6 ms·

Also, what would make divorces less nasty is the horrible practice of making one party pay for the legal fees of both parties. Also, 50/50 custody as a norm.

Also, what would make divorces less nasty is the horrible practice of making one party pay for the legal fees of both parties. Also, 50/50 custody as a norm. 50/50 Child support as a norm. Maybe 90% of the nastiness would absolutely disappear.

novok 5y ago
Remove custody percentages as a part of support payments and the financial incentive that drives a lot of this behavior goes away. In other countries where support payments are not a major thing, a lot of the nastyness of divorce also goes away too. I like this section of the book "real world divorce" about it: http://www.realworlddivorce.com/International http://www.realworlddivorce.com/International
- Talanes 5y ago
  The standardizing of support payments that a lot of these countries (and it looks like some US states) do seems like a fair way to reduce the potential exploitability too. The price of raising a child isn't tied to income, so why should the payer's income matter beyond reducing payments (ideally with the state stepping in like the Danish system) for those who can't make the normal amount?
  - closeparen 5y ago
    The idea is that the wife and children should not experience any decline in their standard of living as a result of the divorce. They are entitled to live the way they would have lived had the marriage continued; if the husband is rich then that includes owning a nice house in an expensive city, luxury cars, private schools, etc. If the system’s goal were merely to ensure that they land on their feet, it would look very different.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      Well, that's the idea behind alimony, which is sometimes mixed in with child support. But child support is mostly rooted in the idea that raising a child requires more support than a single individual can provide. If it were just about continuation of lifestyle, my mother wouldn't have been entitled to anything as my parents were never together.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The idea is that the wife and children should not experience any decline in their standard of living as a result of the divorce. Specifically, in the case of child support, the idea is that the children should not (the idea that the spouse should not tends to be factored in to alimony.) e.g., to quote the California law on child support: “Children should share in the standard of living of both parents.” Family Code § 4053(f)
    - Thorrez 5y ago
      That seems like an impossible goal. If there are 2 houses instead of 1, it's going to require getting cheaper houses, smaller yards, etc. Both parties' standard of living will go down.
      - moduspol 5y ago
        Not necessarily. It could result in one house and yard staying the same, and the other one being a one bedroom apartment across town with almost no furniture. In this case, only one party's standard of living goes down.
        Thorrez 5y ago
        The money for the apartment needs to come from somewhere.
        moduspol 5y ago
        Sorry--I was making a joke. The implication being that in a middle class divorce (at least in the US), it's pretty common that the standard of living for the mother and children is maintained when it comes to house size, yard, etc. because she ends up keeping it. The stereotype is that he ends up in the crappy apartment and writing the big alimony checks and child support payments. It's glossing over a bit to not acknowledge that one's standard of living is taking a much bigger hit than the other. It's also not the case that 100% of income in a marriage contributes to standard of living (or equally between spouses), so there absolutely are cases where an ex-wife with sufficient alimony and child support could end up with a nicer house, car, etc. than when she was married. This dichotomy is what drives a lot of the angst that comes up when dealing with these legal processes. > Both parties' standard of living will go down. This isn't quite true is all I'm saying. The higher earner's standard of living almost certainly will go down. The other spouse's standard of living may or may not.
        novok 5y ago
        It also implies the other spouse (usually father), shouldn't be an equal active co-parent and have autonomy over where the money for the child goes, and it goes only to the other parent. Maybe in a few decades we will recognize that you should incentivize both parents to be active in the child's life.
freddie_mercury 5y ago
All of your points are already covered in the linked article. Except it says that mediation is better than legal fees, regardless of who pays. The article's claim is that this shift away from the adversarial process is probably the biggest factor, though others also contribute. And 50/50 custody is already the norm in many places, according to the article. "Laws in Australia, Sweden and some American states require judges to consider splitting custody time more or less down the middle."
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  /me twice divorced. The first one started with mediation. The process was highly feminized, and all the mediators were women. I felt very much that they were predisposed to the view that I was "at fault". The process failed, in that we weren't able to agree a settlement. It was useful only in that we were required to perform disclosure, and to discuss the disclosed documents in a fairly non-judicial forum; disclosure would be necessary anyway when the settlement went to court. In court, my solicitor was a woman; my wife's was a woman; and the judge was a woman. This is the UK; Family Court proceedings were subject to very strict secrecy. The press couldn't report Family Court proceedings, not even anonymized, so basically the public had no idea what kinds of things went on in Family Court. It's become a little looser now, but only a little. It's high time for reform of UK family law. [Edit] I advised people "don't get married". Then I went into my second marriage, which ended 3 years later. Dogfood much?
  - kentrado 5y ago
    What was the aftermath? How much did you lose or had to pay?
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      I had to pay more money than I thought was fair. It didn't go to judgement - I settled. I'm forbidden to say any more.
      - 5y ago
irrational 5y ago
My parents got divorced, but my Mom had always been a stay at home mom. She had absolutely no working experience, no career, etc. There was no way she could have paid even 99/1 since she didn't even have any income separate from my father. This is probably less common now, but I still know lots of families where the mother does not have a career outside the home (and 1 example of a father not having a career outside the home).
- david38 5y ago
  Except women who have careers are treated just as helpless.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  And that is why we have social security. I see no reason for other partner to pay...
  - tempestn 5y ago
    Because the reason the mother doesn't have career experience is because she spend the time contributing to the family in other ways, allowing the husband to focus more on work. Had she not been married, she would have (by necessity if nothing else) had a career outside the home instead. Social security generally provides a bare minimum safety net, if that; it's unreasonable that one spouse should walk away in a far better financial position than the other after both contributed to the marriage.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Mother made the choice to prioritize family over career. That was always an option. I see no reason to punish other person. If the other person forced mother, she should have divorced at that point and gotten on with the career. Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children. I see no reason why such person deserve anymore than bare minimum. That is bare minimum that society considers acceptable. So clearly it should be acceptable for absolutely everyone.
kspacewalk2 5y ago
> Also, 50/50 custody as a norm. Sounds like the worst possible outcome for the kids. A constant state of chaos in your life, even if both parents are reasonably good at taking care of a kid, interested in it, have the financial means, etc.
- Talanes 5y ago
  Yeah, I remember as a kid the one dude in our trailer park who had a 50/50 arrangement with their other parent in town. Poor kid never had any of us go over to their house to seek them out, because we didn't know the schedule. Childhood social structures can be fragile things that are invisible to adults.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
Not everyone has money for divorce. If we really want to make it better, we can lower filing fees or get rid of them entirely. Getting married is cheap in a lot of places, and that means poor folks can have the legal benefits of marriage. It is a shame that poverty can keep you there. 50/50 custody isn't always good for the child, though. I know a kid that really had anxiety issues, in no small part because 50/50 makes for somewhat unstable housing. There isn't really a such thing as 50/50 child support. The bigger reason for child support is because one parent obviously makes more than the other one, and the support is supposed to ease the burden. I'd rather expand the safety net so that less support is needed. Not only that, but I'd make sure that the support receiver gets the money every month regardless of whether or not the other parent pays. You can pay support to the government instead of directly to the other party. Also of note: Support tends to be higher or lower depending on custody - and to be fair, it applies to never-married relationships as well. I'd also note that we should be sure that both parties can keep up proper residences for the children. Visitation means you need the house space (bedrooms) for the children, for example, and support shouldn't mean that you lose access to your children.
- tempestn 5y ago
  Paying to the government instead of directly to the other party is such an excellent idea it kind of blows my mind that this is the first time I've heard it. So many unnecessary disputes around spousal/child support that could be solved with that measure. The government is already good at collecting and distributing money; that's basically what it's for. Seems blindingly obvious.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    That's already the norm. However, not all jurisdictions pay out what hasn't already been paid in.
  - mgbmtl 5y ago
    That's how it is in Quebec/Canada and I'm surprised it's not the norm. It's indexed to inflation. Either party can request a re-evaluation if their situation has changed. Here over 50% of kids are born from unmarried parents, and that proportion has steadily increased through the years. 20% of couples separate before their first child is 5 years old. 50/50 parenting is the norm. Might sound scary, but as someone in that situation, it took some time to get used to, but worked out fine. Common law covers child support but not spousal support. It can be a major risk if one spouse is financially dependent on the other (see Cirque du Soleil, Éric vs Lola).

novok 5y ago

Remove custody percentages as a part of support payments and the financial incentive that drives a lot of this behavior goes away. In other countries where support payments are not a major thing, a lot of the nastyness of divorce also goes away too. I like this section of the book "real world divorce" about it: http://www.realworlddivorce.com/International http://www.realworlddivorce.com/International

Talanes 5y ago
The standardizing of support payments that a lot of these countries (and it looks like some US states) do seems like a fair way to reduce the potential exploitability too. The price of raising a child isn't tied to income, so why should the payer's income matter beyond reducing payments (ideally with the state stepping in like the Danish system) for those who can't make the normal amount?
- closeparen 5y ago
  The idea is that the wife and children should not experience any decline in their standard of living as a result of the divorce. They are entitled to live the way they would have lived had the marriage continued; if the husband is rich then that includes owning a nice house in an expensive city, luxury cars, private schools, etc. If the system’s goal were merely to ensure that they land on their feet, it would look very different.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    Well, that's the idea behind alimony, which is sometimes mixed in with child support. But child support is mostly rooted in the idea that raising a child requires more support than a single individual can provide. If it were just about continuation of lifestyle, my mother wouldn't have been entitled to anything as my parents were never together.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The idea is that the wife and children should not experience any decline in their standard of living as a result of the divorce. Specifically, in the case of child support, the idea is that the children should not (the idea that the spouse should not tends to be factored in to alimony.) e.g., to quote the California law on child support: “Children should share in the standard of living of both parents.” Family Code § 4053(f)
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    That seems like an impossible goal. If there are 2 houses instead of 1, it's going to require getting cheaper houses, smaller yards, etc. Both parties' standard of living will go down.
    - moduspol 5y ago
      Not necessarily. It could result in one house and yard staying the same, and the other one being a one bedroom apartment across town with almost no furniture. In this case, only one party's standard of living goes down.
      - Thorrez 5y ago
        The money for the apartment needs to come from somewhere.
        moduspol 5y ago
        Sorry--I was making a joke. The implication being that in a middle class divorce (at least in the US), it's pretty common that the standard of living for the mother and children is maintained when it comes to house size, yard, etc. because she ends up keeping it. The stereotype is that he ends up in the crappy apartment and writing the big alimony checks and child support payments. It's glossing over a bit to not acknowledge that one's standard of living is taking a much bigger hit than the other. It's also not the case that 100% of income in a marriage contributes to standard of living (or equally between spouses), so there absolutely are cases where an ex-wife with sufficient alimony and child support could end up with a nicer house, car, etc. than when she was married. This dichotomy is what drives a lot of the angst that comes up when dealing with these legal processes. > Both parties' standard of living will go down. This isn't quite true is all I'm saying. The higher earner's standard of living almost certainly will go down. The other spouse's standard of living may or may not.
        novok 5y ago
        It also implies the other spouse (usually father), shouldn't be an equal active co-parent and have autonomy over where the money for the child goes, and it goes only to the other parent. Maybe in a few decades we will recognize that you should incentivize both parents to be active in the child's life.

freddie_mercury 5y ago

All of your points are already covered in the linked article. Except it says that mediation is better than legal fees, regardless of who pays. The article's claim is that this shift away from the adversarial process is probably the biggest factor, though others also contribute. And 50/50 custody is already the norm in many places, according to the article. "Laws in Australia, Sweden and some American states require judges to consider splitting custody time more or less down the middle."

denton-scratch 5y ago
/me twice divorced. The first one started with mediation. The process was highly feminized, and all the mediators were women. I felt very much that they were predisposed to the view that I was "at fault". The process failed, in that we weren't able to agree a settlement. It was useful only in that we were required to perform disclosure, and to discuss the disclosed documents in a fairly non-judicial forum; disclosure would be necessary anyway when the settlement went to court. In court, my solicitor was a woman; my wife's was a woman; and the judge was a woman. This is the UK; Family Court proceedings were subject to very strict secrecy. The press couldn't report Family Court proceedings, not even anonymized, so basically the public had no idea what kinds of things went on in Family Court. It's become a little looser now, but only a little. It's high time for reform of UK family law. [Edit] I advised people "don't get married". Then I went into my second marriage, which ended 3 years later. Dogfood much?
- kentrado 5y ago
  What was the aftermath? How much did you lose or had to pay?
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    I had to pay more money than I thought was fair. It didn't go to judgement - I settled. I'm forbidden to say any more.
    - 5y ago

irrational 5y ago

My parents got divorced, but my Mom had always been a stay at home mom. She had absolutely no working experience, no career, etc. There was no way she could have paid even 99/1 since she didn't even have any income separate from my father. This is probably less common now, but I still know lots of families where the mother does not have a career outside the home (and 1 example of a father not having a career outside the home).

david38 5y ago
Except women who have careers are treated just as helpless.
Ekaros 5y ago
And that is why we have social security. I see no reason for other partner to pay...
- tempestn 5y ago
  Because the reason the mother doesn't have career experience is because she spend the time contributing to the family in other ways, allowing the husband to focus more on work. Had she not been married, she would have (by necessity if nothing else) had a career outside the home instead. Social security generally provides a bare minimum safety net, if that; it's unreasonable that one spouse should walk away in a far better financial position than the other after both contributed to the marriage.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Mother made the choice to prioritize family over career. That was always an option. I see no reason to punish other person. If the other person forced mother, she should have divorced at that point and gotten on with the career. Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children. I see no reason why such person deserve anymore than bare minimum. That is bare minimum that society considers acceptable. So clearly it should be acceptable for absolutely everyone.

kspacewalk2 5y ago

> Also, 50/50 custody as a norm. Sounds like the worst possible outcome for the kids. A constant state of chaos in your life, even if both parents are reasonably good at taking care of a kid, interested in it, have the financial means, etc.

Talanes 5y ago
Yeah, I remember as a kid the one dude in our trailer park who had a 50/50 arrangement with their other parent in town. Poor kid never had any of us go over to their house to seek them out, because we didn't know the schedule. Childhood social structures can be fragile things that are invisible to adults.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

Not everyone has money for divorce. If we really want to make it better, we can lower filing fees or get rid of them entirely. Getting married is cheap in a lot of places, and that means poor folks can have the legal benefits of marriage. It is a shame that poverty can keep you there. 50/50 custody isn't always good for the child, though. I know a kid that really had anxiety issues, in no small part because 50/50 makes for somewhat unstable housing. There isn't really a such thing as 50/50 child support. The bigger reason for child support is because one parent obviously makes more than the other one, and the support is supposed to ease the burden. I'd rather expand the safety net so that less support is needed. Not only that, but I'd make sure that the support receiver gets the money every month regardless of whether or not the other parent pays. You can pay support to the government instead of directly to the other party. Also of note: Support tends to be higher or lower depending on custody - and to be fair, it applies to never-married relationships as well. I'd also note that we should be sure that both parties can keep up proper residences for the children. Visitation means you need the house space (bedrooms) for the children, for example, and support shouldn't mean that you lose access to your children.

tempestn 5y ago
Paying to the government instead of directly to the other party is such an excellent idea it kind of blows my mind that this is the first time I've heard it. So many unnecessary disputes around spousal/child support that could be solved with that measure. The government is already good at collecting and distributing money; that's basically what it's for. Seems blindingly obvious.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  That's already the norm. However, not all jurisdictions pay out what hasn't already been paid in.
- mgbmtl 5y ago
  That's how it is in Quebec/Canada and I'm surprised it's not the norm. It's indexed to inflation. Either party can request a re-evaluation if their situation has changed. Here over 50% of kids are born from unmarried parents, and that proportion has steadily increased through the years. 20% of couples separate before their first child is 5 years old. 50/50 parenting is the norm. Might sound scary, but as someone in that situation, it took some time to get used to, but worked out fine. Common law covers child support but not spousal support. It can be a major risk if one spouse is financially dependent on the other (see Cirque du Soleil, Éric vs Lola).