 | | 
05-08-2009, 01:33 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7
| | | I guess I just don't possess the keen legal minds that you guys do. I would have made this decision even if I had remained married to this person. Would she have had the legal recourse to force me to remain in pharmacy if we were still married? |
05-08-2009, 01:56 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 118
| | | If you were still married to this day, and you chose a career change for what ever reason, then no you would not be required by law to retain a 6 figure salary.
If you were still married you also wouldn't have a court order stating that you had to pay alimony either.
Court orders change the rights you had, that you no longer do.
Think about all the divorced couples out there with children, where before the divorce each parent had the right to see their child everyday, and was able to tuck them into bed every night with a hug and a kiss and no longer have that right.
Think about all the divorced parents out there that have to pay child support. Before they were divorced they could choose how much they needed to spend to support their children and if they had a rough month, they could adjust their expenses that month. Once child support is in place, they no longer have that right. They are bound by the courts to support their child by paying x amount of dollars that month with no flexibility.
You're not the only one who questions your rights as an individual, but you are bound by the court order unless a judge orders otherwise. It's not fair, but people have to live everyday with the choices they made....good or bad. You aren't the first nor the last... |
05-08-2009, 08:44 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,248
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by MominCarolina  If you were still married to this day, and you chose a career change for what ever reason, then no you would not be required by law to retain a 6 figure salary.
He isn't required by law to maintain a 6 figure salary just because he is divorced. If that were the case the order would also apply to his employer. I would like to see a boneheaded judge try that just once!!
If you were still married you also wouldn't have a court order stating that you had to pay alimony either.
Not true, many people separate without divorcing and there are open-ended orders to pay support.
Court orders change the rights you had, that you no longer do.
Court orders impact some people negatively and some people positively. And we know who those people are.
Think about all the divorced couples out there with children, where before the divorce each parent had the right to see their child everyday, and was able to tuck them into bed every night with a hug and a kiss and no longer have that right.
Think about all the divorced parents out there that have to pay child support. Before they were divorced they could choose how much they needed to spend to support their children and if they had a rough month, they could adjust their expenses that month. Once child support is in place, they no longer have that right. They are bound by the courts to support their child by paying x amount of dollars that month with no flexibility.
You're not the only one who questions your rights as an individual, but you are bound by the court order unless a judge orders otherwise. It's not fair, but people have to live everyday with the choices they made....good or bad. You aren't the first nor the last... | Bottom line: His ex-wife couldn't run his life while married and therefore, petitions the court to do it for her now.
Last edited by Bali Hai; 05-08-2009 at 08:54 AM.
|
05-08-2009, 09:01 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Weigh a pie...
Posts: 6,670
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesSeitz I guess I just don't possess the keen legal minds that you guys do. I would have made this decision even if I had remained married to this person. Would she have had the legal recourse to force me to remain in pharmacy if we were still married? | Nope.
But that question is moot, really. As Bali said, you are not legally obliged to remain in the same job, or industry - but you are obliged to stick to that court order. It sounds brutal but the courts aren't responsible for your decisions.
Momincarolina, when you said this... Quote: |
Once child support is in place, they no longer have that right. They are bound by the courts to support their child by paying x amount of dollars that month with no flexibility.
| ...I'm disagreeing with the bolded; a change in your financial circumstances will be considered as a reason to alter the amount paid each month, regardless of whether there's a clause in the order saying it may or may not be modified.
Sure, the court wouldn't have to approve the modification (not least when it might be seen as voluntary underemployment) but the obligor does at least have a shot.
Alimony and spousal support? Not so much (unfortunately).
__________________ *****************************
When you can't bear something but it goes on anyway, the person who survives isn't you anymore; you've changed and become someone else, a new person, the one who did bear it after all.
— Austin Grossman
Quote: | Salagadoola mechicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo | |
05-08-2009, 12:20 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 118
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogmatique Nope.
But that question is moot, really. As Bali said, you are not legally obliged to remain in the same job, or industry - but you are obliged to stick to that court order. It sounds brutal but the courts aren't responsible for your decisions.
Momincarolina, when you said this...
...I'm disagreeing with the bolded; a change in your financial circumstances will be considered as a reason to alter the amount paid each month, regardless of whether there's a clause in the order saying it may or may not be modified.
Sure, the court wouldn't have to approve the modification (not least when it might be seen as voluntary underemployment) but the obligor does at least have a shot.
Alimony and spousal support? Not so much (unfortunately). |
I agree, there is always a chance for modification, but usually having 1 bad month isn't grounds for a mod.
I think the point I was trying to make got across, you know if income is bad one month, I can choose to spend less on groceries, or put off those new shoes the kids have been needing, but with child support, one bad month doesn't warrant any type of modification, and you lose the control to make those type decisions. I mean sure you could always decide to pay less than the court ordered amount that month, but we all know where that can lead too. |
05-08-2009, 12:31 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 118
| | | Bali, I agree with you. Orders do impact different people in different ways, but anyone who has a visitation order with at least one overnight going to the other parent loses the right to tuck their child into bed that night.
The overall result of a divorce decree may effect one positively, there are still some rights lost on one or both ends.
Not every single court order is bad, or negative, but in general when we are talking about divorce decrees with court ordered parenting time, alimony, and child support, there are rights lost. |
05-08-2009, 01:24 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,248
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by MominCarolina Bali, I agree with you. Orders do impact different people in different ways, but anyone who has a visitation order with at least one overnight going to the other parent loses the right to tuck their child into bed that night.
The overall result of a divorce decree may effect one positively, there are still some rights lost on one or both ends.
Not every single court order is bad, or negative, but in general when we are talking about divorce decrees with court ordered parenting time, alimony, and child support, there are rights lost. | Well in the case of alimony, what rights has the recipient lost?? |
05-08-2009, 01:54 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 118
| | | If we are only talking solely on the rights of the alimony recipient, none that I can think of.
This is where a court order effects the recipient in a positive manner, and the payee in a negative manner. |
05-08-2009, 07:17 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 580
| | | Couldn't the age of his X, 62, also help in this case? She is now eligible to draw SS benefits against his record since that is probably higher than her own.
Shouldn't that be considered? |
05-08-2009, 07:33 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 41,394
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishLady47 Couldn't the age of his X, 62, also help in this case? She is now eligible to draw SS benefits against his record since that is probably higher than her own.
Shouldn't that be considered? | That's certainly a valid point that should be investigated.
__________________
in vino veritas
Last edited by LdiJ; 05-08-2009 at 07:35 PM.
|
06-11-2009, 06:06 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7
| | | I am in fact choosing to be underemployed, as you choose to word it. I think what really matters here is WHY I am making this choice. The reason is not to deprive my ex-wife of her God given right to half of my income for the rest of her life. I am not intentionally lowering my income to hurt her. That has nothing to do with my decision. I had to get out of pharmacy to save my life. I would only be leaving myself open to further prosecution if I continued to work as the kid in the candy store. It would be very dificult to send support from prison. Even better, I would find it extremely difficult to earn a paycheck, and send half of it to her from my grave. And heaven forbid she take a part time job in a fabric store as a clerk to supplement the income she receives from social security, not by virtue of the fact that she ever worked a day in her life, but because she was married to me. Sorry if I sound bitter, but none of you were there for the insufferable years spent with her so that my children would know their father. The legal system is flawed badly in that it places no responsibility on women for their existence in this world other than to derive support from men. She can work a menial job as well as I can, but she is a female, she doesn't have to. When I find myself down and out I have dig myself out of whatever hole I am in. I can't run to the court and say that I was a great husband for 20 years and expect someone else to take care of me. Yeah, I CHOSE to become underemployed. She has her rights, where are mine? |
06-11-2009, 08:21 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,248
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesSeitz I am in fact choosing to be underemployed, as you choose to word it. I think what really matters here is WHY I am making this choice. The reason is not to deprive my ex-wife of her God given right to half of my income for the rest of her life. I am not intentionally lowering my income to hurt her. That has nothing to do with my decision. I had to get out of pharmacy to save my life. I would only be leaving myself open to further prosecution if I continued to work as the kid in the candy store. It would be very dificult to send support from prison. Even better, I would find it extremely difficult to earn a paycheck, and send half of it to her from my grave. And heaven forbid she take a part time job in a fabric store as a clerk to supplement the income she receives from social security, not by virtue of the fact that she ever worked a day in her life, but because she was married to me. Sorry if I sound bitter, but none of you were there for the insufferable years spent with her so that my children would know their father. The legal system is flawed badly in that it places no responsibility on women for their existence in this world other than to derive support from men. She can work a menial job as well as I can, but she is a female, she doesn't have to. When I find myself down and out I have dig myself out of whatever hole I am in. I can't run to the court and say that I was a great husband for 20 years and expect someone else to take care of me. Yeah, I CHOSE to become underemployed. She has her rights, where are mine? | You have FINALLY aquired a global view on this matter. Not your fault, people in general expect to be treated equally in the justice system. This fairy tale was taught to all of us early on in kindergarden.
The bottom line is that the court doesn't give a crap about you. You're nothing more than a workhorse, and, when you become useless to your ex-wife, you're headed for the glue factory.
Welcome to reality Nemo. |
06-11-2009, 11:27 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Weigh a pie...
Posts: 6,670
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesSeitz I am in fact choosing to be underemployed, as you choose to word it. I think what really matters here is WHY I am making this choice. The reason is not to deprive my ex-wife of her God given right to half of my income for the rest of her life. I am not intentionally lowering my income to hurt her. That has nothing to do with my decision. I had to get out of pharmacy to save my life. I would only be leaving myself open to further prosecution if I continued to work as the kid in the candy store. It would be very dificult to send support from prison. Even better, I would find it extremely difficult to earn a paycheck, and send half of it to her from my grave. And heaven forbid she take a part time job in a fabric store as a clerk to supplement the income she receives from social security, not by virtue of the fact that she ever worked a day in her life, but because she was married to me. Sorry if I sound bitter, but none of you were there for the insufferable years spent with her so that my children would know their father. The legal system is flawed badly in that it places no responsibility on women for their existence in this world other than to derive support from men. She can work a menial job as well as I can, but she is a female, she doesn't have to. When I find myself down and out I have dig myself out of whatever hole I am in. I can't run to the court and say that I was a great husband for 20 years and expect someone else to take care of me. Yeah, I CHOSE to become underemployed. She has her rights, where are mine? | Look, none of us were there, you're right. And the court wasn't there either...and in all fairness we have only been given one side of the situation. The court will probably get both sides, but to be honest I'm not sure any of it will count. You have a court order, and you've become underemployed.
See it from an objective point of view.
Did you switch careers solely to help your addiction problems?
Or was it because you're sick of paying your wife and want to screw her?
As you're very much aware that situation can be played either way, you know? And unfortunately (for you) the end result is the same either way; you've chosen to earn less income.
You chose your life together, you chose to stick around with this insufferable woman (your words, not mine); what's happening now is the combined result of many choices you've made.
Is it fair?
Not really, in my opinion. But my opinion counts for less than Jack Sprat's dirty underwear in your legal matter. What does matter is how you're going to deal with the situation.
Did you seek legal counsel yet, btw? Would your addiction qualify for SSDI?
(forgive me if that last question has been asked and answered already)
__________________ *****************************
When you can't bear something but it goes on anyway, the person who survives isn't you anymore; you've changed and become someone else, a new person, the one who did bear it after all.
— Austin Grossman
Quote: | Salagadoola mechicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo | |
06-11-2009, 01:46 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,248
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogmatique Look, none of us were there, you're right. And the court wasn't there either...and in all fairness we have only been given one side of the situation. The court will probably get both sides, but to be honest I'm not sure any of it will count. You have a court order, and you've become underemployed.
See it from an objective point of view.
Did you switch careers solely to help your addiction problems?
Or was it because you're sick of paying your wife and want to screw her?
As you're very much aware that situation can be played either way, you know? And unfortunately (for you) the end result is the same either way; you've chosen to earn less income.
You chose your life together, you chose to stick around with this insufferable woman (your words, not mine); what's happening now is the combined result of many choices you've made.
Is it fair?
Not really, in my opinion. But my opinion counts for less than Jack Sprat's dirty underwear in your legal matter. What does matter is how you're going to deal with the situation.
Did you seek legal counsel yet, btw? Would your addiction qualify for SSDI?
(forgive me if that last question has been asked and answered already) | Well let me give you both sides:
She gets 50% of assets.
He gets 50% of assets.
He can go on his merry way and do whatever work or not work he chooses.
She can go on her merry way and do whatever work or not work she chooses.
It's when we put BS laws into place (alimony) to make women feel secure about a future that is uncertain for ANY of us, that the trouble begins and we have to wallow in waist deep mud.
It's very simple, DIVORCE means NO MORE TIES!! I know, just try to get women to buy onto that!! | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 PM.
