4 ms·

The sort of rational thinking you are describing was completely absent from this process. Neither party cared about child support or alimony. Or money, at all.

The sort of rational thinking you are describing was completely absent from this process. Neither party cared about child support or alimony. Or money, at all. Also, you’re not accurately describing how things turned out. One of the parents wound up having very little custody time, and very little child support.

notch656a 4y ago
Accusations of abuse seem pretty rational to me in a custody battle. It's one of the best ways to get custody. Come up with some 'witnesses', trick the kid into testifying on your side. Have the attorney write up the sob story and blindside the other partner so they're left defenseless. Bonus points if you can get a restraining order in the process so custody is lost and continuity is maintained by continuing the custody terms of the restraining order -- also a good way to destroy means of defense as in some states a spouse has their firearm rights suspended during the order.
- watwut 4y ago
  it is actually not. Courts tend to punish those if they don't believe them - accusing partner of abuse is fairly often how you get less custody. Restraining orders are not easy to get either. It can take quite a lot of fight even in cases where actual stalking and threats of violence are going on.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    You're the judge and I'm a 'battered wife.' In this fiction: I self-harm myself (claim it was the husband), come up with a terrible and fairly convincing but unverifiable story of abuse and be sure to mention to you my husband has several guns and has threatened me and the kids with them. Do you choose to issue a restraining order, or do you roll the dice and hope nothing bad happens?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Going in with a co-operative mindset (at least until the other party demonstrates they are not) should be win-win." Do you have a source for this? In my state, and many others, temporary protection from abuse orders against spouses are very easy to get just by saying the right things without any real evidence. Those stay in effect for a couple of weeks until a hearing. Then it's difficult to get them overturned unless you have physical proof because the course want to "err on the side of caution". There are divorce lawyers who actually recommend filing false protection orders during divorce, for the very reasons stated by the previous commenter. It's well known amongst divorce attorneys that some in their profession do this. There is generally no punishment for those attorneys since you can't prove their involvement easily, nor for the false filer in many cases. After all, if your spouse is a felon (perjury) the courts will likely make you pay more in child support and alimony due to their limited earning potential.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      Everything in America depends on the state you’re in, but that not my experience at all. Once officialdom realizes there is a divorce in progress, they become much, much, much less inclined to take sides. The general attitude is: “You’re going through a divorce. We aren’t going to take your word for it. If we didn’t see it, it didn’t happen.”
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Things can vary by state. However, I don't know of any state that isn't going to take sides (literally why the judge/master is there if it comes to a trial). Courts are generally not going to ignore any claims about abuse. This is a well known issue that may be more prevalent in some states than others, but is certainly a national issue. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/order-of-protection-and-j_b_974970 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/order-of-protection-and-j_b_9... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-worst-thing-a-woman-c_b_837636 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-worst-thing-a-woman-c_b_8...
jquery 4y ago
> The sort of rational thinking you are describing was completely absent from this process The unreasonably high stakes of “losing” a divorce case make it more like a no-holds barred cage match. I think America likes it this way because on some level it believes people must suffer for getting divorced.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  That doesn't make any sense, because it being a "no-holds barred cage match" makes it more likely for one party to lose. Going in with a co-operative mindset (at least until the other party demonstrates they are not) should be win-win.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Going in with a co-operative mindset (at least until the other party demonstrates they are not) should be win-win." Completely agree. However, the underlying reason for many divorces is that they no long have the ability to cooperate or view things rationally.
    - pohl 4y ago
      The ability is still there. Usually it’s the willingness that’s absent.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        In some cases. In others the individual(s) may be irrationally emotional and might need a lot of therapy to overcome those emotional impulses.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I've seen couples where the ability was never there, even if the willingness was.
- meepmorp 4y ago
  Not everybody's divorce is like this. My ex and I went through voluntary mediation and came to a mutually agreed settlement, with shared legal custody. We just both recognized that the process was about separating our lives, not resolving our feelings about one another. And that's pretty much always why it goes wrong - people want to use court proceedings as a substitute for therapy.

notch656a 4y ago

Accusations of abuse seem pretty rational to me in a custody battle. It's one of the best ways to get custody. Come up with some 'witnesses', trick the kid into testifying on your side. Have the attorney write up the sob story and blindside the other partner so they're left defenseless. Bonus points if you can get a restraining order in the process so custody is lost and continuity is maintained by continuing the custody terms of the restraining order -- also a good way to destroy means of defense as in some states a spouse has their firearm rights suspended during the order.

watwut 4y ago
it is actually not. Courts tend to punish those if they don't believe them - accusing partner of abuse is fairly often how you get less custody. Restraining orders are not easy to get either. It can take quite a lot of fight even in cases where actual stalking and threats of violence are going on.
- notch656a 4y ago
  You're the judge and I'm a 'battered wife.' In this fiction: I self-harm myself (claim it was the husband), come up with a terrible and fairly convincing but unverifiable story of abuse and be sure to mention to you my husband has several guns and has threatened me and the kids with them. Do you choose to issue a restraining order, or do you roll the dice and hope nothing bad happens?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Going in with a co-operative mindset (at least until the other party demonstrates they are not) should be win-win." Do you have a source for this? In my state, and many others, temporary protection from abuse orders against spouses are very easy to get just by saying the right things without any real evidence. Those stay in effect for a couple of weeks until a hearing. Then it's difficult to get them overturned unless you have physical proof because the course want to "err on the side of caution". There are divorce lawyers who actually recommend filing false protection orders during divorce, for the very reasons stated by the previous commenter. It's well known amongst divorce attorneys that some in their profession do this. There is generally no punishment for those attorneys since you can't prove their involvement easily, nor for the false filer in many cases. After all, if your spouse is a felon (perjury) the courts will likely make you pay more in child support and alimony due to their limited earning potential.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    Everything in America depends on the state you’re in, but that not my experience at all. Once officialdom realizes there is a divorce in progress, they become much, much, much less inclined to take sides. The general attitude is: “You’re going through a divorce. We aren’t going to take your word for it. If we didn’t see it, it didn’t happen.”
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Things can vary by state. However, I don't know of any state that isn't going to take sides (literally why the judge/master is there if it comes to a trial). Courts are generally not going to ignore any claims about abuse. This is a well known issue that may be more prevalent in some states than others, but is certainly a national issue. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/order-of-protection-and-j_b_974970 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/order-of-protection-and-j_b_9... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-worst-thing-a-woman-c_b_837636 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-worst-thing-a-woman-c_b_8...

jquery 4y ago

> The sort of rational thinking you are describing was completely absent from this process The unreasonably high stakes of “losing” a divorce case make it more like a no-holds barred cage match. I think America likes it this way because on some level it believes people must suffer for getting divorced.

nicoburns 4y ago
That doesn't make any sense, because it being a "no-holds barred cage match" makes it more likely for one party to lose. Going in with a co-operative mindset (at least until the other party demonstrates they are not) should be win-win.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Going in with a co-operative mindset (at least until the other party demonstrates they are not) should be win-win." Completely agree. However, the underlying reason for many divorces is that they no long have the ability to cooperate or view things rationally.
  - pohl 4y ago
    The ability is still there. Usually it’s the willingness that’s absent.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      In some cases. In others the individual(s) may be irrationally emotional and might need a lot of therapy to overcome those emotional impulses.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I've seen couples where the ability was never there, even if the willingness was.
meepmorp 4y ago
Not everybody's divorce is like this. My ex and I went through voluntary mediation and came to a mutually agreed settlement, with shared legal custody. We just both recognized that the process was about separating our lives, not resolving our feelings about one another. And that's pretty much always why it goes wrong - people want to use court proceedings as a substitute for therapy.