Originally Posted by HaHa
I'm quite aware of this. The Socialist Republic of Washington is in the forefront of this hypocritical travesty. Here's another one for those men who might be tempted to live with a woman in Washington, thinking that
this is not the only travesty. Section 90.3 (iirc) of the uniform child custody act provides for child support in some situations that I found a bit much.
One of the factors conributing to the demise of my first marriage was basic inequalities in many areas. One area was financial. As in I worked, she didn't. Now, I'm sure you are thinking--she stayed home and took care of the kids, did laundry, cleaned, etc. etc. Wrong. She volunteered at the radio station, took classes, hiked (sometimes with the kids, in fairness), read, did the occasional load of laundry without sorting whites from colored and dumped it in a pile in the middle of the living room floor for self-service sorting.
Anyway, the relationship ended, and although I am not the litigious type, I ended up having to use the legal system to maintain access to my kids. Ultimately, I had to threaten to have a guardian ad litum appointed (knowing full-well my ex hated social workers of any kind), and insisted on (and paid for) family counseling to get her to agree to a reasonable custody arrangement. I paid for a mediator, got a mediated settlement, she later claimed the mediator was "biased", so then I paid for both our lawyers.
I agreed to a 42% to 58% split (I don't need to say who got the 58%--let's say that my choice to have 5 years of engineering education versus her choice to get a biology degree (4 years) and teaching certificate (1 year) which was funded with wages I earned got me a -8% bonus in the net worth splitup so she could retool). After all, she sacrificed her career to support mine.....
After thinking about it quite a bit, I decided I would prefer that she get the 8% than a couple of lawyers get it. So....
50-50 custody. Guess what. Turns out I still owed child support, not only on the difference in our incomes, but on 1.5 times that difference. And, even though she quickly remarried, her hubby's income didn't count in the equation even though the rationale for said rule is so the standard of living isn't noticeably lower in one domicile than the other.
Frankly, I think if the standard of living is a bit
lower in one domicile, it might be an educational opportunity for the kids. However, ultimately, my ex and I learned to coparent (we even got past my having to threaten legal action to allow me to get braces--at my expense-- for my son....never quite understood that one)
Do I have an attitude about the family law system? YES!! Was it worth all the headaches (and believe me, I haven't even scratched the surface here) to get out of marriage number 1? YES!! And is marriage number 2 infinitely better ABSOLUTELY!!!
I now have a partner who is truly a partner. We are working towards the same goals, not at cross-purposes. It is without a doubt the best investment I ever made.