Courts biased against men?

[Habanero]

I am at the tail end of a divorce.

My lawyer's accountant tells me the dissomaster program reveals that after I pay child support to her, and she pays spousal support to me - that I will actually NET $300 a month for half the time of our marriage - in this case 4 years.

My soon-to-be EX makes almost three times my income.

Now I knew that this is too good to be true, and I am not a deadbeat dad trying to get out of supporting my child.

I would think that at the very least in this situation we would simply break even for the 4 years but I just found out her lawyer wants NO spousal support for me and I pay child support, it's a relative small amount I can afford but I'm talking principle here.

My lawyer seems to be telling me to do it since "women don't like paying child support and a judge will back her".

If this is the case what is the dissomaster for? It only exists to benefit women and not men?

Thanks in advance...

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

[Ohiogal]

Settlement? Or fight it out? HOw much is it going to cost you to fight it?

[Ronin]

California apparently has some statutory presumptions favoring spousal support for even short term marriages.

If these apply to you, there is little reason to not present an argument for support simply because you feel that the judge may be biased against men.

Statutory presumptions have to be rebutted. In this case the legal burden is on your ex to argue why you should not be awarded spousal support, rather than on you to argue why you should. But even if you are awarded support, there are many factors that could make this award anywhere from miniscule to large. In your case, since you are a male (a little bias ), the NCP (child's best interests ), and gainfully employed it would at best be on the minimal side, and you would probably be darn lucky to get enough to break even on child support.

[LdiJ]

You said that she makes three times the money that you do, but how much do you actually make?

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

You said that she makes three times the money that you do, but how much do you actually make?

That question is NOT one of the factors for the court's consideration in determining alimony.

If OP makes $3 million per year and his stbx makes $9 million per year, justice will be served if he is paid $3 million per year for the duration of the marriage.

I'm told that judge's can't just pluck reasons whether to award alimony or not out of thin air.

Like it or not, that's the LAW!!

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

That question is NOT one of the factors for the court's consideration in determining alimony.

If OP makes $3 million per year and his stbx makes $9 million per year, justice will be served if he is paid $3 million per year for the duration of the marriage.

I'm told that judge's can't just pluck reasons whether to award alimony or not out of thin air.

Like it or not, that's the LAW!!

Bali, stuff it. No one is going to get alimony if they have income of 3 million a year.

I am trying to get a clue as to why his attorney is giving him the advice that he is.

[xylene]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

I am trying to get a clue as to why his attorney is giving him the advice that he is.

Perhaps $$$

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by xylene

Perhaps $$$

Maybe, but the attorney would earn more fighting it out than telling him to give up on the alimony and agree to pay child support. So I am trying to see if there is any reason why the attorney might think that alimony wouldn't fly.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

Bali, stuff it. No one is going to get alimony if they have income of 3 million a year.

I am trying to get a clue as to why his attorney is giving him the advice that he is.

Well I'll provide some factors CA uses to determine an alimony award and not something that I THINK myself would be reasonable. I find that NOWHERE in the factors used by the court to determine alimony that a specific dollar is mentioned.


1. Ability to maintain marital standard of living in light of earning capacities: The extent to which the parties' respective earning capacities are sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage (Ca Fam § 4320(a)).


3. Supporting spouse's ability to pay: The supporting spouse's ability to pay spousal support, taking into account his or her earning capacity, earned and unearned income, assets, and standard of living. [Ca Fam § 4320(c)]

Note: A spousal support order must be consistent with the supporting spouse's ability to pay as determined by his or her circumstances at the time of the support hearing--i.e., the obligor's present (not past or future) circumstances (current income/cash flow, assets, earning capacity, etc.) control.

4. "Needs" in light of marital standard of living: The needs of each party based on the standard of living established during the marriage. [Ca Fam § 4320(d)] "Need" includes more than "bare necessities of life." But § 4320(d) expressly codifies well-established case law consensus that "need" must also be judged in terms of the parties' station in life during marriage and before separation.

[Habanero]

Thanks for the replies...

We are starting the settlement phase- trying to avoid court with a third party negotiator whatchamacallit

I make 55k/ yr.

Actually now I am unemployed- I was laid off.

So they want $100 a month as long as I am working or collecting Unemployment.

Of course this is Cali bay area so 55k does not go very far and even without me paying child support maintaining standard of living is out of the question.

My lawyer just said that The Court looks poorly on fathers who try to get out of child support period- and I guess he's just saying $100 is not that much relatively speaking.

Seems like a little too late to change lawyers and reading the stories around here I guess I kinda agree with him so...

The other question I have is- if she moved in with a guy- then would it be worth my time to take her back to court and get that support after all?

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Habanero

Thanks for the replies...

We are starting the settlement phase- trying to avoid court with a third party negotiator whatchamacallit

I make 55k/ yr.

Actually now I am unemployed- I was laid off.

So they want $100 a month as long as I am working or collecting Unemployment.

Of course this is Cali bay area so 55k does not go very far and even without me paying child support maintaining standard of living is out of the question.

My lawyer just said that The Court looks poorly on fathers who try to get out of child support period- and I guess he's just saying $100 is not that much relatively speaking.

Seems like a little too late to change lawyers and reading the stories around here I guess I kinda agree with him so...

The other question I have is- if she moved in with a guy- then would it be worth my time to take her back to court and get that support after all?

It depends on how much you have to spend to do it. $300.00 a month for 4 years is a grand total of $14400.00. A heated divorce could easily cost more than that in legal fees.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

It depends on how much you have to spend to do it. $300.00 a month for 4 years is a grand total of $14400.00. A heated divorce could easily cost more than that in legal fees.

The facts are that she amkes $165k per year.
He is laid off and receiving unemployment pay.

Child support should be based on these facts ALONE.

Spousal support is DIFFERENT than child support and should be based on these facts ALONE.