On 15 Feb 2005 09:56:42 -0800, Doug Anderson
 wrote:

>mshlomb{at}yahoo.com (Raul) writes:
>
>> Doug Anderson  wrote in
message news:...
>> > mshlomb{at}yahoo.com (Raul) writes:
>> > > They were legally married 14 months before seperating. 
>> > 
>> > Why is that isn't the important issue?  They were married in a
>> > religious ceremony 10 years before that.  And they had numerous
>> > children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
>> 
>> It wasn't legally recognized. 
>
>So?
>
>> > > > > If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why
does she deserve
>> > > > > the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever
support she might've
>> > > > > provided her husband could be surpassed by a
concubine, cook and
>> > > > > housekeeper.
>> > > > 
>> > > > And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine /
cook.  If he really
>> > > > wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a
mistake didn't he?
>> > > 
>> > > That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't
entitled to
>> > > half of their husband's wealth.
>> > 
>> > And she didn't get half her husband's wealth.  So?
>> 
>> As I said, she doesn't deserve a dime.
>> 
>> > 
>> > In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth
>> > should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.
>> 
>> The wife isn't doing chores solely for her husband's sake, is she?
>> Neither is she forced to stay home.
>> Why then should she be compensated for her career decisions?
>
>The family is considered (to some degree) to be a unit.  Both partners
>do work.  In a case like this one,  only one partner received
>financial compensation for his "work."   But because the family is
>considered to be a unit,  both partners are entitled to benefit from
>his income just like both partners benefit from her work at home.
>
>You may disagree with this principle,  but it isn't a hard one to
>understand, is it?


OK, so is SHE desrves to be compensated for loss of the income, then
should HE not also be compensated for losing access to her performance
of domestic chores? If he has to pay her "support" because she does
not earn an income, then why should SHE not also have to pay HIM for
the hiring of a housekeepr/cook???

I never understood this sort of crap. The judge in my case said that
there was an "impiled contract of support" for my ex's home based
business. And this was the basis he used to rape my wallet.

Well where I come from a contract MUST have "consideration". How can
only half a contract survive disolution of a partnership??? Oh yeah,
because the family court has become a Kangaroo Court! If I was being
forced to support her business (as her means of supposed support),
then why was I not aforded access to the profits from said business???
I realize that her business was not particularly profitable, but then
why not give me access to future profits of the business??? Basically,
if the judge had said I had to support her business, but that she -
claiming the business would eventually become profitable - had to
repay every penny of support WITH INTEREST from the future profits of
her business, then THAT would have been fair. Of course to prevent a
deliberate sabbotage of her business, there would have to be a clause
that if her business ceased doing business -- support obligation ends
immediately, and also a maximum timeline for the business to become
profitable - or support ends. My ex was the type that needed a fire
lit under her, or she would do nothing.

But this, of course, was NOT ordered. All the courts were concerned
with was taking money from me, and giving it to her. There was NEVER
any appearance that anything should be "equitable". Even HER lawyer
thought the premise was weak.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/15/05 5:21:11 PM ---