Difference in Divorce

[DeYaKen]

I've written a number of LW stories, some that involved divorce. On a number of occasions I have been lambasted for writing a typically British wimp husband.

Now, I still hold that there is no greater insult to a spouse than to say "Take it all, I just want out."
However it occurred to me that perhaps the difference in the way we handle divorce could be part of the reason for the misconception.

In the U.K. if a divorce is contested it will go before the court and the court will want to satisfy itself that all attempts at reconciliation have been exhausted before granting a divorce. In the case of cross petitioning this doesn't happen because both parties want the divorce. We don't have process servers the opposite party will be informed of their spouses petition for divorce, (this can even be done by email now) if they do not respond the divorce is treated as uncontested.

There is no automatic 50/50 division of assets. If the parties cannot work out an amicable division they have to present to the court a detailed description of how they have contributed to the net assets of the couple and their needs for the future. This can include childcare, keeping house, going out on business dinners etc as a faithful wife. If one partner's career can be shown to have been advanced by having a spouse then an assessment must be made of the value of that contribution.

Where there is an amicable division of assets, a divorce can be final in about three months.(the so called quickie divorce)

Where there is a dispute it can take up to three court hearings to finalise things. This can take up to four years.

There is no automatic right to maintenance payments(alimony) The party claiming such payments will have to show why they cannot work.

In the case of adultery it is usually the cheater who wants the divorce over quickly so that they are free to marry their lover. This often means that they will accept a lower settlement than they might be entitled to.

That might sound good, but if the cheater is the wife and she is awarded custody of the children (she usually will be) She will often use access to the children as a stick with which to beat the man she sees as having cheated her out of her rightful entitlement.

Access to the children is the biggest cause of conflict between ex-spouses here.

I know in the US it varies from state to state but I'd be interested to know how the systems differences between the systems.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I've written a number of LW stories, some that involved divorce. On a number of occasions I have been lambasted for writing a typically British wimp husband.

Now, I still hold that there is no greater insult to a spouse than to say "Take it all, I just want out."
However it occurred to me that perhaps the difference in the way we handle divorce could be part of the reason for the misconception.

In the U.K. if a divorce is contested it will go before the court and the court will want to satisfy itself that all attempts at reconciliation have been exhausted before granting a divorce. In the case of cross petitioning this doesn't happen because both parties want the divorce. We don't have process servers the opposite party will be informed of their spouses petition for divorce, (this can even be done by email now) if they do not respond the divorce is treated as uncontested.

There is no automatic 50/50 division of assets. If the parties cannot work out an amicable division they have to present to the court a detailed description of how they have contributed to the net assets of the couple and their needs for the future. This can include childcare, keeping house, going out on business dinners etc as a faithful wife. If one partner's career can be shown to have been advanced by having a spouse then an assessment must be made of the value of that contribution.

Where there is an amicable division of assets, a divorce can be final in about three months.(the so called quickie divorce)

Where there is a dispute it can take up to three court hearings to finalise things. This can take up to four years.

There is no automatic right to maintenance payments(alimony) The party claiming such payments will have to show why they cannot work.

In the case of adultery it is usually the cheater who wants the divorce over quickly so that they are free to marry their lover. This often means that they will accept a lower settlement than they might be entitled to.

That might sound good, but if the cheater is the wife and she is awarded custody of the children (she usually will be) She will often use access to the children as a stick with which to beat the man she sees as having cheated her out of her rightful entitlement.

Access to the children is the biggest cause of conflict between ex-spouses here.

I know in the US it varies from state to state but I'd be interested to know how the systems differences between the systems.

The greatest conflicts involve child support payments.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Thanks for a LW plot bunny.

 

[Handley_Page]

That is the most logical, simple guide to a UK divorce I have seen.
Well done!
[My divorce was just as quick, but I was being treated for cancer at the time; "uncontested" was not the right word!

 

[emap]

It is easier in the US, if both sides want to get a divorce they get a lawyer to write up the terms. Sign the terms and present to the courts and boom divorced. Now if the terms of the divorce are not decided on before signing and sending to the courts, the assigned judge decides who gets what and so forth.

You appear in court for that, perhaps in the judges office. If both sides can't agree or one side says no way I deserve more, then it gets to go to court and that can take a while.

In your case, the complaints are because they wanted something to complain about. Not because it is better to simply say fine we are getting divorced I'm leaving. They complain to feel better about enjoying the story. I mean they are going oh what a hot little slut I want to marry her next.

 

[DeYaKen]

It is easier in the US, if both sides want to get a divorce they get a lawyer to write up the terms. Sign the terms and present to the courts and boom divorced. Now if the terms of the divorce are not decided on before signing and sending to the courts, the assigned judge decides who gets what and so forth.

You appear in court for that, perhaps in the judges office. If both sides can't agree or one side says no way I deserve more, then it gets to go to court and that can take a while.

In your case, the complaints are because they wanted something to complain about. Not because it is better to simply say fine we are getting divorced I'm leaving. They complain to feel better about enjoying the story. I mean they are going oh what a hot little slut I want to marry her next.

Oh Yes! I like it.

I realise there are a lot of emotionally damaged people reading LW stories, and that some of them use it as their support network. When I read US stories about citing "No fault divorces" and 50/50 division of assets, I wondered if that was the reason these people were so bitter.

I read about threats like "Divorce me and I'll cripple you financially" and I think "If that is truly the way it is, no wonder they are bitter." The way most of the stories read it would seem that the richer you are, the more you have to fear, when it come to divorce. In the UK it would be the opposite way around, but only if children are involved.

Our benefit system recognises that it costs less (per child) to raise two or three children, than it does to raise one. The people awarding child support do not. Many working men have found themselves financially crippled, not by their ex, but by the government and the courts awarding child support which would allow the child a much higher standard of living than they had when daddy lived at home.

As far as the BTB brigade are concerned, if berating me, for writing hero who sees revenge as having a happy life, makes them feel better, I'm glad to be of service. I'm just trying to understand where they are coming from. It all helps when you are devising characters.

 

[StrangeLife]

Our benefit system recognises that it costs less (per child) to raise two or three children, than it does to raise one. The people awarding child support do not. Many working men have found themselves financially crippled, not by their ex, but by the government and the courts awarding child support which would allow the child a much higher standard of living than they had when daddy lived at home.

The US divorce process is very focused on welfare the kids, and in case of disputes the courts will pretty much disregard any consideration for the parents in favour of what they feel is best for the kids.

As it should - the kids are innocent victims and should not be punished by their parents bad decisions.

However since the kids mostly end up with the ex wife, the former husband often ends up in a situation where he's being legally compelled to contribute to the life style of his former spouse - which can be immensely frustrating for him if he was the wronged party in an adultery situation and the lover moves in after he's gone.

It's a catch-22 really. If you don't pay you're viewed as a deadbeat who's indifferent to your kids and you'll be hunted by the state till you pay or die. And if you do pay you're enabling your ex wife to go to Hawaii and screw her home wrecking lover on Waikiki Beach on your dime. It's not an easy situation to cope with.

As far as the BTB brigade are concerned, if berating me, for writing hero who sees revenge as having a happy life, makes them feel better, I'm glad to be of service. I'm just trying to understand where they are coming from. It all helps when you are devising characters.

I blankly refuse to nuke the wife unless it makes sense to do so from the characters - the score be damned (and assuming you're talking about Loving Wives the punishment for not doing so is swift and severe ).

 

[DeYaKen]

The US divorce process is very focused on welfare the kids, and in case of disputes the courts will pretty much disregard any consideration for the parents in favour of what they feel is best for the kids.

As it should - the kids are innocent victims and should not be punished by their parents bad decisions.

However since the kids mostly end up with the ex wife, the former husband often ends up in a situation where he's being legally compelled to contribute to the life style of his former spouse - which can be immensely frustrating for him if he was the wronged party in an adultery situation and the lover moves in after he's gone.

It's a catch-22 really. If you don't pay you're viewed as a deadbeat who's indifferent to your kids and you'll be hunted by the state till you pay or die. And if you do pay you're enabling your ex wife to go to Hawaii and screw her home wrecking lover on Waikiki Beach on your dime. It's not an easy situation to cope with.

This part is largely similar to the British system. However It punishes poor fathers much more than the better off ones. We have the, now renamed, Child Support Agency who set level of support. The CSA's main priority is that the family should not be able to claim benefits for the support of the children, even if they were claiming something before the divorce. If there are two children, a father on minimum wage would be left with 10 - 15% of his salary to live on and put a roof over his head.

US writers frequently refer to no fault states and 50/50 division. I assumed this might be the cause of such bitterness. It doesn't happen here. If it did Paul McCartney's money grabbing wife would have been entitled to £150 Million for 2 yrs of marriage. as it was she came of quite well but that had more to do with the child and his desire to be rid of her.

I blankly refuse to nuke the wife unless it makes sense to do so from the characters - the score be damned (and assuming you're talking about Loving Wives the punishment for not doing so is swift and severe ).

I try to write people as real as I can. I don't know any people who indulge in great acts of revenge, so I don't write them. I do know people who are shocked and devastated by betrayal, I try to write about them. If people don't like it,they don't have to read it.

 

[emap]

Actually the state doesn't really hunt down deadbeat dads, there is a task force in each police force that does try and talk to said deadbeat. They get one or two police officers who also may have regular police duties.

In the grand scheme of things a deadbeat dad isn't a big deal. For the mom of the kid or kids who is not getting the support it is rather crippling. Course over here child support is a percentage of his gross pay. Not as big a percent as you have over there, but it is also his gross pay, before bills and food.

In that respect it can be rather crippling, but the judge when he or she decides on how much is being paid for child support, looks at her income. Being a housewife after a divorce can't happen, you have to work. Means there's no way the ex wife is going to have enough money to go to waikiki to get screwed on the beach with the guy she cheated with.

Hell the way it generally works, the guy she cheated with is now looking for another wife. According to what I read on how divorce works, all states are no fault. As in we want to get a divorce just because and the judge says alright you are divorced. It is easy to get a divorce, living after is hard because both sides are forced to work.

Child support isn't all there is to it either, there is custody decision and visitation rights. If it is a no fault divorce she gets custody and he gets to have the kids at certain times. I'm talking sleeping at daddy's house for the weekend type visitation rights. This is where it can get nasty as well, if he doesn't want his kids with her, he contests custody, she contests back and then there is he gets no visitation. That can lead to going over who gets what and how much is paid in child support.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Actually the state doesn't really hunt down deadbeat dads, there is a task force in each police force that does try and talk to said deadbeat. They get one or two police officers who also may have regular police duties.

In the grand scheme of things a deadbeat dad isn't a big deal. For the mom of the kid or kids who is not getting the support it is rather crippling. Course over here child support is a percentage of his gross pay. Not as big a percent as you have over there, but it is also his gross pay, before bills and food.

In that respect it can be rather crippling, but the judge when he or she decides on how much is being paid for child support, looks at her income. Being a housewife after a divorce can't happen, you have to work. Means there's no way the ex wife is going to have enough money to go to waikiki to get screwed on the beach with the guy she cheated with.

Hell the way it generally works, the guy she cheated with is now looking for another wife. According to what I read on how divorce works, all states are no fault. As in we want to get a divorce just because and the judge says alright you are divorced. It is easy to get a divorce, living after is hard because both sides are forced to work.

Child support isn't all there is to it either, there is custody decision and visitation rights. If it is a no fault divorce she gets custody and he gets to have the kids at certain times. I'm talking sleeping at daddy's house for the weekend type visitation rights. This is where it can get nasty as well, if he doesn't want his kids with her, he contests custody, she contests back and then there is he gets no visitation. That can lead to going over who gets what and how much is paid in child support.

I recall one gal the judge tagged for 5K per month. She was beyond pissed but her income was 6 figures plus. So don't make babies with the pool boy.

 

[sr71plt]

*Nevermind*

 

[desertslave]

My ex was cheating and I'll cheerfully admit that I used some information that I had discovered to reinforce my position. He got most of the furniture, but I got to move cross-country (with our two kids) as a result. He had already been a deadbeat (fun daddy, lousy provider), but I told him he was more than welcome to come visit any time he wished to fly out. In twelve years it never happened. He got to see them twice a year, if it was "convenient" for him, thanks to MY mom paying for airline tickets. She wanted to see her family, too. I was lucky if he paid a train ticket one-way.

But I got out, and safe, and I think I raised our kids well. He's never had any complaints. I'm very sorry, in some respects, that he wouldn't get his act together to come see them, especially for high school graduations. He was just happy that it meant he was relieved of responsibility for child support.

Funny thing about the support. I went to our county to request direct payment from his employer. The county had a formula to figure support which ended up being more than I knew he could afford, so I petitioned to have the amount reduced. At the time, I'd meant it to be temporary because I had been the one to kick him out, and I knew he needed to get on his feet. I never got around to asking for it to be increased. However, he petitioned the court when our daughter turned 18. ROFL, they raised it slightly, because that's what it should have been (allowing for inflation) for one kid anyway.

I celebrated the day my son turned 21 because it means I'm completely free of ANY obligations to my ex. If his children wish to see him, it's entirely between them to make arrangements. NOT my problem, or responsibility.

 

[StrangeLife]

Actually the state doesn't really hunt down deadbeat dads, there is a task force in each police force that does try and talk to said deadbeat. They get one or two police officers who also may have regular police duties.

In the State of Alaska the state will step in and pay the mother the missing child support and then go after the dad, who now all of a sudden is in dept to the state rather than his ex. And they're relentless. Regardless how bitchy your ex wife is, they'll make her seem like a pussycat in comparison.

(And if you ask me how I know this, I'll plead the fifth... )

Child support isn't all there is to it either, there is custody decision and visitation rights. If it is a no fault divorce she gets custody and he gets to have the kids at certain times. I'm talking sleeping at daddy's house for the weekend type visitation rights. This is where it can get nasty as well, if he doesn't want his kids with her, he contests custody, she contests back and then there is he gets no visitation. That can lead to going over who gets what and how much is paid in child support.

True that. Custody is probably the most frequent point of conflict. Unfortunately this has evolved into a situation where making child abuse accusations against the father is part of the standard arsenal of battle techniques. It's efficient too since the authorities always err on the side of caution and there aren't any consequences for the accuser if the allegations proves to be false.

 

[emap]

My bad, Arizona doesn't really care. They claim to care but there are not many cops who actually are told to look.

As for no consequences to lying, there are, if one side of a divorce case claims there was abuse and there is not, the accused can file a defamation of character suit. Would win as well, it's all court documented.

 

[desertslave]

My bad, Arizona doesn't really care. They claim to care but there are not many cops who actually are told to look.

As for no consequences to lying, there are, if one side of a divorce case claims there was abuse and there is not, the accused can file a defamation of character suit. Would win as well, it's all court documented.

I'm not so sure about that. Several times a year in Maricopa Co, the sheriff's dept (yes, Sheriff Joe does manage to do a rare good thing) sweeps the county for deadbeat parents. I'm sure, being him, there are some ulterior motives, but it DOES get done. I can't speak to the results but at least an attempt is being made.

 

[DeYaKen]

Well it looks like most of the US writers who write about divorce are telling porky pies.

The biggest source of conflict here is also custody of the children especially when there is no money to fight about. Unfortunately it is rarely with the children's best interests at heart.

Divorce is all "No Fault" here aswell in that the court is not allowed to take the behaviour of either partner into account when ordering a settlement.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Well it looks like most of the US writers who write about divorce are telling porky pies.

The biggest source of conflict here is also custody of the children especially when there is no money to fight about. Unfortunately it is rarely with the children's best interests at heart.

Divorce is all "No Fault" here aswell in that the court is not allowed to take the behaviour of either partner into account when ordering a settlement.

While most of the U.S. has adopted no-fault divorce, that doesn't stop the parties from attempting to insert the issue into the proceedings. The two biggest causes of divorce are money problems and infidelity. In cases of infidelity, the innocent spouse may spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on private investigators prior to consulting an attorney. These P.I.s are under no obligation to advise their clients that whatever they discover will be largely inadmissible and wholly irrelevant. In most cases, infidelity only becomes a genuine issue when it is accompanied by and can be traced to a dissipation of marital assets. Parties often try to raise infidelity in custody cases, but 99% of the time it isn't allowed.

 

[StrangeLife]

While most of the U.S. has adopted no-fault divorce, that doesn't stop the parties from attempting to insert the issue into the proceedings. The two biggest causes of divorce are money problems and infidelity. In cases of infidelity, the innocent spouse may spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on private investigators prior to consulting an attorney. These P.I.s are under no obligation to advise their clients that whatever they discover will be largely inadmissible and wholly irrelevant. In most cases, infidelity only becomes a genuine issue when it is accompanied by and can be traced to a dissipation of marital assets. Parties often try to raise infidelity in custody cases, but 99% of the time it isn't allowed.

Irrefutable evidence is still useful in several ways.

It limits the time wasted on futile discussions and denials, it gives you a chance to assess the severity of the infraction objectively (she says "it was only one time" - your evidences says every friday for the last six months) and - perhaps most importantly - gives you a chance to ask her a few questions to which you know the answer already and thus check the depth of the lying.

Cheating is not always binary - at least not for everyone. There are degrees of betrayal and sometimes a PI can help keep a marriage out of divorce court by documenting that it really was "only that one time".


Once the divorce is in progress the evidence can work wonders during the settlement negotiations (Did I say blackmail? I certainly didn't mean to say blackmail. ). And in cases where the sexual exploits are extreme the evidence can be used before the court as "show of character." There are many examples of custody being decided based on one partners lifestyle or choice of lover(s).


Finally the costs for the PI comes out of the common house hold budget, so your soon-to-be ex will effectively be paying half...

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Irrefutable evidence is still useful in several ways.

It limits the time wasted on futile discussions and denials, it gives you a chance to assess the severity of the infraction objectively (she says "it was only one time" - your evidences says every friday for the last six months) and - perhaps most importantly - gives you a chance to ask her a few questions to which you know the answer already and thus check the depth of the lying.

Cheating is not always binary - at least not for everyone. There are degrees of betrayal and sometimes a PI can help keep a marriage out of divorce court by documenting that it really was "only that one time".

That's true, if both parties are interested in keeping the marriage together. But if either party is adamant, then the quantum of evidence is immaterial.

Once the divorce is in progress the evidence can work wonders during the settlement negotiations (Did I say blackmail? I certainly didn't mean to say blackmail. ). And in cases where the sexual exploits are extreme the evidence can be used before the court as "show of character." There are many examples of custody being decided based on one partners lifestyle or choice of lover(s).

Evidence that isn't admissible is useless. "I have these photographs of the wife and her lover together." "So what, want me to frame them for you? The judge has already ruled that he won't hear any evidence of adultery."

As for custody cases, yes, sometimes it can come in if it can be shown that the parent is engaging in conduct that is detrimental to the best interests of the children. However, it has to be more than merely alleging that the wife's (or husband's) conduct caused the breakup of the marriage and that stressed out the child. It takes something more, like the wife is having a relationship with a coke dealer who has her too strung out to take care of the kids, and his dangerous minions are hanging around all the time. The fact that she fucked the post man and the repairman and everyone on the block is irrelevant.

Finally the costs for the PI comes out of the common house hold budget, so your soon-to-be ex will effectively be paying half...

 

[StrangeLife]

Evidence that isn't admissible is useless. "I have these photographs of the wife and her lover together." "So what, want me to frame them for you? The judge has already ruled that he won't hear any evidence of adultery.

Hmm, good point. It would of course be useless in court if the judge wont see it. But maybe there are other legal avenues where such evidence could be used?

I'm thinking about those "Alienation of Affection" suits that are so often use in revenge stories, but which I have never actually encountered in real life.

Or a lawsuit against the company in whose office your wife banged her co-worker for failing to uphold their own moral guide lines - another frequently used plot device that I've never seen for real.

 

[DeYaKen]

Hmm, good point. It would of course be useless in court if the judge wont see it. But maybe there are other legal avenues where such evidence could be used?

I'm thinking about those "Alienation of Affection" suits that are so often use in revenge stories, but which I have never actually encountered in real life.

Or a lawsuit against the company in whose office your wife banged her co-worker for failing to uphold their own moral guide lines - another frequently used plot device that I've never seen for real.

Well it looks like,apart from the time it can take here Divorce and the problems caused are very similar both sides of the pond. As with most legal matters, in the end the only net gains are made by the lawyers.

There is not a lot of private investigators here because it doesn't make any difference if a spouse has been caught in flagrante.

The only use of such evidence would be if you could show that one partner was leading blatently immoral lifestyle that would be likely to corrupt the children. Such evidence would need to be pretty solid to take custody from the mother.

 

[carlieplum]

Interesting thing I ran across:
A 2004 Stanford Business School study compared outcomes in states that adopted no-fault divorce versus those that did not. It found:

20% reduction in female suicide after 20 years, none for men
33% reduction in domestic violence against women (after a rise in other states vs. a drop in no-fault states)
Reduction in the domestic murder rate for women, none for men

Study authors argued that in part, men were encouraged to behave better because they knew it would be easy for their spouses to divorce and find another partner

 

[emap]

Strange you read odd books. As far as I know the company fires the wife and her lover for not upholding the moral clause and that covers it. So in that respect it's bad to not actually read the clauses on your contractual work agreement with your work.

Besides getting them fired there's no lawsuit possible. The laws are not written that way, I don't think. Now granted there is nothing saying it can't be done in a book/story but that is a little out there and just an easy this hurts the bitch because I want to part of the story.

 

[carlieplum]

Even though all 50 states have no-fault divorce now, it's not like it's a quick 50/50 split and everyone goes their own way. Depending on which state you live in, courts may be more or less anxious to see shared-custody agreements versus sole custody agreements. AFAIK, California is very much tilted toward shared custody arrangements, and other states are following suit to greater or lesser degrees, unless one of the parents doesn't want shared custody.

A person of my acquaintance is on his fourth wife. He has had divorces under both the at-fault and no-fault laws. Only the first marriage involved children. For him, the at-fault system worked out better. Of his three divorces, he took the biggest financial beating in the no-fault divorce, even worse than the first divorce, which involved him leaving his wife and two small children for his mistress. Wife #3 and he could not come to a settlement agreement on finances, so the judge made determinations. I don't know if she (the judge) just didn't like his face or what, but that divorce cost him $$$$$ like you would not believe.

In my experience, what you get in a U.S. divorce depends on how willing you are to fight and how deep your pockets are to pay for a lawyer.

Personally, I don't think $$$ is what it's all about; it's about what life you want to live. It cost me dearly to get shut of my first husband, who walked out (he wanted to be "free") but didn't want a divorce. (Don't ask me to explain that, it never made sense to me.) I didn't want to fight, I just never wanted to see him or hear his voice again, and giving him what he wanted financially to make that happen was an investment in my future that paid off handsomely.

 

[StrangeLife]

Interesting thing I ran across:
A 2004 Stanford Business School study compared outcomes in states that adopted no-fault divorce versus those that did not. It found:

20% reduction in female suicide after 20 years, none for men
33% reduction in domestic violence against women (after a rise in other states vs. a drop in no-fault states)
Reduction in the domestic murder rate for women, none for men

Study authors argued that in part, men were encouraged to behave better because they knew it would be easy for their spouses to divorce and find another partner

Since logic dictates that a no-fault divorce benefits the cheating party the most it also follows that women must be cheating far more often than men. But the authors were probably too chicken to print that conclusion...

Interesting thing I ran across:
Strange you read odd books. As far as I know the company fires the wife and her lover for not upholding the moral clause and that covers it. So in that respect it's bad to not actually read the clauses on your contractual work agreement with your work.

Well, I kinda had a feeling it probably was a figment of the imaginations of a btb author. In real life there is little more you can do besides go get drunk and move on...