Can you lose your house in a divorce if its 100% owned by you?

Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
18,325
Location
Birmingham
You do know that not all women are blood sucking leaches?

Not sure if serious? :p

Never trust anyone. You will just be easy prey to having half of your assets stolen.

This man speaks the truth.

Ok if a man is rich and his wife is not and they have a divorce, what's to stop the kids from staying in the mans care?

The entire issue is that the courts and society always discriminate in favor of the woman above the man or the kids, even if its the woman wanting to divorce, all she has to do is cry her eyes out, bat a few eyelids tell a few porkies, and she automatically gains custody of the children and 50% of their marital assets, even if the man is capable of looking after and paying for the kids upbringing.

After most marriages, men have to struggle for years to gain custody of their children even if their ex wife is completely unfit to be a single parent in comparison. See the thread right here somewhere where someones kid was forced to drink his own urine.

This is unfortunately true.

If the man's circumstances don't allow for him to look after the kids - easy, give them to the woman.

If the woman's circumstances don't allow for her to look after the kids - give her the man's stuff until she can, who cares if she's an abusive alcoholic?

i take it it's the same if you marry or partner with a woman who has bought their own home
can you try take monies from them

Hahahaha, genius, but the joke thread is that way --->
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,301
Location
Vvardenfell
If the man's circumstances don't allow for him to look after the kids - easy, give them to the woman.

If the woman's circumstances don't allow for her to look after the kids - give her the man's stuff until she can, who cares if she's an abusive alcoholic?



The irony here is that the same people that complain about the mother always getting custody (she doesn't) are often the same ones who want the woman to stay at home with the kids rather than going out to work. The courts side with the mother because, in general, she is the best person to bring up the children until they are at least 12-13. Unless, obviously, she is unfit to do so. Note that is "unfit" as designated by someone other than the ex-husband: I know of at least one case where the husband planted some of his own cocaine on the mother then shopped her to the feds, for example. Whenever I see fathers whinging about custody battles my first thought is always the same: let's hear the other side as well.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2004
Posts
16,024
Location
9th Inner Circle
The irony here is that the same people that complain about the mother always getting custody (she doesn't) are often the same ones who want the woman to stay at home with the kids rather than going out to work. The courts side with the mother because, in general, she is the best person to bring up the children until they are at least 12-13. Unless, obviously, she is unfit to do so. Note that is "unfit" as designated by someone other than the ex-husband: I know of at least one case where the husband planted some of his own cocaine on the mother then shopped her to the feds, for example. Whenever I see fathers whinging about custody battles my first thought is always the same: let's hear the other side as well.

Finally the voice of reason. Professionals make the decision who is best to raise the child (and often this is the mother) not those emotionally involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom