3 ms·
> Basically seems like a principle guaranteed to cause children of rich people to grow up entitled I think the point is too make sure that kids don’t have a dr
by spicebox 3y ago
> Basically seems like a principle guaranteed to cause children of rich people to grow up entitled
I think the point is too make sure that kids don’t have a dramatic drop in their quality of life as a result of a divorce which (in my opinion) makes sense
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI don't really understand this idea. I get ensuring basic necessities are taken care of, by why shelter kids from drops in affluence beyond that?
- pfannkuchen 3y agoCan you hack this by “losing your job” XX months before getting divorced? How long do you have to go before the lower level of affluence is established?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI am not a lawyer, but based on some horror stories out there, so I doubt it. It is fairly common for individuals to be assessed support based on "earning potential" earnings. This means that obligations are not reduced if someone changes to a less lucrative, but potentially more fulfilling career, or if they voluntarily retire when they could still be working. In my opinion, it is pretty twisted when earnings aren't based on a % of variable income.
- pyuser583 3y agoThe real reason is that it makes it easier for courts to decide custody issues. Should the child go to a poor parent with no criminal record, or a rich parent with a criminal record? That’s also why courts don’t care too much that divorce usually causes a drop in the standard of living of both parents. It doesn’t make th decision any harder. As long as the drop in living standard results in equalized poverty, it’s not an issue. Which is pretty messed up, but that’s divorce. It can seem pretty crappy when you’re watching a court destroy your standard of living to feed your ex-wife’s drug habit. I’m happily married, and never divorced. But I’ve seen some things.