Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...

[Muzh]

This is a poor analogy, because it is based primarily on physical laws.  A successful marriage is not based on the physical, but on spiritual and emotional work and compatibility.   I can't put in the emotional work to ensure the driver in the next car will always pay attention at the wheel.  I can work on my relationship, though, to ensure that I don't need to give up half my "stuff", if that is what is important to me.

Boe, I mentioned it before. It is a matter of That bitch ain't getting any of my money.

[Patagonie]

Boe, I mentioned it before. It is a matter of That bitch ain't getting any of my money.

Why do you speak about bitch Muzh ? May you explain ?

[Patagonie]

 author=Boethius
Marriage is a partnership, ideally, for life, Presumably, a wife has brought something into that partnership.  Without getting into emotions, at a physical level, at least, she cooks.  She cleans.  She takes care of her husband.  Perhaps she even works.  Why shouldn't she get half of what a man has  earned when they were together?


It seems to be that you don't read what i write.
me : "Tell me what is fair ? Men's properties (prior marriage) give a substantial amout of money durint the marriage shared by both : ok no problem with that.
The increase of this properties has to be shared ? Why ? Why a guy who have 50000$ in stocks or a property for 200000 $ prior the marriage, if  the day of the divorce all have increased of 50%  why he has to shared 25 % of the net value ? And curiously if those assets decrease of 50% it has no consequence on what he has to pay ? Tell me in which manner the spouse is interacting which such assets ?



No, you are not correct on this. and I can point you to lexisnexis, where you can read hundreds of cases to the contrary.  The situation ML described is an aberration. 

I don't think that this is an aberration, notarius and forums report many cases like this.That injustice, though, is not usually about money.  It is about custody rights.me :You notice yourself that the injustice is large when childrens are involved."
THe injustice is more larger : explain me why, in case or alterned custody, the grid which used by court mentions that the man has to pay an alimony to the woman ?Explain me why anytime a woman can ask a DNA investigation to force any man to pay an alimony for a child from him?
But explain me why a man cannot ask a DNA investigation for a children he is not supposed to get from his spouse ? (betwen 5 and 8 % of childrens don't come from the official father).
Explain me why more than half rapes and more than 70 % or child abuse (the man is always put in police custody) are just blabla but the woman is almost never prosecuted for such lies ?


I assume in most of those cases, what the woman is receiving is child support, not a division of assets.  Shouldn't men be obligated to look after their children?

This has any relationship with childrens, it is about the difference in style life before and after the divorce. Explain me why 97 % of 15% of men pay a compensatory alimony whereas the difference in earning between men and women is less than 10% ? A law of last 2004 has modified hugely the landscape in favor of such compenstory alimony.

Why?  A weight gain is usually something required of the woman.  How often a couple has sex is a mutual obligation.   But, if a man is going to make contractual demands, shouldn't a woman have the same rights in terms of demands?  The examples given were just that.  The contractual obligations negotiated would be that which each couple chooses.  However, the point was not to suggest all marital demands should be set to contract, but rather, to demonstrate the ridiculousness of conducting an emotional relationship in the same manner as you would to buy widgets.

Absolutely prenups setting all about the daily on the paper are ridiculous, i do agree


Really?  You don't believe a marriage is sacred?  In Christianity, it is a sacrament.  You don't believe a marriage requires trust?  Without trust, a marriage is nothing.

The marriage is sacred TILL the divorce, we speak here about DIVORCE, not about the time when all is fine.AGAIN NO ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You  don't wear your belt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle but do know you that in the next 20 years you have 40% of chance to have a crash, and after the first crash your chances are 60% ?

What do you think of that ? Answer of some here :
You should  believe in God and trust him.

What God has to do with crashes ?
If you believe in God nothing will happen to you, if you don't believe in him you will have a crash.

But do you know that believers suffer statistically of the same proportion of crash ?
Answer : "i am not affected because i have the power to let it not happen by my emotionnal work"

Would you advice your son to drive or ride without belt or helmet ?
Answer : Not yet answered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Muzh]

Why do you speak about bitch Muzh ? May you explain ?

LOL

Pat, I'm pretty sure many Americans know what I'm talking about.

Let's say it is a common phrase used in divorce court in the US.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Why do you speak about bitch Muzh ? May you explain ?

Pat, you're asking a male feminist here.  The man is always wrong and the women are always victims.    Ignoring is the best use of your time.

[Muzh]

author=Boethius


I don't think that this is an aberration, notarius and forums report many cases like this.That injustice, though, is not usually about money.  It is about custody rights.me :You notice yourself that the injustice is large when childrens are involved."
THe injustice is more larger : explain me why, in case or alterned custody, the grid which used by court mentions that the man has to pay an alimony to the woman ?Explain me why anytime a woman can ask a DNA investigation to force any man to pay an alimony for a child from him?
But explain me why a man cannot ask a DNA investigation for a children he is not supposed to get from his spouse ? (betwen 5 and 8 % of childrens don't come from the official father).
Explain me why more than half rapes and more than 70 % or child abuse (the man is always put in police custody) are just blabla but the woman is almost never prosecuted for such lies ?

Boy, you guys have it tough in France.

If you are from "LivefromUkraine" school of thought where men are always the victims and the women are vicious bitches, then there is nothing to explain.

Now, let me ask you a question. Does the man (in France) makes less money that the woman doing the same job. Is the man a stay-at-home individual while his wife goes to work? Are the economies equal for men and women IN GENERAL?

[calmissile]

Pat, you're asking a male feminist here.  The man is always wrong and the women are always victims.    Ignoring is the best use of your time.

+1

[Muzh]

Pat, you're asking a male feminist here.  The man is always wrong and the women are always victims.    Ignoring is the best use of your time.

Obviously, all throughout modern history men has been exploited by evil bitches who all they do is incarcerate these poor defenseless men when the come home after an 18 hour work day and force them to cook and clean the house for the evil bitch.

Correct?

Excuse me.

Wah, wah, wah

I don't know what to think about you. Either you hate women or you are scared of them, or both.

I think it is both.

For clarification purposes, I'm not a male feminist.

I'm an educate human being that see humans as being all equals.

Women don't scare me. Men don't scare me either.

Pfft. Infeliz

[Muzh]

+1

Hey Doug, why don't you relay your experiences here with your first fiance to the "real men" on how to treat a woman?

[calmissile]

Hey Doug, why don't you relay your experiences here with your first fiance to the "real men" on how to treat a woman?

It's  not worth the bandwidth.  Spending a ton of money on someone before fully understanding the culture and personalities is not wise.  It was a foolish mistake and a learning process.  At least we can learn from our mistakes.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Obviously, all throughout modern history men has been exploited by evil bitches who all they do is incarcerate these poor defenseless men when the come home after an 18 hour work day and force them to cook and clean the house for the evil bitch.


I don't know what to think about you. Either you hate women or you are scared of them, or both.

Hmm... I must have touched on a nerve.  I am also not the person using derogatory terms to describe women, yet, I am accused of hating them.   Please show some respect and stop using such words.

[Boethius]

The post, in context, was not disrespectful.  Far worse has been directed at posters here, often with little objection.

[Boethius]

It seems to be that you don't read what i write.

No, I read it.  I don't necessarily agree.

The increase of this properties has to be shared ? Why ? Why a guy who have
50000$ in stocks or a property for 200000 $ prior the marriage, if  the day
of the divorce all have increased of 50%  why he has to shared 25 % of the
net value ? And curiously if those assets decrease of 50% it has no consequence
on what he has to pay ? Tell me in which manner the spouse is interacting which
such assets ?

They were assets which increased in value during a partnership.  If they decrease that normally, at least in Canada, is also taken into account.

I don't think that this is an aberration, notarius
and forums report many cases like this.That injustice, though, is not usually
about money.  It is about custody rights.me :You notice yourself that the
injustice is large when childrens are involved."

Yes, but that injustice is not about money.  It is about a father's right to see his children without the mother interfering, or trying to poison her children against the father.

THe injustice is more larger : explain me why, in case or alterned custody, the
grid which used by court mentions that the man has to pay an alimony to the
woman ?Explain me why anytime a woman can ask a DNA investigation to force any
man to pay an alimony for a child from him?

I assume in most of those cases, what the woman is receiving is child support, not a division of assets.  Shouldn't men be obligated to look after their children?

In Canada, the amount of alimony to be paid is based on total salary.  It is prorated between the parents, based on how much time each has with the children.  This has been the case for more than a decade.  Parents who make so much money they are "off the grid" may pay more, depending on the lifestyle the children enjoyed before the divorce.A man who fathers a child should be required to pay for that child.  I have no issue with DNA tests to prove this.

But explain me why a man cannot ask a DNA investigation for a children he is not supposed to get from his spouse ? (betwen 5 and 8 % of childrens don't come from the official father).

Because in the case of a spouses, the spouse is presumed to be the father.  Furthermore, he stands in loco parentis, meaning, he may not be the biological father, but he is the father the children have known.  BTW, I disdain men who stand as fathers to stepchildren, or even to children who are not biologically theirs conceived in marriage, then drop them to move on to the next better deal when the marriage goes south.  These are is not, IMHO, the actions of a real man, and it says a lot about his character (or rather, lack thereof).  It is one of the reasons I think mothers need to look long and hard before remarrying.  I used to think they should not marry at all, but I/O's example changed my mind.  Of course, most men are not I/O.

Explain me why more than half rapes and more than 70 % or child abuse
(the man is always put in police custody) are just blabla but the woman is
almost never prosecuted for such lies ?

In North America, women are prosecuted for reporting false rape claims.  It is not even close to 70%, it is so miniscule that it can only be described as an aberration.  Keep in mind, an acquittal does not necessarily mean a rape did not occur.  It just means there is not sufficient evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict.  As for child abuse claims, women are "punished" in divorce cases for such reports, if false.  There are even cases of mothers jailed for defying court orders, and losing primary custody of the children.  These are known as "alienation" cases in Canada.  I know similar cases have been reported in some U.S. jurisdictions, but it more of a mixed bag in the U.S.

This has any relationship with childrens, it is about the difference in style life before and after the divorce. Explain me why 97 % of 15% of men pay a compensatory alimony whereas the difference in earning between men and women is less than 10% ? A law of last 2004 has modified hugely the landscape in favor of such compenstory alimony.

I'd be very surprised if there is only a 10% difference in salary between men and women anywhere outside, perhaps, the Nordic countries.  That certainly is not the case in North America.  Men are paying to ensure their children have as close to a similar lifestyle after divorce as they did before.  Typically, most of the burdens of childcare fall to mothers, not fathers.  Most women take more time out of the workforce to care for children than do men.  So, their salaries generally are lower.  That is why men are paying more.  It is CHILD support for a reason.

The marriage is sacred TILL the divorce, we speak here about DIVORCE, not about the time when all is fine.AGAIN NO ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION:

You  don't wear your belt in a car or a helmet on a
motorcycle but do know you that in the next 20 years you have 40% of chance to
have a crash, and after the first crash your chances are 60% ?

What do you think of that ? Answer of some here :You should  believe in God and
trust him.

What God has to do with crashes ?
If you believe in God
nothing will happen to you, if you don't believe in him you will have a
crash.

But do you know that believers suffer statistically of the same
proportion of crash ?
Answer : "i am not affected because i have the power to
let it not happen by my emotionnal work"

Would you advice your son to
drive or ride without belt or helmet ?
Answer : Not yet answered.

Au contraire, my friend.  I did answer the question.  But, I'll give some free advice.  Know the heart and soul of the person you are marrying.  Forgive everything.  Carry no grudges.  Remember, each day, how happy you were on your wedding day.  If you do these things, you will never need a prenup.
 

[Muzh]

Hmm... I must have touched on a nerve.  I am also not the person using derogatory terms to describe women, yet, I am accused of hating them.   Please show some respect and stop using such words.

LOL
 
Who is using derrogatiry terms? I see you have identified with the example, because it was an example. Or did you notice the difference?
 
Let me hear the ladies say how I was disrespectful of them.
 
 

[Ade]

Forgive everything.  Carry no grudges.  Remember each day, how happy you were on your wedding day.  If you do these things, you will never need a prenup.

 

[Patagonie]

The post, in context, was not disrespectful.  Far worse has been directed at posters here, often with little objection.

the post is disrespectful, because for who defend a position of a protected contract it insinues that we (men) consider our girlfriends or wife as bitches. Which is disrespectful for them and for us.

[Patagonie]

Boethius, i am pleased that you have detailled a little more the cases and what happen in your country. I imagine it is Canada. Each country needs a proper answer. Laws and case laws can have substantial differences.

[Patagonie]

Boy, you guys have it tough in France.

If you are from "LivefromUkraine" school of thought where men are always the victims and the women are vicious bitches, then there is nothing to explain.

Now, let me ask you a question. Does the man (in France) makes less money that the woman doing the same job. Is the man a stay-at-home individual while his wife goes to work? Are the economies equal for men and women IN GENERAL?

Muzh i think that you don't really read my posts, twice i have explained that this difference, searchers cannot find any explanation for a difference of 9 %. To say it in an other manner they don't find explanation at the end to explain a 9 % of difference between men and women (same work duration, same degree, same skills ....).

[calmissile]

the post is disrespectful, because for who defend a position of a protected contract it insinues that we (men) consider our girlfriends or wife as bitches. Which is disrespectful for them and for us.

Pat,
Don't expect the feminists (and men wearing panties) to make respectful comments.

Bo is an exception.  Due to her intellect and lawyer training, she can send the same message without the disrespectful languge.  She is very skilled at arguing, whatever side she chooses to take.   

[Patagonie]

+1

Yes i quit this topic, it is the best to do now.

[BillyB]

You must live in Fantasy Island. De Plane De Plane

You have the money, you can go back to court. Just find a better lawyer. Simple.

You don't seem to understand how appellate court works. They aren't going to take a case just because a high price lawyer is representing a recent divorcee who's feelings are hurt. 


First an attorney must prove the judge made an erroneous decision or there was misconduct during the trial. A better attorney may be able to discover a reason for an appeal over an inexperienced attorney but there is no guarantee an erroneous decision or misconduct will even be discovered. Appellate courts can't take every valid case in front of them and choose based off those who's lives are most affected , not based off the quality or cost of attorney's making the appeal.


I can't help you understand unless you're willing to help yourself. I suggest you talk to an attorney who specialize in appellate work about this subject and come back and let me know who's living in fantasy land.

[calmissile]

[color=blackKnow the heart and soul of the person you are marrying.  Forgive everything.  Carry no grudges.  Remember, each day, how happy you were on your wedding day.  If you do these things, you will never need a prenup. [/color]

This is the silliest post you have made in a while.
1.  Most people going into a marriage feel that they know the heart and soul of their spouse or they would not marry them.
2.  "Forgive everything.  Carry no grudges.  Remember, each day, how happy you were on your wedding day."  I agree this is how both spouses should feel about the other and is often expressed throughout the marriage.  It only works if BOTH spouses continue to feel this way upon entering a divorce.

Your 'dream scenario' does not seem to work in real life.  You also do not account for either party developing animosity toward the other and bitterness develops.  In many if not most cases in the US,  divorce is a confrontational process.  The divorce lawyers make a killing by getting one or both parties angry and bitter toward each other.  Your dream scenario seems to end at the courthouse steps.   

I was fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to have experienced both types of divorce.  First wife of 22 years turned into a feminist, man hating, bitch.  Her only objective was to destroy everything I had worked to accumulate.  Her sleazebag lawyer accomplished her objectives.   Neither of us got anything significant from the $250K estate.  The lawyers, rent-a-shrinks (paid experts), a minority stockholder in my corporation, all managed to steal the estate.

BTW, the fight in court which lasted over 3 years was not about money.   It was my fight for joint custody of our daughter.  At the time, the joint custody statute had just passed in California and nearly all the judges in family court were used to granting children to the mother.  They carried their prejudices on for many years before change finally came.  Early in the proceedings my wife made me an offer.  If I would agree to give her full custody of our daughter, I can keep my corporation, helicopter, airplane and other toys.  All she wanted was complete custody and control of my daughter and our residence (which was nothing special).  I refused!  And so went on the fight for over 3 years. 

We had bifurcated the custody and property issues so we were technically divorced and only the custody and property issues remained.  About 3 years into the proceedings she got cancer and died while she was still fighting for sole custody.  Needless to say.... I became a believer in Karma.

To give you an example of sleazebag lawyers let me give this example.....
When I learned (the last one to know) of her terminal illness,  I  was concerned about her stress and the possible affect on our daughter.  I went to her church (4 Square Fundamentalist) and spoke to her minister about him facilitating a peace treaty between us so that my wife could enjoy her remaining time with our daughter without worrying about the court battles or my visitation.  The minister refused and rebuffed my request.  It was apparent that she had already told so many lies to them, that any help from them would be fruitless.

I then went to her attorney after one of our court days and made a deal that we shook hands on at the courthouse steps (a painfull lesson.  don't ever believe a lawyer).  I agreed to suspend visitation and court proceedings so that my now ex-wife could enjoy our daughter as much as possible.  His part of the agreement was to notify me immediately upon her death, have my daughter ready for pickup as soon as I could get there, and to NOT represent anyone that would be challenging me for custody of my daughter.  My wife had previously indicated that she wanted her sister to have my daughter.  I was naive enough to think an agreement with a lawyer was to be honored.  My stupid!

My work had transferred me to Southern California.  I honored the agreement.  On a Monday morning I received an anonymous phone call at work.  The only thing that was said was "It happened".  To this day I don't know who made the call.  I suspect it was either a friend or someone neutral.  I immediately called her lawyer to inquire about her status.  Before I even asked, he announced that she had passed away on Saturday and he was getting ready to call me.  I told him to have my daughter ready for my pickup and I would be leaving work immediately.  He then dropped the bombshell that my sister-in-law wanted my daughter and I was not permitted to attend her funeral.

I hung up and immediately begin the 4 hour drive to my former home.   I went to the lawyers office first to find out where my daughter was.  I was told the lawyer was in court.  I went through the entire court and spoke with every judge (whom I by now knew all of them). 
The lawyer had not been seen since morning court.  I went back to the attorney office and a secretary told me Mr.XXXX suggested that you read this......

It was an exparte order from the court granting temporary custody of my daughter to my sister-in-law.  Exparte orders are emergency orders that a judge makes when it is impossible for the other litigant to be in court, or when someone is facing a physical threat.  They are not taken lightly and very often are refused when the other party cannot be present.

Upon reading the order, I discovered the attorney lied in his application for the order.  He stated the reason for the exparte order was because he had no knowledge about my whereabouts and could not be reached by phone.   The bastard had just talked to me on the phone and my whereabouts were clearly en route to the lawyers office.  People wonder why we think of lawyers as scumbags!

To shorten the story,  there were several more months of fighting the sister-in-law and the lawyer in court for custody of my daughter.  BTW, during the whole divorce process and subsequent custody batter, there was never any mention or claims that I was an unfit father.  In fact it was the opposite.

The night I was stranded without my daughter, I contacted another man that was fighting the same lawyer for custody of his daughter.  He gave me the name of a woman lawyer that hates how men are screwed over by the local judges.  With tears in my eyes, I met her at her office at about 7 p.m. in a nearby city.  She was outraged that the judge made such a ruling without the presence of the other party.  She was sure it was a mistake.  She called the judge and explained the situation suggesting that a mistake had been made and I had driven 4 hours to pick up my daughter.  The judge was annoyed that she had called him at dinnertime and he hung up the phone on her.   Somehow, I can imagine the same response from Bo.  lol   She immediately took my case.  She had fire in her eyes.  She asked me to return the next morning and we would develop a strategy.   I also learned that she had won a landmark case in the US Supreme Court and was normally litigating women's cases for wrongful termination, etc.  At least I had not found a slouch for an attorney, even if our politics were different.

I arrived at her office the next morning.  She was still so pissed at the judge I was surprised she could think clearly.  Three of us sat down to develop a plan.  Patricia (the attorney), her secretary and myself.  Patricia did all the legal thinking,  she taught me how to do legal research of case law (shephard cases sp?) and the secretary typed as she gave her the data.
We worked from that morning around the clock until 6:30 the next morning with only one lunch break at a local restaurant.

At 6:30 in the morning, we had Writ of Habeas Corpus (about an inch thick) and a Writ of Prohibition, Mandate, and Review (another inch thick) ready for the appellate court.  I was so happy with the lawyer I wanted to kiss her or marry her.   LOL

On my return to Southern California, I stopped by the appellate court in Ventura and filed the briefs.  Don't remember for sure, but I might have stopped by the judges office and left copies for the judge.

Patricia had ripped the judge a new asshole (in legal terms of course).  He was now exposed to his peers on the appellate court and possibly to other statewide judges as well.   The appellate court did not need to respond.  The judge, upon reading that his dirty tricks were exposed, called an immediate hearing and reversed his decision.  Prior to reading his revised decision, both Patricia and I thought we would both spend some time in jail.  This guy was LIVID!

So, Bo you can see why your merry little tale about being nice to each other throughout marriage often does not matter when you get to divorce court.  I like your fantasy, just wish real life worked that way.

To your credit, it sometimes does.  My second divorce was very friendly.  We both agreed to not involve any scumbag attorneys, files our own divorce including property settlement and even dated frequently over many years.   We still have an affection and respect for each other.

The lesson is that you never know what kind of person you will face when it comes time for divorce, regardless of the best intentions and behavior during the marriage.  It takes two to Tango.     


BTW:  This lawyer is now a Superior Court Judge!   Good example of how the scumbags climb the ladder to eventually become Supreme Court Judges.

[Boethius]

Well, cal, I have 29 years of marriage using those criteria.  When you reach that milestone, you can come back and tell me how silly it was.


How can posters here, most of whom cannot even communicate effectively, initially, with their intended, know their heart and mind?


No offense to you, but your wife did not automatically turn into a feminist who wanted to destroy you.  From my observation, and having had discussions with both many divorce lawyers and divorced women, in the absence of mental illness, a woman usually seeks divorce when she just gets tired of putting up with her husband's  cr@p and believes she has done everything to salvage her marriage.   It is also my observation that once that decision is made, a woman rarely changes her mind.  Some put up with it until the kids are grown.


Were your late ex wife to post here, I am certain she would have a very different interpretation of the events surrounding your separation and divorce.  Not to suggest yours is wrong, but there are always two sides to a story, and the truth tends to lie somewhere in between, leaning one way or the other, to different degrees, on different issues.    Custody, unfortunately, is usually the issue where spouses tend to go for the jugular, to the detriment of the children, and it is either  a way to "get back" at the spouse, or because that party believes, subjectively of course, that the other parent cannot possibly give anything of use to the child. 


In my province, mediation is mandatory before divorce.  Since it's been introduced, custody disputes generally have dropped, though they still, of course, occur.


As for a lawyer lying, again, where I live, any complaint against a lawyer is investigated by the law society.  If it were proven that a lawyer lied to a judge and that action was intentional, the lawyer would be disbarred.  Lawyers here are disbarred for lying to clients, and lying to a judge would be considered far more serious.

[calmissile]

No offense to you, but your wife did not automatically turn into a feminist who wanted to destroy you.  From my observation, and having had discussions with both many divorce lawyers and divorced women, in the absence of mental illness, a woman usually seeks divorce when she just gets tired of putting up with her husband's  cr@p and believes she has done everything to salvage her marriage.   It is also my observation that once that decision is made, a woman rarely changes her mind.  Some put up with it until the kids are grown.

Well, no offense but the examples you have given have nothing to do with my ex wife's decision to get a divorce.  Since you are inferring something that you have no personal knowledge about, I will help you out.

She worked in an office of over 20 mostly single, feminist women.  I know this from conversations with them as well as comments from my wife before the divorce.  She was subjected to a constant barrage of feminist speak ( you don't  need a man for anything, men are evil, you should be strong and independent, etc.).  We often went to office parties as well as saw them when out dancing together.  They are the same women that would sleep with any man for some kind of benefit.  Even pretend to like someone to get free drinks and then wander away.  I am sure you understand the kind of women I am talking about.

The company she worked for had grown over the years and the owners decided it was time to create a new position to oversee all the gals working in the office.  The owners hired a MAN from Los Angeles that had a lot of experience with office workers to take over as manager.  Not only did the shit hit the fan in our relationship, but the other women in the office were in an uproar.  Bickering went on daily at her office.  Since she was one of the more senior employees she thought she was 'entitled' to the position even though she had no experience in managing people.

It finally reached a point where she came home from work and announced that she is not cooking for any man, she furthermore is not washing any mans clothes, etc.  She also let the housekeeping deteriorate to the point of it stinking from dirty dishes and rotting garbage for days on end.

You might ask, why did I not do the housework, cooking, and cleaning myself?  Because I was working 90 hrs/week in our business which was necessary at the time for it's survival.  In addition, she had made the environment so hostile it was better to back away from it rather than take the abuse.

There were many other clues that the source of her problem was not me.  Shortly after her 10th anniversary at work, she got fired for insubordination by the new manager.  That's about the same time the shit hit the fan in the relationship.  She was not going to be dominated by any man, at work or at home!  I never had the time or inclination to dominate her.  To me it was clearly something external that created the personality change.

You can continue to try and rationalize someone else's behavior to fit your agenda, but it often is meaningless.


Custody, unfortunately, is usually the issue where spouses tend to go for the jugular, to the detriment of the children, and it is either  a way to "get back" at the spouse,

Yes and I expect that you would rationalize and defend the woman's point of view even in those cases.

In my province, mediation is mandatory before divorce.  Since it's been introduced, custody disputes generally have dropped, though they still, of course, occur.

Yes, it was mandatory in our case also.  After the first meeting whereby the woman mediator tried to apply some rational suggestions, my wife refused to attend any more meetings.  Her attorney simply explained to the court that any further meetings would produce no results.



As for a lawyer lying, again, where I live, any complaint against a lawyer is investigated by the law society.  If it were proven that a lawyer lied to a judge and that action was intentional, the lawyer would be disbarred.  Lawyers here are disbarred for lying to clients, and lying to a judge would be considered far more serious.

In the US filing a complaint with the State Bar is a joke.  It has the wolves guarding the hen house.  LOL
Also, the Judicial Council is just as big a farce for the same reason.  I was once told that the only way to get the Bar or Judicial Council to act against a lawyer or judge, is if they do  something that would embarrass the institutions publicly.

[pitbull]

You might ask, why did I not do the housework, cooking, and cleaning myself?  Because I was working 90 hrs/week in our business which was necessary at the time for it's survival. 

If you worked so hard as to not being able to contribute in any way to the housework and I assume to taking care of your daughter, how were you going to take care of your child 50% of the time? Just curious, what was the plan?