Women with kids (are you sure?)

[DallasSteve2]

[This message has been edited by DallasSteve2]

The discussion below was whether it is better to marry a woman with children or without children.  I'll raise another topic:

Does the woman you meet in Latin America without children really have a child?  Just because they say they don't have any children doesn't make it so.

My wife has children and I knew that when I met her.  My ex-wife didn't have children.  Or did she?  Several issues have arisen which make me wonder.

1 - She used to keep a photo of a young boy on the wall in our house.  She said he was a nephew.  I never questioned that.

2 - Later I saw photos of a trip she made to Colombia.  There were three persons in the photos:  Her, her mother, and that boy.  No one else was in the photos like the mother of the boy, who I supposed would be her sister.

3 - My ex has stretch marks on her hips.  I always assumed she had gotten fat and lost the weight.  My wife says the only way you get those kind of stretch marks is from pregnancy.

In two trips to Bogota I never went to my ex-wife's home.  I never met her family.  Many would say "Why the hell not?"  Good question.  I didn't go to her home for 2 main reasons:

1 - She told me her family didn't know she was in an agency.  She said in Colombia many people have a negative opinion of the agencies and the women in the agencies.  I still believe that is true.

2 - I was much older than her.  I didn't want her family to meet me and then try to talk her out of marrying me because I was dumbstruck for her.

If I had gone to her home and met her family I might have discovered that she did have a son.  Or maybe she doesn't have a child.  But just because a woman says she doesnt have a child...

Steve

PS: When I mentioned this issue to my wife she said "Why do you older men with children think you deserve to pick out a younger woman who has no children?  You are just asking for the women to lie to you."

[cassius]

... in response to Women with kids (are you sure?), posted by DallasSteve2 on Sep 14, 2003

very good stuff, steve. your wife's words have
surely opened a lot of eyes and minds here.

also it is obvious from your troubles that being
'dumbstuck' can be very costly in many ways.

just today, by chance, i met a very very attractive latina
here in london. haven't met anyone so feminine and special
like that in a long time.

so i can perhaps understand what it must be like.

[elcolombiano]

... in response to Women with kids (are you sure?), posted by DallasSteve2 on Sep 14, 2003

I can not understand some one who would get married without meeting the family first. You don't just marry the woman, you marry the family.

[mudd]

... in response to Women with kids (are you sure?), posted by DallasSteve2 on Sep 14, 2003

Well, to comment on your wife's statement, and I can understand that "we" men with children already look selfish and a little self centered, looking for a younger girl(or a girl a few years younger) with no children. Could be that we are already supporting our own children, and we know how tough and expensive it is here in the states to do it, so why would we want to support someone else’s children that are not ours by blood. One other reason being that the laws here in the US are so "one way" if you marry a women with a child, they come to the US, and for whatever reason, it doesn’t work out, you are financially responsible for that child. That’s the way the law works here, so I myself wont take that kind of risk, unless the women is perfect, the child is a sweetheart and I know it will work 100%. for me, its too big of a risk for my children, who come first.

[DallasSteve2]

... in response to Re: Women with kids (are you sure?), posted by mudd on Sep 14, 2003

Mudd

Please clarify your comment: "if you marry a women with a child, they come to the US, and for whatever reason, it doesn’t work out, you are financially responsible for that child. "

I understand that if you sign an affidavit of support you serve as a safety net for the family.  That is, if their income is below 125% of the poverty level you have to make up the difference.  That's not the same as child support.

I've reviewed Texas' child support laws and there's nothing there to assess child support against a husband for stepchildren unless he adopts them (which I would never do).

Steve

[mudd]

... in response to Financial responsibility, posted by DallasSteve2 on Sep 14, 2003

here in California, as i remembr it, your responsible for them. i could be wrong, but i had a talk with my lawyer about it a few years ago, and he told me about a man who did marry a girl from a foreign counrty with a child,it didnt work out, and he had to pay child support. im not sure if he adopted the child or not, so i wil have to ask again. the bad part is that every state is diffrent, california being one of the worst for men. i also wonder if you marry a girl with a child, it doesnt work, and she files for government assistance, how much you would have to cough up for both her and the child?

[stefang]

... in response to Re: Financial responsibility, posted by mudd on Sep 14, 2003

Many states will hold you responsible for a child even if it isn't yours. The states don't want to dish out any tax dollars so they would rather hold you responsible. A PBS program about a month ago talked about divorce in Michigan and they figured it was a 4 billion a year industry. Isn't America great even our own lives are now a profit to be taken. Blame the filthy greedy bastard lawyers who came up with no fault laws so they could make tons of money. Look at no fault insurance, it is the same way everybody pays more for the claims of a few. No fault means no responsibility in life for the people who abuse the system.

[david hagar]

... in response to Re: Financial responsibility, posted by mudd on Sep 14, 2003

Elect Arnold, as governor, and he may change this.

Beattledog

[moam]

... in response to Re: Financial responsibility, posted by mudd on Sep 14, 2003

Mudd,

In this wonderful state of ours, if the woman applies for and gets (no reason for her not to qualify)AFDC, you will have to pay back every penny, nice isn't it!!!  And some would wonder why a guy would be gun shy about taking on a unrelated kid(s). I understand that the state of WA. is even worst, a mere relationship with a child will get you on the hook for child support if the relationship with the mom does not work out. With such lop sided laws in favor of women and children, it is a major consideration for a guy.

[Pete E]

... in response to Financial responsibility, posted by DallasSteve2 on Sep 14, 2003

Steve,
I think you are right.Unless you adopt them you have no responsibility in a divorce to provide for the kid.
Even the affidavid of support,as I understand it,is to reimburse public agencies that give them money to live(welfare).I think the agency has to pay first,then come after you.I don't think without that they can get any money from you on the affidavid of support.
In California you have to pay support to the wife for half the time you were married.The amount is determined by looking at both persons income.It can be a healthy amount,like $1500-$2000 a month if you make low 6 figures and her almost nothing.

Pete

[DallasSteve2]

... in response to Re: Financial responsibility, posted by Pete E on Sep 14, 2003

Pete

If the woman makes more money than her husband does he collect alimony in California?  It all sounds a little like prostitution to me, which is supposed to be illegal, but it's OK if the government does it (like gambling).

[Sarcasm]It' hard to see how California got into such a mess with such wise lawmakers.[Sarcasm end]

Steve

[Pete E]

... in response to California alimony, posted by DallasSteve2 on Sep 14, 2003

Steve,
It was a joke,all these things are very expensive to rent.But at leat they won't bite you on the a-s a second time after you turn them in.
I am an ex car dealer.I manage to drive the absolute best cars,in my opinion, for $1000-$2000 a year depreciation.I have never bought a new car in my life.The book "the millionaire next door" says 40% of people with over one million net worth buy only used cars.
I now have a 1997 BMW 740i.(after my other BMW got totaled by a clueless asian driver.)I stole it.I bet I can drive it 5 years and lose no more than $5000 to depreciation.Someone else took the first $50,000 worth of depreciation in its first 6 years.Its still like new.
Leases you make a payment that is supposed to offset the depreciation,instead of paying the car off,as you would with a loan.So less money goes to pay the principle down.
But there is an internal interest rate figured in the lease,and I have seen them be very high.Also a open end lease is best,where you can buy the car if you want at the end of the lease.And if you put on too many miles there can be huge penalties.
But don't roll the odometer back.I bought a car at an auction one time.The guy had rolled it back from 63,000 miles to 33,000 miles before turning it back from lease.I did a history on he car and found out about the 63,000 miles.The wholesaler who took it to the auction had to cut me a check for the value difference.He went after the dealer who went after the original owner.As a private party
he probably just had to pay some money.If a dealer does that its jail time.Some still do.They are hard to catch sometimes,so he feds really nail them if they do catch them.Slamersville.
To figure your true cost to own,take purchase price minus future sale price.Add expected repairs and any interest you will be paying.Figure that even if you paid cash since you could have done something else with the money.All of this is figured in to the lease,so you can do a comparison.Remember you will one way or another be paying depreciation so buy a car that has already been depreciated,as in paying alot less for it.Any new car will cost you bucks.You could spend more than me for a Saturn.
And I got a car that was $65,000 new,all the bells and whistles.I'll buy my 2002 754i($75,000 and considered by some the worlds best car)in 2008 for under $20,000.It helps if you know these cars are good for 300,000 plus miles.

Pete

[moam]

... in response to Re: California alimony, posted by Pete E on Sep 15, 2003

Hey Pete,
Can I get some feedback from you on BMW ownership, as for as reliability, maintenance, performance, ride quality, etc. I need to go out and buy (preowned) a vehicle due to the fact that some 17 year old Ahole stole my pickup, went through a red light and totaled my truck and the car that hit him. I am really interested in picking up a Lexus LS400(what a great car) that is 3-5 tears old, in my search I have come across some sharp BMW 7 series from 96 thru 99, I just don't know enough about them to make that leap, came close to having one in the garage a couple of times. You can shoot any reply to my e-mail if you wish.

Thanks,
Gary

[Pete E]

... in response to California alimony, posted by DallasSteve2 on Sep 14, 2003

Steve,
Actually yes,if she makes more money he might get alimony.
And I don't know that we are that much different from other states.This new "no fault"divorce law situation came around 15 or 20 years ago and I think most states handle it about the same.I can see it for child support if it is reasonable.But alimony,unless the woman has been a housewife for 20-30 years and is so far out of it she couldn't get a job,I don't see it.No more marrige,no more free ride.If a woman doesn't want to be married to you you should be able to just put her stuff in the driveway and change the locks.The law was so worried about some poor faithfull wife being put out that we got the other extreme.She can decide she doesn't want to be your wife anymore,but you still have to preform a provider role.
Sounds like prostitution?Its worse in a way.You can be paying way after the benefits are gone.
Reminds me of a saying.It goes "if it flys,floats or f-cks you are better off renting it."

Pete

[DallasSteve2]

... in response to Re: California alimony, posted by Pete E on Sep 14, 2003

Pete

I leased a car for the first time this year and am relieved already to know that I won't have to eat another $5000 of depreciation 3 years from now, like happened when I wanted to trade the Firebird I bought for my ex.

I mention that because on the website for my leasing agency their motto is:

Buy what appreciates
Lease what depreciates

Makes sense to me.

Steve

PS: Texas has no-fault divorce but alimony is much more limited.  You must be married for at least five years, the woman must have much lower earning power and it's for a shorter period of time.  And, oh yes, it's still an unjust law.