates, their supervisor [called an ‘enlisted community’ something of other, an officer at the pentagon] gave the board it’s direction and mandated that they had to promote X numbers of females, and X numbers of them had to be minority, regardless of their performance and whether or not they have completed the prerequisites. In both case, these fine men, argued and were retired from active service, for their insistence on upholding Naval standards.
It could be argues that they were both sexist grumpy old men, who only wanted to promote other men. I believe that they were both experienced professionals who wanted to promote experienced and qualified professionals.
If a guy's been out at sea for a month, the wife, in filing for divorce, can claim desertion, EVEN IF DESERTION IS QUALIFIED AS BEING 18 MONTHS - the woman only needs to say that the husband has been gone for 18 months. How's the guy going to dispute that?
“Sometimes we as a society forget that "the best intrest of the child" is better served with the child staying with thier father.â€
I am honestly surprised to read this coming from you. Good for you.
“ … The entire system needs overhauled.â€
I agree.
HCW-
“- It is appalling what they do to our sailors there is nothing in MY job description that includes actually having a gun stuck to my head. Why do they get paid so comparatively little yet they are REQUIRED to live to such a higher standard under UCMJ???â€
Reagan got us a couple 8% pay-raises. Both Bushes have done better, than Klinton. Generally of late our pay has gotten better. It really does help that with so many reservists being called-up, they and their families do whine a lot, which does help a lot.
“I believe obligees, who receive Support, should be required to document their spending of it on the children or lose it. Presently their only "requirements" are that they keep their addresses current.â€
Hmm, maybe to some extent. From being a foster-parent we have seen what appears to have been parents who receive support but use it on ‘other’ things.
“I believe obligees should be required to seek work to pay their end of the percentage formula, same as obligors do; under the SAME consequences.â€
"Do you mean military music like all those marches?
Or do you mean like drinking and whoring dirges?"
"All we ever had in the Army were the marches"
Choose your service, choose your fate.
As a metaphor in our society, does ‘Army’ go along with drinking? No, not really. Ever see any movies that show solders as drunken fools when they are in town? Maybe a few.
The Army has nice bases, they subsidize their commissaries so the food you buy is cheap, and they have nice housing.
The Air Force has nice bases, they subsidize their commissaries so the food you buy is cheap, and they have nice housing.
Navy bases are often a row of piers and warehouses. We don’t subsidize our commissaries, because we don’t care about if you can feed your family. We do provide housing but it is sub-standard and rat-infested.
On the other hand, for many of us, our pays are doubled due to the ‘extra’ dutys we do. Many of our jobs keep us tax-free our entire careers long. The Navy does subsidize our Package stores, so our booze is half price. A Navy base commonly will have at least 4 bars on it, and if the base is big than more bars just so you don’t have to walk too far. Army and Airforce class-six stores are tiny stores the size of a 7-11, with expensive booze.
I fully understand why the Navy has a greater name for drinking.
I have seen bases where the gym was shut-down for years at a time, for repairs. But with an Enlisted men’s Club, a NCO club, a crow’s nest and an officers club, plus if there is any far corners of the base you need an extra club for that corner. We can go a long time without working out, but the Navy can’t function without drinking.
We went down to Fort Sill, Ok, and we saw gyms on almost every block, How many bars? LOL. The package store was not big enough to provide for a single reenlistment party.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
14
19
17
Popular Days
Apr 5
35
Mar 4
24
Mar 9
13
Mar 17
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Galen 26 posts
Steve! 14 posts
Belle 19 posts
HCW 17 posts
Popular Days
Apr 5 2005
35 posts
Mar 4 2005
24 posts
Mar 9 2005
13 posts
Mar 17 2005
11 posts
Oakspear
Husbands suffer, wives suffer; I've seen it go both ways. It depends on the individual situations. Mileage varies
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It's not a perfect system, by any means though. I know of instances where women, who are perfectly capable of getting a job, will refuse to do so, in order that their child support will be higher. Thankfully, my ex-wife has not chosen this route, while it would hurt me if she did, the extra child support in our case would not make up for the income she earns. On the flip side, there are men who will stay in a low-income, dead-end job, or frequently quit their job and collect unemployment in order to avoid paying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
I don't know how to quote sorry.
Galen, your comment about income is insulting at best, what about sahms?
These women spend their lives taking care of home and family, what income did they ever get?
Another fact is that men still get paid more that women, they are still the main money earner. After a divorce, children need stability, and that includes continuity in as many things as possible. It is unfair for PARENTS to change the childs lifestyle, if you could afford to pay for Johnny's hockey lessons before hand why not after?
And you have really focused on the "bad woman"
what about men who leave their first family, get married have a whole new faimly and totally disregard the first one. Happens, alot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Unless we're talking about the really high income folks, there are going to be reductions in lifestyle choices on both sides.
Whether we're dealing with a stay-at-home-mom or a career woman, the same money that supported one household, now has to support two.
Add to whatever expenses there were before, at minimum there is an additional rent to pay, a second set of utilities, a telephone, etc. Plus, the new apartment has to be furnished somehow, meals for a single person cost more per capita than feeding a family...it all adds up.
Some of us can't afford Johhny's hockey lessons any more because the money is going to rent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
How to quote:
Click on "..." on the blue bar above the message field when replying.
[ QUOTE] [/quote ] will appear.
Go to the section that you want to quote, and highlight it, then right click - then click COPY on the menu that appears.
Go back to the "reply", place your cursor in between the two "quotes", right click and then click PASTE
You can also copy or quote a whole post by clicking on the file folder with the quotation amrks next to it at the bottom of the post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
This is a hot spot topic for alot of people, (me if you didn't notice, and I smile as I write that) saying that, I hope and pray that I never get divorced again, and that none of you suffer that pain as well, if you are in the middle of one I pray it will move quickly.
Noone gets married planning for divorce, they are heart wrenching to be involved with even as an observer.
My point in all of this is that 2 adults decied to get married, have children then these 2 adults for WHATEVER reason get divorced.
It is the right thing for both parties to put the children 1st, the adults had them, it is their moral and legal obligation to take care of them, thats all.
Oh, I also HATE when woman use child support to manipilate visitation, I wish that people would step back and try(as hard as it is) to look at both sides.
And for the record my Ex. is the best father and friend I could ever ask for, I love him dearly and want nothing but the best for him. ( just in case some one thinks my anger comes from ex. it doesn't)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
Thanks I think i got it
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
sharon:
"Galen, I do not mean to be argumentative but I find it absolutely impossible to believe that a woman could be granted a divorce on dessertion, while her husband is at sea. That is the most ludracris thing I have ever heard."
Happens.
"And a question, how long are your tours? Because I can not find one state that will grant a divorce on the grounds of dessertion with out the spouse being gone for at least 18 months, I could be wrong but I don't think so."
Four months.
"Not only that divorce papers would be sent to the soldiers last known address, which I would assume would be their base, which means to me that a fellow soldier would sign for them. Would you like me to believe that this soldier would not foward them accordingly, or notify his superior officer?"
Mail to the sailors goes to their 'command'. Their command being under-water, they do have office spaces but the offices are empty with a clerk to recieve mail and file the mail as it is stored in an empty closet. No body can access that mail, accept that named person. When the command finally does return to their office and mail is emptied from the closet and distributed to the sailors. If any sailor has been transfered to another command, before the command returned then the mail goes back into the system. Mis-addressed mail only gets so long floating in the system, before it is destroyed, following the law.
"I seriously doubt that an officer in the United States Navy, having recieved legal documents ..."
What? NO officers are envolved. In fact they would do as much as possible to not be envolved with this process. I have seen CO's get mail that parents would address to the command, and as soon as they determine that it is from a parent, they hand it over directly to the sailor. They really dont want to get envolved with that whole issue. Not legally, not morally.
Letters addressed to sailors will either be opened by that sailor or it will be destroyed. No body else will open that letter. Whether it comes from his parents, or from a court.
"I could be wrong, but I do understand the milatary (having grown up in and around it) and I find this paticular senario unlikely at best."
Served on active duty for 20+ years. Seen this acted out before my eyes many times, in various decades.
I had to go to court once, in 1982. I had been busted by a towny, carrying a knife on my belt. The arresting office told me that I could choose what he wrote me up for. To carry a knife on my belt was illegal in the commonwealth of Virginia, if it was a concealed weapon, and since the blade was in it's sheath it was concealed. Or I had the option, that as we were in NewPort News, I could be charged with exhibiting a weapon, since the handle of the knife was showing since it stuck out of the sheath on my belt. I was also charged with being on the beach, since where I pulled over my bike was alongside of a stretch of beach, I was in violation of the signs where the laws were posted saying "No dogs or sailors allowed on the beaches". For my court-date, my command let me off for that day, but refused to send anyone with me. I had asked my LPO for assistance and I thought that someone should help to represent me. They refused and sent me to deal with the courts myself, after all it is a learning experience. I was fined for both offenses [exhibiting a weapon and being a sailor on a beach].
JAG is cool to watch on TV.
It is possible that Navy legal may well show up to civilian courts, but I have never seen it happen. They negotiate contracts and labor disputes for the bases. They provide: wills, power of attorneys, and will help review paperwork that is being presented in a civilian court, but they themselves don't normally appear in any civilian court room. Navy Legal provides advise when asked, but can only advise one side of an arguement, not both partys to the argument.
SJA serves a different purpose. SJA serves to write-up charges against servicemembers that are about to go before NJP Mast or Courts-martial. To go to prison for a really long time, they want the legal paperwork to be just right. I did work closely with a SJA for about a year at Capodichino, she did watch JAG on Italian TV, and she thought is was funny. She did not do independant investigations. Investigations are done by the CIs and by NIS. She did not appear in any court outside of the Courts-martials that were being convened at Capodichino, and we provided her office with a steady-stream of them.
Most individual commands in the Navy, do not have any lawyers. They have no Navy Legal office, nor do they have a SJA office. Really big ships like carriers may have them, I dont know. Most commands are much smaller and dont any lawyers. Junior officers commonly rotate their a long list of responsibilities. Among that list is one that [man, I can not recall the name they have for this one duty] they prepare paperwork for NJP masts, and as such they may interview who is presenting the charge and who is being charged. But again the officer performing this role, is doing it as a temperary role and willhand it off to the next junior officer as soon as he can. They dont have any legal training outside of maybe reading the UCMJ. If the charged servicemember declines NJP mast, then that same junior officer must, form a list of who will serve on the courts-martial. He must see that each member of that courts-martial understands his duties, and he picks what other officer on-board will represent the accused servicemember. The possible fines and 'awards' of a courts-martial are far more severe than a NJP mast are. But a Courts-martial is the only way to hope that the 'judge' is going to hear solid evidence and not just hear-say.
In either case, most commands that I have served at [4 out of 6] had no lawyers attached to them, nor legal advisors, no SJA, no Navy Legal office. Officers can very possibly be great and wonderful, but if their degree was in engineering, or in history, or physics; how comfortable are they going to be addressing a civilian court? The commands that did have lawyers, had a SJA office and a Navy-Legal office, but again no one to represent the servicemembers in a civilian court room, unless perhaps for felon charges.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Oakspear:
" ... I know of instances where women, who are perfectly capable of getting a job, will refuse to do so, in order that their child support will be higher."
Bonnie has stated many times, that should she divorce me, she knows it would lower her standard of living. As a retiree, she would automatically get 50% of my pay, according to the law. After that she could have access to the rest of it, but if you took out even a single percent of it, then her standard-of-living would be lowered.
There is simply no way to maintain the same standard-of-living through the divorce process.
And the only way to stop her from getting 50% of my retirement is for me to die. Should I die, she gets none of my pension.
Financially we must stay together, it is the only thing that makes sense financially. Both of us would suffer, financialy. Adn she is not abut to do anything that does not have some profit in it.
"Thankfully, my ex-wife has not chosen this route, while it would hurt me if she did, the extra child support in our case would not make up for the income she earns."
Good for her.
"On the flip side, there are men who will stay in a low-income, dead-end job, or frequently quit their job and collect unemployment in order to avoid paying."
I have read about such. It is a shame.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
sharon:
"Galen, your comment about income is insulting at best, what about sahms?"
I did not intend to insult, sorry.
:-)
"These women spend their lives taking care of home and family, what income did they ever get?"
Okay.
"Another fact is that men still get paid more that women"
Only in the limited context that women tend to leave the job market, off and on again and they dont tend to build 'careers' the same way that men do.
My sister in-law however earns 6 digits a year, far more than her ex-husband does or ever did.
"After a divorce, children need stability, and that includes continuity in as many things as possible. It is unfair for PARENTS to change the childs lifestyle, if you could afford to pay for Johnny's hockey lessons before hand why not after?"
Did womeone tell you taht life is fair? They were mistaken.
Yes children do need stability, which would be a good argument for them to stay with teir fathers. Thank you very much. :-)
You still dont see that maintaining two households costs more than to maintain one?
Hmm, You both together had rented an apartment for $500/month, because you were a family and could afford it. But now after the divorce, only one of you can live there, so the $500 is still paid, but the other adult needs to seek other accomodations. That will cost. YOUR apartment at $500, plus HIS new apartment at $150/month, will cost HIM $650/month. Which is more than rent previously had been for the both of you.
It does cost more to run two seperate households than it did to run the one single household. Even though one of them will be substantially less or lower than the household with the children.
"And you have really focused on the "bad woman" "
Sorry but that has been my experience. Had I been in a career field which included females, I might have seen something different. But alas, no females have ever volunteered for submarine duty.
"what about men who leave their first family, get married have a whole new faimly and totally disregard the first one. Happens, alot."
Okay, if you say so. Again in my career, if a servicemember knowingly fails to support his family, it is a violation of the UCMJ, he will be charged for that crime, lose his security clearances and be thrown out, with a BCD {Big Chicken Dinner, or Bad Conduct Discharge].
If a servicemember commits adultery, it is a violation of the UCMJ.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
sharon:
"Divorce papers must be signed for, who is signing?"
Stuff that requires siging for, like return receipt requestes mail? That is signed by the mail-orderly-clerk before he un-locks the mail closet and stuffs it all in.
"Are we to believe that the milatary accepts service of a divorce notice (or any other legal matter) and does nothing?"
No the legal chain-of-evidence is maintained. It is signed for and locked up. The clerk will have attended a course and willhave been qualified as a 'Postal Mail Orderly'. I even wore tha that for a while. There are times, when you need someone to drive a truck down to the base post office and to take reciept of the incoming mail. You have to carry a 'mail orderly' card to do that job. So all middle to senior petty officers will routinely qualify for tha tjob and will carry the card. You go to the base post office and sign for the incoming stuff, throw it in the back of the truck, and get a burger, than drive back to the office, or down to the pier [if the boat is pierside] and haul those mail-bags in. If they are going to the office, then you get the keys and soemtimes we sort the mail according to what department each guy is in. A big box for each department. When one box is filled, you put it in the back of the closet and go find fresh boxes. If your in a hurry, just stuff the un-opened mail-bags in the closet.
The big problem is magazines. Everyone wants to rifle thourhg the magazines, and routinely guys get busted for doing that. Whole surveilance things are setup to catch somebody going through other guys mail. That is a felony, will get you a long sentence in a bad place.
After months of it piling up [each boat I was on had a crew of approx 135 guys] when it finally comes out, it is usually a big mess.
"I still find that hard to believe. I also think that the courts would be asstute enough (especially in a milatary town) to pick up on the address of the plaintiff."
Nobody outside of the military seems to know what goes on in the military.
"4 months does not equal desertion in a marriage
in any state.:
Okay, ma'am, if you say so.
It is not like anyone is available or knows about what is happening to argue with what she is saying in court.
"I am not sure about the legal aid in the navy, what you say unfourtunately rings true (so very sad) it should be a rule that only the enlisted/retired soldier can use the legal services for divorce."
Should be, but ...
"Never saw Jag"
Too bad.
Cool show. In Italy it was one of the few American shows that they showed on TV still in English.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
"The difference between civilian justice and military justice is like the difference between civilian music and military music"
Author unknown, but not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
That gap is rapidly closing, in fact if you were to compare actual years of experience in the same job, that gap is virtually non-existent.
And the only reason there is an apparent gap any more at all is because of the off-again on-again nature of women that have children.
Let's say that Joe and Mary both get hired for the same job in 1990.
Joe and Mary both get reviews every January.
Mary takes off 6 months in 1995 to have a child, then again in 1997 to have a child, then again in 1999, then again in 2001.
It's now 2005. They both have 15 years experience, right? Wrong! Joe has 15 years, Mary has 13 years.
Should Mary have gotten exactly the same raises every year as Joe? No!
If Joe had taken 4 sabbaticals of 6 months each and Mary had not taken time off for children, Mary would have gotten 2 years worth of raises that Joe did not.
Yes, I do know that here and there are examples of *actual* rather than perceived disparity.
But that kind of gap is now illegal.
So when you take into account the amount of time taken for child bearing, and figure that in, poof! all of a sudden the gap disappears.
Again, that's when comparing apples to apples. If you say that women in general make less than men in general, I would tend to agree - but that's because of the nature of the jobs held. Women with children, especially in urban areas, tend to have less education than men, and therefore end up in lower paying professions.
When you look at the numbers on a job-by-job basis, and figure in *actual* experience, the gap is a myth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
sharon:
"Men and woman in the exact field doing the exact job=men more $."
Yes, ma'am.
I thought that it was illegal to pay anyone person more than any other person for doing the same job, with the same qualifications. I seem to think that I have seen news articles about companys getting in trouble for doing that?
"My brother is an attorney in Washington he sent me this:
Under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, 50 UCS section 521 and in the discretion of the court, the legal proceeding may be stayed (delayed) for the time the service member is on active duty and for 60 days thereafter. This law also aplied to divorce actions. The court may appoint an attorney for the service person for the purpose of preventing the default."
Yes the act of 1940, to precent towns from foreclosing on property due to un-paid back-taxes. Here in Ct, they interpret that law to mean back-taxes on your motor vehicle. Other state interpret it to mean real estate. I have a full copy of it around here somewhere.
Do you think that a court is going to wait on a divorce for the guy to get out of the service? that would be sweet.
It is all up to the discretion of the individual court.
Which is why states dont even agree on how to interpret this.
States dont know [or at least they did not know previously to the Patriot Act] who is on active duty, or when they will get out, if they get out in this decade at all. Remember that I went in 1976, I may have 'retired' but I am still a servicemember recieving pay and benefits, still subject to the UCMJ, and still subject to being recalled to active duty at the discretion of the DOD.
Having been stationed in many different states, I have been in town halls and attempted to utilize the Solder and sailor releif act of 1940. Sometimes with good results, sometimes with poor results.
I think that US code that your brother is reffering to may not be the relief act of 1940, but I see from a Google on the subject that President Bush singed US code 50's releif act in 2003.
So maybe with this new law, and the beter inter-departmental communications that we now see post-patriot Act, things will get better. [thinking about it, I had never heard of it being used for divorce, that is why I just googled it]
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Jim:
"The difference between civilian justice and military justice is like the difference between civilian music and military music"
Do you mean military music like all those marches?
Or do you mean like drinking and whoring driges?
:-)
Just wondering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Hello Sharon. I haven't been offended by anything you've said.
1. Yes, is it factual that women suffer financially after a divorce.2. It is an accepted statistical fact that women performing the SAME functions as men, generally get paid less than equally educated and qualified men.
Bathering anound as we may be, I wasn't really trying to say how well women do after divorce. My real point is that states make men support women after divorce.
Thanks for the complement about my appearing honorable.
Trust me, I know MOST men are not. I have yet to speak about how I feel about true "deadbeat dads." At this point, I'm speaking to how the system WILL "get you."
I also understand how short CS falls when it comes to actually SUPPORTING children. BOTH of my ex-wives received support for one child each and it was significantly less than your medical insurance.
Pointing out a fact, does not amount to whining in my book. OK?
:)-->
Traditional divorce thinking, as someone else said IS, that children go with Mom & Dad visits and pays support. I also know the statistics that support the tradition thinking. I'm appalled that so many fathers spend so little time with their children.
My points in my post were also presented in this light, "If you lose control, here is what CAN happen to you - - It happened to me."
I also wanted to say, "You can still fight and 'prevail."
But is IS an uphill battle for men for men to get custody of their children and a downhill slide for women.
As far as Child Support goes... my personal position is that the whole system needs an overhaul. eg: In marriage #2. I had other children who were equally mine as the daughter from marriage #1.
I was FORCED to pay child support to "Child #1." under constant threat of incarceration and all of the other stuff I've already mentioned. After paying for medical insurance for all of my other children there was so little left that my spending was drastically disproportionate between #1 and chilren, #'s 2, 3, and 4.
The problem was not so much that I had to pay support. The problem, as I see it is that there is no requirement that Mom share in MY cost to purchase health insurance for HER/our child. I support and insurance, Mom gets HER child insured "for free" plus I give her money to pay "for the needs of the child."
Any parent knows that it takes a potentially never-ending fountain of funds to raise a child.
I believe it is the fact that women generally DON'T get paid as much as men that contributes to a disproportionate view that women should be strapped with custody over men.
I believe the real solution starts with paying women appropriately. It would be an easy thing to identify women in companies doing similar work as men & getting paid less. How many companies are willing to cut into their profits to equalize female salaries?
Another statistic is how overwhelming the ration of male company owners, board members/ decision makers to women of the same.
How about state legislators? Same misbalanced statistic. I'm not saying we need more women in positions like that I'm saying we simply need to REALLY be FAIR to women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
All we ever had in the Army were the marches
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
HCW-
Sometimes we as a society forget that "the best intrest of the child" is better served with the child staying with thier father.
I actively helped a dear friend of mine regain custody of his 2 teenage daughters, and you are right it was not easy (the mother was a piece of doo doo and still not easy), time after time she would not show up to court, or show up under the influence and the judge (man) continually ruled in her favor, I am glad to say after 2 years he was able to obtain custody, and no she does not pay child support and imo, she should.
The entire system needs overhauled.
Back to my original post, a heart-felt honest discussion could prevent a lot of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
After a divorce children need stability.
Yes. It isn't axiomatic that the stability come from the Mom, ask my kids, all five of them, espeically the national merit scholar would say their Dad is the best one to provide that.
Giving men custody frees a woman to prosper in the ever leveling playground of professional America. Same as I male.
- It is appalling what they do to our sailors there is nothing in MY job description that includes actually having a gun stuck to my head. Why do they get paid so comparatively little yet they are REQUIRED to live to such a higher standard under UCMJ???
I'm talkin' bout fairness right?
I can finally see, based on my own experience...
I can see why they're temted to do that - - although I still think they should be shot.Absolute jerks, & a$$holes aside. The system doesn't catch them. They system grabs ME & guys like me who report to them as required. The INDIVIDUALS who work it on a daily basis take out their frustrations from the absolute deadbeats on US.
- In Ohio divorce papers come by certified mail. If you don't get your certified mail, and you don't show for your hearing, you get what you lose. They have recently started sending them regular mail also.
- I believe obligees, who receive Support, should be required to document their spending of it on the children or lose it. Presently their only "requirements" are that they keep their addresses current.
- I believe obligees should be required to seek work to pay their end of the percentage formula, same as obligors do; under the SAME consequences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Steve!:
" ... Should Mary have gotten exactly the same raises every year as Joe? No!"
I have seen instances where preferential advancements were done.
Supposedly Congress saw the statistical differences between men and women in the military, and required that females be promoted up to fill the same billets as were filled by men.
Unfortunately this meant promoting women who had not even accomplished the normal prerequisites for those promotions.
In my last duty-station, I served as an E-6. At that point in my career, I had 14 years of sea-duty and say 18 years of active duty. My immediate supervisor was a minority female E8. She had 10 years of service and had never served at sea. Our next immediate supervisor was a white female E9. She had 13 years in the Navy, and she had served on-board a ship, for 6 months [she got off the ship when she got pregnant]. Neither of them had as much time in the Navy, as I had at sea, but they were my supervisors. I on the other hand, was not competitive among my peers because I did not have enough sea time to be selected for chief [E7].
I have had the honour of serving with two Master-chiefs who had served on the ‘selection-board’. To be promoted to E7 or higher you must have been ‘selected’ by this board. IN both cases of these two Master-chiefs, during their selection board debates, their supervisor [called an ‘enlisted community’ something of other, an officer at the pentagon] gave the board it’s direction and mandated that they had to promote X numbers of females, and X numbers of them had to be minority, regardless of their performance and whether or not they have completed the prerequisites. In both case, these fine men, argued and were retired from active service, for their insistence on upholding Naval standards.
It could be argues that they were both sexist grumpy old men, who only wanted to promote other men. I believe that they were both experienced professionals who wanted to promote experienced and qualified professionals.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Another thing about the desertion claim -
If a guy's been out at sea for a month, the wife, in filing for divorce, can claim desertion, EVEN IF DESERTION IS QUALIFIED AS BEING 18 MONTHS - the woman only needs to say that the husband has been gone for 18 months. How's the guy going to dispute that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Sharon-
“Sometimes we as a society forget that "the best intrest of the child" is better served with the child staying with thier father.â€
I am honestly surprised to read this coming from you. Good for you.
“ … The entire system needs overhauled.â€
I agree.
HCW-
“- It is appalling what they do to our sailors there is nothing in MY job description that includes actually having a gun stuck to my head. Why do they get paid so comparatively little yet they are REQUIRED to live to such a higher standard under UCMJ???â€
Reagan got us a couple 8% pay-raises. Both Bushes have done better, than Klinton. Generally of late our pay has gotten better. It really does help that with so many reservists being called-up, they and their families do whine a lot, which does help a lot.
“I believe obligees, who receive Support, should be required to document their spending of it on the children or lose it. Presently their only "requirements" are that they keep their addresses current.â€
Hmm, maybe to some extent. From being a foster-parent we have seen what appears to have been parents who receive support but use it on ‘other’ things.
“I believe obligees should be required to seek work to pay their end of the percentage formula, same as obligors do; under the SAME consequences.â€
I do agree with this statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Jim:
"Do you mean military music like all those marches?
Or do you mean like drinking and whoring dirges?"
"All we ever had in the Army were the marches"
Choose your service, choose your fate.
As a metaphor in our society, does ‘Army’ go along with drinking? No, not really. Ever see any movies that show solders as drunken fools when they are in town? Maybe a few.
The Army has nice bases, they subsidize their commissaries so the food you buy is cheap, and they have nice housing.
The Air Force has nice bases, they subsidize their commissaries so the food you buy is cheap, and they have nice housing.
Navy bases are often a row of piers and warehouses. We don’t subsidize our commissaries, because we don’t care about if you can feed your family. We do provide housing but it is sub-standard and rat-infested.
On the other hand, for many of us, our pays are doubled due to the ‘extra’ dutys we do. Many of our jobs keep us tax-free our entire careers long. The Navy does subsidize our Package stores, so our booze is half price. A Navy base commonly will have at least 4 bars on it, and if the base is big than more bars just so you don’t have to walk too far. Army and Airforce class-six stores are tiny stores the size of a 7-11, with expensive booze.
I fully understand why the Navy has a greater name for drinking.
I have seen bases where the gym was shut-down for years at a time, for repairs. But with an Enlisted men’s Club, a NCO club, a crow’s nest and an officers club, plus if there is any far corners of the base you need an extra club for that corner. We can go a long time without working out, but the Navy can’t function without drinking.
We went down to Fort Sill, Ok, and we saw gyms on almost every block, How many bars? LOL. The package store was not big enough to provide for a single reenlistment party.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
no reason to be suprised,
when a conversation is carried out in writing u can only present so many of your opions before
people get bored of reading, just like I am certain you are not as male chauvanistic as you sound I am not a bra buring femanist
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.