It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by benrl
Now having a kid which carries a huge legal obligation Which this case will ultimately come down to is the kids, in court she will say how she couldn't do XYZ because she was busy raising his kids while he earned.
Sadly once kids are involved thats all this becomes about.
Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Realtruth
Alimony can and will come down to children when there is children involved, its a standard tactic to use the taking care of children defense when posed with the question why didn't you earn a career or education. IT will be used to determine the amount if any she is owed on the basis her taking care of the children was the equivalent to having earned a career.
Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by leo123
Laws change every day. I would not know how the retroactive thing in canada works but in the US at least it doesn't work retroactively, and again this case would only apply to people who spilt after the ruling at least if this was taking place in america.
Originally posted by schuyler
They had three children together, but he doesn't want to commit? Who is the jerk here. He's just thinking, "Why buy the cow if the milk is free?" except this one is fighting back. And given the OP's marital status and admitted issues with relationships, no wonder he feels that way, but it's not exactly objective, is it?edit on 3/24/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by benrl
yes, but her lawyer will argue that there was a de-facto marriage or common law one, and that the effects on his client where all there, and that by no legally recognizing the facts of their relation ship (kids, age, etc everything you would in a marriage divorce) that the court system is discriminating against her in a way that the law should protect.