OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 11:49:06 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Domestic violence and divorce in America  (Read 516 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« on: June 12, 2014, 10:17:00 AM »

It is irresponsible and cruel to forbid a woman to seek safety when she is subjected to violence in her own home.
but ok to forbid it to a man or children.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2014, 10:19:20 AM »

If a Christian is acting like an infidel Muslim by punching the lights out of his wife, then she should be able to divorce him for the safety of her own life and that of her children. Some men cannot control their anger or just do not care, or perhaps they are sleep deprived. Whatever.
leave "her children" out of it, as the incidence of domestic violence by men not their biological father in the house, doesn't support the coupling.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2014, 10:47:49 AM »

It is irresponsible and cruel to forbid a woman to seek safety when she is subjected to violence in her own home.
but ok to forbid it to a man or children.
Huh?  How did you get that out of what I said?  Huh
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2014, 01:05:12 PM »

It is irresponsible and cruel to forbid a woman to seek safety when she is subjected to violence in her own home.
but ok to forbid it to a man or children.
Huh?  How did you get that out of what I said?  Huh
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
DeniseDenise
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404


« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2014, 01:07:45 PM »

If a Christian is acting like an infidel Muslim by punching the lights out of his wife, then she should be able to divorce him for the safety of her own life and that of her children. Some men cannot control their anger or just do not care, or perhaps they are sleep deprived. Whatever.
leave "her children" out of it, as the incidence of domestic violence by men not their biological father in the house, doesn't support the coupling.

I do not think Maria meant to imply the children were not the biological father's offspring. 

As much as has been pointed out that in Egypt the children -belong- to the father......in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word) to and are considered to be more under the Mother's wing.  So Maria's expression 'her children' is merely a reflection of that difference in mindset.

Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2014, 01:16:44 PM »

It is irresponsible and cruel to forbid a woman to seek safety when she is subjected to violence in her own home.
but ok to forbid it to a man or children.
Huh?  How did you get that out of what I said?  Huh
Well, the last few posts before mine were about women, so I was referencing that.  I agree that it could equally apply to men or children.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2014, 02:21:55 PM »

in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word) to and are considered to be more under the Mother's wing. 
I wonder why that is. Surely, the west is traditionally patriarchal, and even today the vast majority of children, at least those born within marriage, still receive their father's name. Then, in case of divorce, the mother takes the children, but the father still has to pay. I just cannot see the logic in that. Shouldn't the one who pays also have the children live with him or her?

In Sweden, the usual model is that children spend a week with one parent, then a week with the other parent, and each parents pays during his or her week. Makes more sense.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2014, 02:26:25 PM »

in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word) to and are considered to be more under the Mother's wing. 
I wonder why that is. Surely, the west is traditionally patriarchal, and even today the vast majority of children, at least those born within marriage, still receive their father's name. Then, in case of divorce, the mother takes the children, but the father still has to pay. I just cannot see the logic in that. Shouldn't the one who pays also have the children live with him or her?

In Sweden, the usual model is that children spend a week with one parent, then a week with the other parent, and each parents pays during his or her week. Makes more sense.
There are quite a few men's rights groups that make that very same argument.  The courts, however, typically shoot for a 50/50 split, but if push comes to shove, it usually goes in favor of the woman as mothers are considered to be the nurturers of the youth.  It is more of a throwback to when women did not work outside the home as much and were more involved in the childrearing than the fathers were.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2014, 02:37:03 PM »

in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word) to and are considered to be more under the Mother's wing. 
I wonder why that is. Surely, the west is traditionally patriarchal, and even today the vast majority of children, at least those born within marriage, still receive their father's name. Then, in case of divorce, the mother takes the children, but the father still has to pay. I just cannot see the logic in that. Shouldn't the one who pays also have the children live with him or her?

In Sweden, the usual model is that children spend a week with one parent, then a week with the other parent, and each parents pays during his or her week. Makes more sense.
There are quite a few men's rights groups that make that very same argument.  The courts, however, typically shoot for a 50/50 split, but if push comes to shove, it usually goes in favor of the woman as mothers are considered to be the nurturers of the youth.  It is more of a throwback to when women did not work outside the home as much and were more involved in the childrearing than the fathers were.

Where in the world do you get the idea that the US courts go for a 50/50 split?  They do absolutely no such thing, outside the few states that mandate joint custody except for exceptional circumstances.

you have a very interesting definition of "usually," as >90% it goes to the woman.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2014, 02:41:59 PM »

in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word) to and are considered to be more under the Mother's wing. 
I wonder why that is. Surely, the west is traditionally patriarchal, and even today the vast majority of children, at least those born within marriage, still receive their father's name. Then, in case of divorce, the mother takes the children, but the father still has to pay. I just cannot see the logic in that. Shouldn't the one who pays also have the children live with him or her?

In Sweden, the usual model is that children spend a week with one parent, then a week with the other parent, and each parents pays during his or her week. Makes more sense.
In US law it's called the Tender Years Doctrine. It came about from some court decisions, once divorce was moved from the jurisdiction of the legislature (you used to have to have an act of the legislature to get a divorce, like Henry VIII), in the 1800s.  Now it is disguised as the Best Interests of the Child standard.

There is a vested bureaucracy in collecting child support, which is why what you allege for the Swedish norm has problems here (although it does happen:I do recall once my divorce judge yelling at a couple doing that, because SHE didn't approve it).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2014, 02:44:03 PM »

in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word) to and are considered to be more under the Mother's wing. 
I wonder why that is. Surely, the west is traditionally patriarchal, and even today the vast majority of children, at least those born within marriage, still receive their father's name. Then, in case of divorce, the mother takes the children, but the father still has to pay. I just cannot see the logic in that. Shouldn't the one who pays also have the children live with him or her?

In Sweden, the usual model is that children spend a week with one parent, then a week with the other parent, and each parents pays during his or her week. Makes more sense.
There are quite a few men's rights groups that make that very same argument.  The courts, however, typically shoot for a 50/50 split, but if push comes to shove, it usually goes in favor of the woman as mothers are considered to be the nurturers of the youth.  It is more of a throwback to when women did not work outside the home as much and were more involved in the childrearing than the fathers were.

Where in the world do you get the idea that the US courts go for a 50/50 split?  They do absolutely no such thing, outside the few states that mandate joint custody except for exceptional circumstances.

you have a very interesting definition of "usually," as >90% it goes to the woman.
Sorry, you might be right. I should clarify that I was only speaking from my observations of family divorces.  Most of them have 50/50 physical custody arrangements. I suppose it could be quite different in other parts of the country or perhaps even the state.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2014, 02:47:32 PM »

If a Christian is acting like an infidel Muslim by punching the lights out of his wife, then she should be able to divorce him for the safety of her own life and that of her children. Some men cannot control their anger or just do not care, or perhaps they are sleep deprived. Whatever.
leave "her children" out of it, as the incidence of domestic violence by men not their biological father in the house, doesn't support the coupling.

I do not think Maria meant to imply the children were not the biological father's offspring.
I was speaking of his successor in mom's bed.
As much as has been pointed out that in Egypt the children -belong- to the father......in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word)

au contraire, it is PRECISELY the right word.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2014, 02:50:16 PM »

in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word) to and are considered to be more under the Mother's wing. 
I wonder why that is. Surely, the west is traditionally patriarchal, and even today the vast majority of children, at least those born within marriage, still receive their father's name. Then, in case of divorce, the mother takes the children, but the father still has to pay. I just cannot see the logic in that. Shouldn't the one who pays also have the children live with him or her?

In Sweden, the usual model is that children spend a week with one parent, then a week with the other parent, and each parents pays during his or her week. Makes more sense.
There are quite a few men's rights groups that make that very same argument.  The courts, however, typically shoot for a 50/50 split, but if push comes to shove, it usually goes in favor of the woman as mothers are considered to be the nurturers of the youth.  It is more of a throwback to when women did not work outside the home as much and were more involved in the childrearing than the fathers were.

Where in the world do you get the idea that the US courts go for a 50/50 split?  They do absolutely no such thing, outside the few states that mandate joint custody except for exceptional circumstances.

you have a very interesting definition of "usually," as >90% it goes to the woman.
Sorry, you might be right. I should clarify that I was only speaking from my observations of family divorces.  Most of them have 50/50 physical custody arrangements. I suppose it could be quite different in other parts of the country or perhaps even the state.
If the parents agree (read:if mom agrees), it can be done.  There was a study of a number of states-I forget which ones-where not a single instance of joint custody was by agreement.  In CA the custody decisions of the courts were 92% mom, 8% to dad.  Once the joint custody law was put in place it became 92% sole custody to mom, 8% joint custody.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
DeniseDenise
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404


« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2014, 02:50:55 PM »

If a Christian is acting like an infidel Muslim by punching the lights out of his wife, then she should be able to divorce him for the safety of her own life and that of her children. Some men cannot control their anger or just do not care, or perhaps they are sleep deprived. Whatever.
leave "her children" out of it, as the incidence of domestic violence by men not their biological father in the house, doesn't support the coupling.

I do not think Maria meant to imply the children were not the biological father's offspring.
I was speaking of his successor in mom's bed.
As much as has been pointed out that in Egypt the children -belong- to the father......in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word)

au contraire, it is PRECISELY the right word.




No where in the example given was there such a 'successor'.....merely the possibility.



I get that this is clearly a hot topic issue for you personally, but I still contend that children are not -owned- by a parent here, despite your bad experience, which i am truly sorry you had.

Sad

Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,726


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2014, 12:35:00 AM »

This was split off from a thread about domestic violence, divorce, and the Coptic Church:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,58958.msg1138618.html#top
Logged

Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2014, 09:03:06 AM »

If the parents agree (read:if mom agrees), it can be done.  There was a study of a number of states-I forget which ones-where not a single instance of joint custody was by agreement.  In CA the custody decisions of the courts were 92% mom, 8% to dad.  Once the joint custody law was put in place it became 92% sole custody to mom, 8% joint custody.
Can't they make joint custody the normal case, from which one may deviate only in the most extreme circumstances? That is what they did in Germany. However, a majority of divorce children still mostly live with their mothers and the Scandinavian time-sharing model is being introduced only slowly.
Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2014, 01:20:55 PM »

There would be so much less domestic violence if women would just learn to shut up and make us a sammich.





Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2014, 01:59:39 PM »

If the parents agree (read:if mom agrees), it can be done.  There was a study of a number of states-I forget which ones-where not a single instance of joint custody was by agreement.  In CA the custody decisions of the courts were 92% mom, 8% to dad.  Once the joint custody law was put in place it became 92% sole custody to mom, 8% joint custody.
Can't they make joint custody the normal case, from which one may deviate only in the most extreme circumstances?
Why would they do that?  Lawyers don't make money that way, and judges don't have a reason to exist that way.

And judges don't want to be bothered with the most extreme circumstances.  German law is by case, Common Law by precedent and US Divorce law by rote.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 02:05:45 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2014, 02:03:41 PM »

If a Christian is acting like an infidel Muslim by punching the lights out of his wife, then she should be able to divorce him for the safety of her own life and that of her children. Some men cannot control their anger or just do not care, or perhaps they are sleep deprived. Whatever.
leave "her children" out of it, as the incidence of domestic violence by men not their biological father in the house, doesn't support the coupling.

I do not think Maria meant to imply the children were not the biological father's offspring.
I was speaking of his successor in mom's bed.
As much as has been pointed out that in Egypt the children -belong- to the father......in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word)

au contraire, it is PRECISELY the right word.




No where in the example given was there such a 'successor'.....merely the possibility.
the possibility is actualized repeatedly.

I get that this is clearly a hot topic issue for you personally, but I still contend that children are not -owned- by a parent here, despite your bad experience, which i am truly sorry you had.
thanks, but my views were informed before my personal issues.  The experience was even worse than my informed views expected.

The courts treat the children as the mother's property.  They will disclaim that, but "disclaimer" is legalese for "accurate description of what I am doing, but am denying."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
DeniseDenise
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404


« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2014, 02:09:15 PM »

There would be so much less domestic violence if women would just learn to shut up and make us a sammich.












Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,837



« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2014, 02:26:28 PM »

There would be so much less domestic violence if women would just learn to shut up and make us a sammich.














The only thing I want my woman to cook me is more meth.

Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2014, 02:03:19 PM »

Where in the world do you get the idea that the US courts go for a 50/50 split?  They do absolutely no such thing, outside the few states that mandate joint custody except for exceptional circumstances.

you have a very interesting definition of "usually," as >90% it goes to the woman.

What if the divorce is a result of the wife's infidelity?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2014, 02:06:01 PM »

Where in the world do you get the idea that the US courts go for a 50/50 split?  They do absolutely no such thing, outside the few states that mandate joint custody except for exceptional circumstances.

you have a very interesting definition of "usually," as >90% it goes to the woman.

What if the divorce is a result of the wife's infidelity?
infidelity is noticed only if it is the man's-for a cash settlement even more favorable to the wife. And perhaps to restrict access to his kids.  But then since fidelity on the part of the man is punished even more harshly, it doesn't make much of a difference.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,273


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2014, 11:42:34 PM »

Where in the world do you get the idea that the US courts go for a 50/50 split?  They do absolutely no such thing, outside the few states that mandate joint custody except for exceptional circumstances.

you have a very interesting definition of "usually," as >90% it goes to the woman.

What if the divorce is a result of the wife's infidelity?
infidelity is noticed only if it is the man's-for a cash settlement even more favorable to the wife. And perhaps to restrict access to his kids.  But then since fidelity on the part of the man is punished even more harshly, it doesn't make much of a difference.

It is just so far removed on how God created the union of a man and a woman through matrimony.... The tangled web sin weaves.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,752


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2014, 04:03:00 PM »

Where in the world do you get the idea that the US courts go for a 50/50 split?  They do absolutely no such thing, outside the few states that mandate joint custody except for exceptional circumstances.

you have a very interesting definition of "usually," as >90% it goes to the woman.

What if the divorce is a result of the wife's infidelity?
infidelity is noticed only if it is the man's-for a cash settlement even more favorable to the wife. And perhaps to restrict access to his kids.  But then since fidelity on the part of the man is punished even more harshly, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Which is why I'll never get married in the United States.

What's the point of marrying one educated, privileged American woman that can easily suck me dry if we divorce when for the price of one, I can go over to Yemen, marry 4 women, and they have to worship me or else they'll go to Islamic Hell?

Well, no not really  Cheesy

You do however raise a point about the notoriously imbalanced American divorce system. It certainly does deter a person--at least myself--from the thought of ever marrying an American woman.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
kelly
UNSUBSCRIBED from the world
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,635


St. Eudoxia of Moscow


« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2014, 04:03:42 PM »

Where in the world do you get the idea that the US courts go for a 50/50 split?  They do absolutely no such thing, outside the few states that mandate joint custody except for exceptional circumstances.

you have a very interesting definition of "usually," as >90% it goes to the woman.

What if the divorce is a result of the wife's infidelity?
infidelity is noticed only if it is the man's-for a cash settlement even more favorable to the wife. And perhaps to restrict access to his kids.  But then since fidelity on the part of the man is punished even more harshly, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Which is why I'll never get married in the United States.

What's the point of marrying one educated, privileged American woman that can easily suck me dry if we divorce when for the price of one, I can go over to Yemen, marry 4 women, and they have to worship me or else they'll go to Islamic Hell?

Well, no not really  Cheesy

You do however raise a point about the notoriously imbalanced American divorce system. It certainly does deter a person--at least myself--from the thought of ever marrying an American woman.

You're barely even trying anymore.
Logged

kelly and I spend all our free time collecting pictures of Russian monarchs.  Its a thing we do.
Tags: divorce 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.117 seconds with 53 queries.