Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Absolutely.  See my note in Human_Relations.  I just added this
    Conference to my notebook.  After you read do you think it's worth
    re-writing to this conference...
    
    Bill
    
    

    I joined about a year ago.  I think that it provides constructive
    conditioning to fathers.  Especially those without custody.  Also
    to those who are experiencing visitational interference.  If interested
    see some earlier entries to this conference... #43 and some others
    which cover the Monihan bill which is in congress.  If "your friend"
    is experiencing financial problems as you described (wont be able
    to make a support payment) have him call me on a land line or send
    me mail.  It sounds like his support level is too high and their
    are methodologies to reduce it.  I would also    H I G H L Y
    recommend the reading of a paperback book "WEEKEND FATHERS".  Either
    FAIR or the "W.F." book will facilitate in the reshaping of his
    attitude.  
    
    				may God be with you and yours,
    
    
    				$BILFJR
    
    

    Did anyone catch the story in the Nashua Telegraph .....
    Probably not 'cause it was rather small...you know an irrellivent
    topic but did warrent a small section....
    
    A man was sentenced to 60 days in the Hilsborough County Jail for
    nonpayment of the morgage of a house.  
    Him and his now separated wife owned the house.  He is no longer
    living in the house, his "wife" and Child (?) are.
    
    He was an ex vp type for a large corp and got blown away with
    restructering, could not find a job (in his bracket) for 18 months.
    Finally landed a $3600 job at another corp...
    He is ordered to pay the morgage AND pay $3000 a month in "child
    support!  Show me a kid that lives on $3000 dollars a month!
    
    This S%^$# stinks!  Something is wrong with this picture....and
    this is in Goffstown NEW HAMPSHIRE!
    
    How the hell is he supposed to pay HIS own house, hers AND pay %3000
    in support AND LIVE ON with $600+-??????
    
    I have the story if anyone is interested.....

    You forgot to mention that this man is a millionaire from before
    the marriage -- he owns real estate, private property, and
    commercial investments in ?Colorado?  He and hiw wife signed a
    premarital agreement that said they would each keep their
    premarital assets in the event of a divorce. 
    
    The wife had "practically no" premarital assets. 
    
    The court thinks that it is reasonable to expect him to dip into
    some of these assets to pay for raising the children's expenses,
    while he thinks he shouldn't have to touch those assets.

    I present this as an additional fact to consider, not as an
    opinion either way.
        
    --bonnie

    
    So what in the hell was the prenumptual for????
    
    What he had BEFORE the marriage he keeps, what she had SHE keeps.
    But thats not good enough.....
    
    I thought that the pmts were always based on what one makes not
    what ones assets are.....  Jes another little "jump through the
    hoop doggy" kinda thing....  Get as much as you can get.
    
    BTW: You were so into adding all the "details" YOU too forgot a
    couple of things....
    
    He IS sueing un the basis that the median lawyer (or something like
    that) aleggedly altered the agreement AFTER he signed it.
    
    Incedently, her lawyer is a woman, the judge was a woman, AND the
    Median (??) was a woman....Hmmmmmm
    
    This whole case smells REAL BAD!  I will be entering THE WHOLE article
    in a day or so (at the request of the mods) so that you people out
    there can come to your own conclusions.

    Re: .5 
    
    If I have lots of money, and you don't have much, and we decide to
    get married, and we sign a prenuptial agreement that says in event
    of a divorce I'll keep my money and you'll keep yours, the odds
    are strong that a court will NOT UPHOLD that agreement if the
    marriage lasts any length of time -- they'll say it's not an
    equitable distribution of marital assets and make me pay you at
    least something.  [Most recent publicized case:  Joan Collins and
    her golddigging ex-husband.] 
    
    I'm not going to argue whether that's right or wrong or immoral or
    disgusting or only fair, but it's the way contract law is being
    interpreted in this country right now. 
    
    I know of other cases [one woman, two men] whose child-support
    payments are based on total assets and not just income. I think it
    may be a part of the NH system of determining support. Two cases
    were arranged so the custodial parent doesn't have to sell the
    family house and move the kids out of their old neighborhood.  The
    noncustodial woman is paying extra because she's quite a bit
    wealthier than her ex.  She, too, had a prenuptial agreement
    overturned. . . 

    Another case where assets are taken into account in most states is
    when one or both partners have owned a business.  This can get
    very complicated, since business law and domestic law both apply.
    One of Johnny Carson's divorces involved a fight over how much she
    had contributed to the growth of his financial empire; one of the
    men I mentioned before established that he had an interest in his
    wife's farm since his income supported the household and allowed
    her to tend the apples. 

    I didn't bring up the altered-documents charge because it doesn't
    have anything to do with child support. Fraud is fraud, whether it
    involves a divorce agreement or a contract to run a beer
    distributorship.  If they altered the document after he signed it,
    everybody involved should be removed from office for malfeasance. 
        
    --bonnie