I totally agree. What would it have cost you to have a full-time nanny, Foxy? That’s the money that your husband contributed to the marriage.
Daniel
Interesting bit about being the primary caregiver to the baby. This fact does shed some very interesting light on your story, Foxy.
If I understand the timeline correctly, when the offer was made, there wasn’t a feeling that he might be entitled to a share of the house.
Now, Foxy’s lawyer has stated that she believes Foxy’s soon-to-be ex has no claim. It is still in ex’s best interest to obtain a second opinion. He’s not a child, nor is Foxy conspiring to keep him from seeking his own counsel (which would be weasely). This is an adult with a duty to protect himself. He signed the pre-nup; he was in the picture when the new house was purchased. The fact that his attitude is “yeah, whatever” does not obligate any one else to bend over backwards to see to his treatment - treatment which I fail to see being bad in any way, shape or form.
I have never said nor felt that the person who contributes financially to the marriage is the only one entitled to financially be compensated if the marriage does not work. If you and he both agreed that you would stay home, raise the children, cook meals, clean the home and entertain your spouses business friends if necessary, then your job is as, if not more, important as his.
However, if during those 20 years, you did not have children, he asked you to please work so you two could have a better life and you refused, that is a slippery slope IMO. If you did not take care of the home nor entertain his clients or whatever, and you just shopped and had sex with him than absolutely not, you should be entitled to nothing (Again IMO). I feel that these things should be looked at on a case by case basis, witnesses to the situation brought in as necessary to examine each’s role. If one spouse did not fulfill his/her role, than no compensation should be due if the marriage is terminated.
I have seen more than once alimony being paid to a woman who essentially did nothing but shop and have affairs. Finally, leaving her husband and ending up with a big check every month to support her younger lover. It simply seems so unfair to me. Also, it seems the longer you try to make the marriage work, the more you are penalized for it.
at which point she had no obligations she wasn’t meeting.
At which point there are no unmet obligations. If there’s any doubt, then she has obligations.
This is true, because Foxy is clearly not going to tell him things she knows that it would be in his best interest to know. He is under the mistaken impression that his wife, who once had his best interests at heart, still does, and that hiring an extra lawyer would be an unnecessary expense. Foxy would do well to say, “Listen, if I find out that you’re entitled to something, I’m not going to tell you about it. I’m going to behave adversarially here.” Once she does that, she’ll be in the clear.
In your opinion, does saying 1-2 sentences to him constitute “bending over backwards”? I’m not calling for anything beyond speaking about a dozen or two dozen words to him, to satisfy the requirement of honesty.
Hiding information from people that you know would benefit them, and getting them to agree to things they wouldn’t agree to if they had that information, is dishonest. It really is that simple.
Daniel
Absolutely. The short time he agreed to watch her he was well compensated. I felt better with her home as an infant and he wanted some very expensive music equipment so it was a trade. This was 6 years ago for a short time ( our daughter is currently 7) and I will alway be appreciative for that piece of mind. (Even though a nanny would have been cheaper 
)
I appreciate the concern about the waiving of child support. That I will not negotiate.
I will tell you all why.
His personality is such that he is unable to keep a job. He either quits when he has saved up a bit of money or he gets fired for not showing up to work.
If he is ordered to pay even only $100 per month, he will not be able to handle it each month. I know the man, he will not. What will happen is that he will end up being in contempt of court. (In Florida the courts suspend the non payers drivers license.)
What I would then be facing is money I didn’t need causing more grief to my daughter’s father who now is all upset with attorney fees and back support payments which will bring stress upon my daughter. It is a cycle with him. That is how he works with everything. I accept this and am not going to cause this problem to him or my daughter.
I hope that clarifies this issue.
I don’t mean this as a criticism, I really don’t, but you have a very interesting view of marriage. This idea that he doesn’t work, but wants stuff, so you basically buy services from him…I think this is why people are having trouble getting you…it’s just a very, very unusual view of marriage.
I have never been a stay-at-home mom myself, but I think Jess, who has been one for so long, can attest to the fact that usually there is a little more of a “partnership” attitude. One person brings home the bacon, the other fries it up in the pan, and since everyone is contributing, then everyone gets a say in how the money is spent…it’s not a tit-for-tat or allowance kind of thing, where if the stay-at-home person was a good girl or boy, then they get treats, or is somehow “compensated” (to use your words). I don’t think most stay-at-home moms add up all the time they spend and figure out what their husbands “owe” them. Each person just knows his or her responsibilities and they take care of them, like adults. I think the problem in this thread is that many of us can’t relate at all to this mindset of yours, where you basically treat your husband like an employee or a child, and he apparently is happy to act as one.
How old is this guy?
Except that divorce is an adversarial situation. And her attorney has told her recently that he isn’t entitled to to half the equity in the house because of the prenup. She should ask her attorney if she can waive child support because in some jurisdictions, she can’t. *
Her husband should get himself a lawyer.
- See previous disclaimers.
I don’t share your halo. The ex isn’t a child, and the expectation that he shouldn’t have to lift a finger to look out for himself is, IMO, absurd. If anything, it is another enabler towards his lack of responsibility.
It doesn’t take a halo to tell folks the truth, and I’m very wary of anyone who thinks that basic honesty is an unattainable goal.
Daniel
[QUOTE]
You are absolutely 100% correct about my different (my word) view of marriage. I will say that our “system” was created because that is what would work for us. In another situation, with another person, the “system” might be changed.
The deal was what it was. The marriage was one of fondness and necessity. We both knew the chances were slim about it working so we were pragmatic. The main purpose of the marriage, as I have said, was to allow our daughter to be born in wedlock. My parents have been married 42 years. My mother has never worked outside the home but she busted her butt inside taking care of three children, my father, and now grandchildren. Not to mention running a spotless home, arranging celebrations, holidays, etc. They share everything.
I think both my husband and I had hoped it would work but from the little you have read about the differences in our goals and ambitions, you must realize that it was just a matter of time. In no way did I say or will say now that my husband is an evil or bad person. He is simply narcissistic and unwilling to do one bit more than he absolutely has to. I am just tired of taking care of him. It is too hard to take care of a grown man when I have children that really need my attention, a job to do and a house to run. As much as I would like to be, I am not WonderWoman!
I agree with all of what you just said.
Schlocky director Uwe Boll recently invited his critics to settle their differences with him in the boxing ring. A few critics, believing that it was going to be a basically friendly PR stunt, with both director and critic mugging for the cameras, accepted. They didn’t realize that Uwe Boll had been training as a boxer, and Uwe Boll knew that, and didn’t tell them. And Uwe Boll beat the shit out of them, beat them bloody.
Boxing is an adversarial situation, but there are times where someone has a reason to believe it’s not going to be. If you know someone believes that, and has their guard down therefore, and you take advantage of their false belief to beat them up, you’re not behaving ethically. If you said, “Dude, I’m gonna be going for blood,” and they still didn’t put up their hands, you’ve done what you need to do.
Daniel
40
So they had no responsibility to find out what they were getting into? If I was invited into a boxing ring, I would darn well find out what I was facing.
So, you bartered the care of your daughter-with your spouse WTF?
Good bye-I hope the judge orders you to pay through the nose to this guy who you all but describe as a deadbeat. I do so hope your future spouse has a cast iron pre-nup that says you don’t even get a gander at his money.
Who pays a spouse to watch offspring? I am so far from your “values” construct that I cannot understand it. Do you realize that you have left the impression that you are a money monger who puts dollar bills above people and who can’t trust a man, but will leave a helpless child in the care of that man?
None of it adds up to what you would like to convey. Again, I pity your offspring and I hope your future spouse gets to see this thread. You may not be getting married, if he does (oh, wait-you weren’t going to marry him anyway, because he is decent enough to carry out his obligation to his soon to be ex…it’s hard to keep up). Ugh.
Ah, so you weren’t lying to yourself when you offered the $20,000; you were being a really super gal. I understand better now.
We have a different idea of what is basic honesty. 1. She made an honest offer (still assuming I have the timeline correct), which he accepted. 2. She later found out that there might have been a situation where he was entitled to more of the equity in the home. 3. At our urging, she revisits the pre-nup with her lawyer and is given a legal opinion that he is not entitled to the home equity.
My contention is that her duty finished at 1. 2 and 3 were bonuses. Even if she were to disclose, there is no reason to do so until after 3 was completed and only if she got an adverse legal opinion. That he is so irresponsible does not transfer that responsibility to her. The intention wasn’t to cheat him, but to protect what she feels are her own assets. That he might have been entitled to more does not obligate her to offer more.
eleanorigby, I’m not sure why you are upset, it isn’t how I would structure my life but I know people who live like that. Look, the guy is a fuckup regarding money but there is nothing indicating that he was bad with the kid.
For some people, money is key.
Foxy40, I wish you luck with all this, but I strongly urge that you sit down with your attorney and go over all of this with her. Make sure that you are allowed to waive child support. I’m a little surprised that you guys are making offers until you know what the legal situation is. Sit down with your attorney and find out exactly what your legal liabilities are with respect to the child support and any other issues that may crop up. Once you have this information, then you can decide what your moral obligation, if any are.
I do suggest that you and future hubby think about whether you want to be married. From your previous posts here, I don’t think that you really want to tie your life to someone else and that is what marriage does.
Ultimately, marriage is a contractual arrangement. When you marry, you in essence give that person all sorts of legal protections and rights. If you are injured, in most places, this will be the person to whom the authorities will turn to to determine your medical care, this is the person who gets to decide to pull the plug. If you die, this is the person who inherits. As you have seen, if you decide to divorce, it isn’t a matter of just packing your goods and leaving but rather a matter of legal significance. You are currently in the process of getting divorced and are already contemplating another marriage? *
- see prior disclaimers. These issues and any others are determined by the laws of your local jurisdiction. Consult your local attorney. You shouldn’t take advice from any anonymous person on the internet. s