Male Marriage Counseling 101: Required Reading for Newbies

[daytrader]

Nothing new here, but I am suprised that the writer covers ALL the bases (IMO) about marrying in the USA.  If a man marries before attaining most of his financial net worth, then the following is standard operating procedure by the woman.  The woman can lay claim to half (or more) of the net worth acquired during the marriage.  Prenups for those that marry late, after the man acquires his high net worth, can be done (see an atty) to preserve his wealth in the case of a divorce....but the risk of paying child support and how onerous the judge decides to make the amount can be a risk. 

QUESTION:  How about marrying an overseas woman and living overseas....shouldn't that mitigate the financial risk if the divorce is decided in a foreign court?  Guess that depends on the country....

DayTrader
 

Advice to young men: Do not marry, do not have children

By Stephen Baskerville
web posted November 12, 2007

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life.  No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family.  Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today.  For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail.  Even the New York Times has reported on how easily "the divorce court leads to a jail cell," mostly for men.  In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this:  Do not marry and do not have children.

Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution.  For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage.  The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce.  Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays."  The central problem is the divorce laws.

It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce.  But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them.  Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it.  In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression.  Under "no-fault" divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons.  The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously.  Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons.  First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong.  Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime.  Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.

There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them.  The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children.  (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.)  While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children.  With custody, she can then demand "child support" that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income.  (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.)  She may spend it however she wishes.  You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction. 

You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car.  Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a "deadbeat dad" and take you away in handcuffs.  You are told you have "abandoned" your children and incarcerated without trial. 

Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike": refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce.  "Have anti-father family court policies led to a men's marriage strike?" ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer.  In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families.  In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.

Is it wise to disseminate such advice?  If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?   

Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason.  The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.

It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law.  "The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage," advocate Andrew Sullivan points out.  "All homosexuals are saying...is that, under the current definition, there's no reason to exclude us.  If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead.  But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality."

We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration's government therapy programs now do.  The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract.  We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children.  We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any. ESR

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.  His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, has just been published by Cumberland House Publishing.

[jm21-2]

Hmm...and it used to be that when men wanted a divorce in many states, a wife could refuse (or negate his testimony with hers) and essentially force her husband to bribe her in order to get a divorce. Arguably, the rise of career women is attributable to no-fault divorce, because it made it a lot easier for men to get divorces, and house-wives couldn't hold them over a barrel to extort larger amounts of money, so being a house-wife became less secure of an investment. Men are far more likely to be granted custody nowadays, and spousal support is awarded far less often. And give me a feminist professional woman over a conservative man any day to determine support amounts. We're our own worst enemies when it comes to divorce.

Actually, that applies across the board pretty much. A conservative guy who's serious about family, puts women on a pedestal, frugal, saves for the future, plans finances far ahead, invests, etc. is behind the times. I routinely watch conservative guys get trampled over by modern professional women, myself included. It's a joke. We simply can't deal with it. She's looking to challenge you, you're looking to be especially respectful and polite towards her....guess who wins?

But does that really mean a guy should toss those traditional values aside? I don't think so...I don't believe tossing aside your values, particularly when they seem like positive values, just to make life easier is ever a good idea.

Better to start holding modern women to higher standards as far as relations between the sexes go.

Instead of declining to hold the door open for a woman, disapprove of women who won't hold the door open for a guy. Make sure a woman you date is willing to pay for half the expense. Date women who make a similar amount or more than you, and make sure you both contribute equally to the household. Demand paternity leave. Instead of her quitting her job to stay at home full time after having a baby, both of you switch down to part time, or you quit and stay home.

Or if that doesn't sound very appealing, try another country. Guys just need to learn they can't treat a modern woman like a traditional woman. You'll be [snip]ed if you do.

EDIT: I guess my point is...it's not that divorce laws trample over guys. It's that guys let themselves get trampled over in dating and marriage, from a financial perspective especially. Our entire system is set up for financial equality between the sexes and an equally contributing two-income household, not a traditional male-headed single-income household. Guys need to get with the times or marry a girl who's from a country that's behind the times.

[daytrader]

A hokey website design but this guy seems to have a lot of constructive advice so you don't become road-kill in the "family court" circus

http://www.fathers-rights.com


- and he has national speaker's references. He is of the opinion that you have to do your own legwork and research to avoid becoming roadkill, NEVER depend on a lawyer.  My experiences in civil court in corporate cases gives great credence to that thought. 

I prefer a educated, intelligent Colombian woman to be the gold standard in defining "modern women" in this era....Most eligible American women are just considered "females"  ...to be avoided because they are so selfishly predictable. 

DayTrader

[Ray]

DT,

Though the author makes a couple of valid points, I think it’s mostly just hype and exaggeration. I think he should do a little research and site sources before putting out such BS.

Divorced fathers are NOT going to jail in any significant numbers and most are not going to be denied visits with their children even if the wife has sole custody which I don't think is that common.

As an example, the author states: “With custody, she can then demand child support…You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.” I believe that is not correct.

[william3rd]

FYI- In California, Child Support is based on income of the parties and % of visitation. The higher earner may pay support even if he/she has custody.

Child support is not tax deductible and is not counted as income to the recipient although spousal support is. So that statement is correct as far as it goes, that you will pay tax on the money that you earn and she wont (unless it is designated as family support).

Hype and exaggeration would be a good description

[fathertime]

As an example, the author states: “With custody, she can then demand child support…You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.” I believe that is not correct.

One rationale in which the quote COULD be correct is

1.  The child support a spouse pays is not deductable on taxes
2.  If you are the one paying child support, the other party is likely recieving the 1000 dollar child tax exemption during tax season. 

Fathertime!
 

[william3rd]

that quote is correct- however, it isnt a matter of demanding child support; it is that the other parent will PAY for their child. . . .

generally, the custodial parent will get the deduction. But that is just how it is for everybody.

I paid off support for my daughter a year in advance and I never got her for a deduction. I get support and the deduction for my son from my second marriage.

You gotta pay to have played. . . . and had children

[william3rd]

I see that the ATTORNEY-AUTHOR can be retained for your case. Very interesting approach.

[Ray]

Clarification:

The way I understand the IRS rules, the parent paying child support (non-custodial parent) is “usually” afforded the benefit of claiming the child as a dependent exemption and also for the child tax credit. I believe this is normally spelled out in the divorce decree as part of the child support agreement or if the custodial parent signs off that he/she will not claim the child as a dependent.

But the custodial parent may still get substantial tax advantages for filing status (head of household), childcare credits, and earned income credits.

When the author made the blanket statement that “she gets the tax deduction” (assumed dependent deduction), that is not necessarily the case. I know divorced non-custodial dads who are paying the majority of the children’s support but are also allowed to take the dependent deduction by agreement in the divorce decree.

Note: I believe that both divorced parents cannot claim the same child as a dependent.

[william3rd]

It works the other way most of the time.

Custodial usually takes the deductions and the H/H. My ex tries that crap all the time with IRS. Where does the child reside? I get a letter every year from FTB and IRS asking about the living situation.

There can be stipulations but I sure as hell wouldnt give it to my ex. I just want her check every month on the first and no other communications.

[daytrader]

DT,

Though the author makes a couple of valid points, I think it’s mostly just hype and exaggeration. I think he should do a little research and site sources before putting out such BS.

Divorced fathers are NOT going to jail in any significant numbers and most are not going to be denied visits with their children even if the wife has sole custody which I don't think is that common.

As an example, the author states: “With custody, she can then demand child support…You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.” I believe that is not correct.

Ray, I guess you don't hang with divorced guys in Florida...I know of many instances where the vindictive wife gets the guy in jail/loss of professional licenses/huge legal fees from State Atty witch-hunts -- all the allegations she makes are false (of course) but tremendous damage is done.  And there is no penalty for making false allegations -

...the most common tactic of the female is to allege spouse abuse - step 2 is a restraining order - then the guy is FORCED to move from the house he owns - now he has 2 atty bills, the divorce atty and the criminal action - - next his standard of living is cut substantially - next he can't see the kids he brought into the world.  If he is in a politically sensitive job, then he probably loses it, then his professional licenses/accreditations are suspended or he lives under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of his life in Florida.  He's forced to change work or change to different State (thus likely forfeiting visitation privileges) .........

In Pinellas County, Florida this has happened hundreds of times within the ten years I was there.    NEVER is the false accuser ever punished....like it or not, this is how the game is played over and over. 

Ray, you don't know how the game is played by the middle class/upper middle class female at least in Floriduh. 

DayTrader

[daytrader]

Guys are learning from this however...I coach them to go on offense FIRST..put her on defense...require lots of discovery requests and get the woman into a perjury trap with the judge...it's quite effective...if she doesn't comply with discovery and the "reasonable" requests the husband makes (and is copiously documented and submitted in each hearing), the feminist-leaning judge (most of them are in the Tampa area) has to side with the husband. 

Where the feminist wife blows it is her lies and bad lifestyle, misuse of money that can be documented and given to the Judge.  Guys don't wait for her to set the hearing..YOU DO IT..lots of motions all in the effort to do "what's best for the children"...Offense Offense Offense....Don't hold back...and have an absolutely mean SOB for a lawyer...no mamby pamby...YOU WILL GET HOSED.

DayTrader

[william3rd]

I agree in part with what DT is saying. The best defense is sometimes a good offense.

I would add- documentation documentation documentation.

[moneyrone]

Hello everyone, I'm a new poster and have real been amazed by the number of things most men go thru with AW. I completely agree with Daytrader, as I have learned that a good defense is a great offense. I have a son that lives in a different state then I do now, but the funny part is he use to stay with me! His mom got upset with me because I didn't want to be with her, and when he went back to visit her for the summer she enrolled him in school where she lives. Shortly after she went to the courts to ask for a increase in child support, which they happily gave her. I'm 31 now and have a thriving business, but at the time I worked full time as a residential manager with individuals with developmental disabilites making 32,000 a year before taxes. I had to pay $700 dollars a month in child support, and his mom had the nerve to call me a "dead beat dad." I know now that I didn't handle the situation correctly, and I am very thankful for forums like this one! I think most AM men (IMO) feel way to obligated to do the right things by AW when its not returned to us. The courts have their best interest in hand, THEY have their best interest in, and contrary to what the feminist wants us to believe so do we. I don't plan on marrying a AW, it doesn't appear to beneficial for long term success, which is why I have turned my eyes to SA. Keep up the excellent posting guys!!!!!!!!!!!!

[william3rd]

I have paid 736 month for my daughter for the past 17 1/2 years. I paid off 18 months in advance. Funny thing is that there were a couple of times where the support could have dropped about zero and more times when it could have doubled. But- we worked our orders.

Didn't you have any orders in place in your jurisdiction when your son lived with you? Sounds like it was handled wrong. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to learn the hard way.

Good luck to you in your search. . . . .

[blockbuster]

Hello everyone, I'm a new poster and have real been amazed by the number of things most men go thru with AW. I completely agree with Daytrader, as I have learned that a good defense is a great offense. I have a son that lives in a different state then I do now, but the funny part is he use to stay with me! His mom got upset with me because I didn't want to be with her, and when he went back to visit her for the summer she enrolled him in school where she lives. Shortly after she went to the courts to ask for a increase in child support, which they happily gave her. I'm 31 now and have a thriving business, but at the time I worked full time as a residential manager with individuals with developmental disabilites making 32,000 a year before taxes. I had to pay $700 dollars a month in child support, and his mom had the nerve to call me a "dead beat dad." I know now that I didn't handle the situation correctly, and I am very thankful for forums like this one! I think most AM men (IMO) feel way to obligated to do the right things by AW when its not returned to us. The courts have their best interest in hand, THEY have their best interest in, and contrary to what the feminist wants us to believe so do we. I don't plan on marrying a AW, it doesn't appear to beneficial for long term success, which is why I have turned my eyes to SA. Keep up the excellent posting guys!!!!!!!!!!!!

 If you live in the U.S. whether is does'nt matter whether the woman is American, Latina or from China, if you have kids  or divorce you will have to pay. Just because a man marries a foreign bride does 'nt mean he is exempt. There are lots of examples of men having their ex-latina wives file false DV charges againts them. Men on this very forum.

 If you want to be 100% safe from getting reamed in a divorce,  marry her and live in her country or stay single. I'm staying single but live to mingle.

[Soprano69]

You were very fortunate with your child support payments. I don't believe you were in any California courts. They have a strange way of reverting back to 3rd world paper work and end you up paying doublle or for someone else's kid.

[william3rd]

Come January- DV is set to change radically here in CA. Supposedly, there will be a streamlining of the system.

As far as cs is concerned, my orders were CA orders. I have CA orders on my son, too. Mom pays me based on income and % of her visitation.

[michaelb]

As an example, the author states: “With custody, she can then demand child support…You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.” I believe that is not correct.

Well, Ray, your belief is seriously wrong. Been there, done that. I paid, she claimed the deductions and that's the way it goes down 99% of the time. 

Every state has there own laws, of course, but in Texas for sure you're playing against a stacked deck. The forms you fill out to make the state enforce CS orders (such as when somebody isn't paying) are pre-printed "Custodial Parent: Her name and address" (at least that's what a friend who had to do that told me, I didn't see them myself, but I don't doubt his word). When he went down to the office they said something along the line of "Glad you decided to do the right thing, how far behind are you?" and he had to explain "No, she's the one behind" and they were 1. Surprised  that he had such an order and 2. Thought he was a scumbag for asking them to enforce it (funny, they seem to enjoy making their livings enforcing similar orders against men).

[daytrader]

Well, Ray, your belief is seriously wrong. Been there, done that. I paid, she claimed the deductions and that's the way it goes down 99% of the time. 

...........When he went down to the office they said something along the line of "Glad you decided to do the right thing, how far behind are you?" and he had to explain "No, she's the one behind" and they were 1. Surprised  that he had such an order and 2. Thought he was a scumbag for asking them to enforce it (funny, they seem to enjoy making their livings enforcing similar orders against men).

Wish there was a YOUTUBE video of that!

DayTrader

[william3rd]

..the most common tactic of the female is to allege spouse abuse - step 2 is a restraining order - then the guy is FORCED to move from the house he owns - now he has 2 atty bills, the divorce atty and the criminal action - - next his standard of living is cut substantially - next he can't see the kids he brought into the world.  If he is in a politically sensitive job, then he probably loses it, then his professional licenses/accreditations are suspended or he lives under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of his life in Florida.  He's forced to change work or change to different State (thus likely forfeiting visitation privileges) .........

Proof of DV in CA means that the batterer can not get custody of the children. Very common tactic in cases that would be close or go the other way. My son's mom tried that maneuver. Fortunataly, there was already a trail of documentary evidence going the other way.