I wonder why it's flagged, the article is clearly trying the best to be reasonable impartial.
It's also well known that sometimes, in some countries maybe more then others, decisions wrt. children are biased toward mother's.
I have seen one such case in my environment myself.
I belive it is important that such Curt decisions are based on the combination of the situation both parents are in and guidelines in a impartial non gender specific way.
Through just to be clear while I have seen one such case myself I also have seen many cases with very reasonable decisions (in Germany).
Did you read that comic at the start and get the impression the judge ruling in favour of the mother to get money from a webdeveloper was a impartial account of events?
It's flagged because some liberal yoyo took one look at the title and assumes it's some men's rights advocacy bullshit. It's attitudes like this that are the reason these issues are never brought up in the media.
Hey, a similar situation of fathers after splitting or divorce in Poland also.
In my 20s I was like "hell, people starts families, I could make it!". Now in my 30s knowing how awfully things can go south, having went through numerous within-EU emigrations and knowing the struggles... I don't know anymore what kind of partner would be even suitable to start a family with.
Not limited to developed countries either. Urban India has laws that are utterly stacked against men, a woman can easily destroy your life if she wants to and does happen. Trying to undo historical injustice does not mean skewing the system against an entire gender but that is where we are.
Men's weak standing in child custody cases is tied to the societal norms and practices that make men take less interest in their own children overall.
Ironically, this widespread disinterest in child care is what have allowed women to get these rights in the first place, because the late 1800's was certainly not a period of feminist dominion.
A solution to a lot of these problems that I quite like is "birdnesting," where the child(ren) keep the home they live in, and the divorcing parents take turns moving in.
That seems to be clearly best for the child (removes the instability of moving back and forth between homes) and while it's inconvenient for the parents, at least it's equally inconvenient.
I tried that for a little while with my ex while we were working things out. You really need your own place that is away from the other person all the time. You are constantly reminded of your ex while you’re there.
The main problem I see with this is finances. It will cost more for two people living separately than together.
I strongly believe that most divorces would logically and financially require the existing house to be sold so that two smaller/cheaper residences can be bought or rented. This is espesially important to financial stability in instances where child support is dictated by an arbitrary formula (which tends to produce an unrealilistic amount) rather than the actual needs of the children, or where finances were already somewhat tight (most cases?).
Seems like a really good solution for amicable divorces. When there is a lot of conflict in the relationship, it's unlikely to work well. And really the latter describes most divorces I've seen. It seems like there is almost always one spouse who doesn't want to play well at the end.
I don't have any strong opinions about the fairness or unfairness of divorce laws around parenting, not in the US and certainly not in Italy.
However, I was recently a very close witness to some divorce proceedings involving my girlfriend and the end of her polyamorous marriage, and boy, oh boy. The husband made the decision to make the divorce as painful as possible (falsifying evidence, perjuring himself) to try to get her to give up and let him keep all of the money (he keeps the $400k house, she keeps the $5k SUV), and ultimately, it largely worked. Would you pay $50k to avoid having a miserable year? I would've kept fighting on principle, but she's wiser than I am.
Whether or not any of this was fair, eh. The mistake she made was to enter into a binding legal contract with someone that didn't have a clearly defined, equitable exit path. She misjudged her husband, but no one's immune to that. Honest people will want to write everything down and be bound to their word.
Don't make agreements based on mutual trust and assumed cooperation into perpetuity. It's only once people's incentives shift away from cooperation that you get to see their true character, for better and worse.
The problem is that marriage is one of those very few relationships that's design to be all-in or not exist at all. Even signing something like a prenup is seen as incredibly suspicious. All your financial decisions have to be based on the fact that you and your partner are going to stay together til death do you part.
I think part of the problem is that many people aren't making agreements based on trust and are actually signing pre-nups, but those never seem as binding when it comes to actual court proceedings.
I feel bad for this guy, unfortunately he is just at the beginning of the world of hurt and pain he most likely is goin to experience.
Having gone through an ugly family breakup, I can attest to how painful and stressful it is for everyone. Especially once the courts get involved.
From my experience the courts are very unsympathetic to any arguments outside the general consensus, almost to the point of being obtuse or jaded.
I know people think that children are better off having both parents involved in their lives but I beg to differ when selfish vendictictive parents are involved.
Childhood is important but it is not a lifetime, in some ways it is better to check ones ego and just step back and wait. Support the child as ordered by the courts and then when the child is an adult they can decide whether or not to have a relationship with the estranged parent. If they choose not to.. Accept that and live your best life, after all You don't own the child. (eventhough your ex may believe they do!)
This can be much easier on the child than witnessing constant bickering, accusations and pettiness between the parents. Possibly resulting in self harm or violence.
Just my point of view, might be wrong but nevertheless how I see it.
> the courts are very unsympathetic to any arguments outside the general consensus, almost to the point of being obtuse or jaded.
What you said after this is not any more sympathetic.
> Childhood is important but it is not a lifetime, in some ways it is better to check ones ego and just step back and wait.
This is an astonishing display of lack of empathy for the unfairly estranged parent. Not having your child in your life is one of the worst forms of torture a person should not be forced to endure.
> Support the child as ordered by the courts
The courts are, as you said, obtuse and jaded. Not to mention very often biased.
> Accept that and live your best life
You can't, when you're a good parent, you can't "live your best life" if your child was torn away from you.
> after all You don't own the child
I'm trying to be charitable here, because the HN guidelines encourage steelmanning, but comparing "wanting to have your child in your life" with "thinking you own your child" is appalling, to put it mildly. I hope this is just very, very, unfortunate phrasing, because I could find no other way to read it.
> This can be much easier on the child than witnessing constant bickering, accusations and pettiness between the parents.
Being separated from a parent can have even more dire consequences on the child. And there actually are studies on that.
> might be wrong
You argued in favor of the extremely unfair status quo of the courts and tried to suggest it could be better for the child.
I doubt this is limited to Italy.
It has become a meme that a guy is likely to suffer more during a separation if she is motivated and gets herself a good lawyer. If she insists to get the kids, she will. If she doesnt want him to see them very often, she will get her will.
I am sure there are examples where it was the other way around. No question. However, the way how the mother is treated as more of a parent then the father is pretty weird.
The mother being treated/expected to be more of a parent does not start at divorce. That's simply the continuation of a societal expectation that women will do the 'mothering.'
Because that social expectation is there, it is far more often true that in a hetro marriage the wife will be the one who gives up their career path to take care of a child. Thus the court systems has standardized on an expectation that the mother will need spousal support, and child support in a divorce, because she is the one who'll need to retool and rejoin the workforce, while still _doing_ the parenting she did while in the marriage.
And it is also nothing new. Personally, I had it 25 years ago in Germany. Same patterns than and now in virtually all western societies. Problem is and was, the topic owns some extraordinary tabu traits and prejudices from people not affected. Ironically, it is not uncommon for them to come three years later and ask when their own lives fall apart.
As a child of divorced parents in Italy, I can confirm. The divorce in in the case was dramatic, repercussions are still around, 27 years later. My father messed up in multiple ways, heavy ones too, but the unilateral vision of the system also forced my easily influenced vision of kid in a certain way for a long time, until I was way older (about 20 years old, my parents divorced when I was 3 and a half).
Up to this day, I'm really conflicted about everything surrounding it. This article says the truth, but it does overlook how painful it is for a 3 years old to have 2 bedrooms and 2 different places to stay. I can confirm that, it's one of the things I suffered the most for. And it goes on until you are much older (14-16-18) when it becomes alienating.
My uncle went through a divorce and things went exactly how described on the article. The mother had no job, she was renting an owned place as income, so she took over their family house and the kids and she got also paid. My uncle was able to fix some of the situation, not sure how, it seems like he got in a better relationship with the ex wife.
It's a nightmare I'd never recommend to anyone and the psychological support I received as a child was not closely enough. I repeatedly had to "choose" between my parents throughout my life, even though it was clearly stated to me by the child support that it should never have happened. That money should have never been between me, my father and my mother, while it was repeatedly and continuously one of the key points. I blame both parents for that, but today I ask myself if the government shouldn't provide a lot more support to me, the kid (and my sister).
Anyway, it's a big mess, I can't help but seeing a lot of truth in what's written.
Tl;dr ... A disproportionate share of seriously troubled boys share an alienated, minimized or absent father in common. The worthwhile and well intentioned effort to right the wrongs of past discrimination of women has traveled a bridge too far. Tragic unintended consequences plague children of divorce, working men, and stay-at-home fathers. This cause-effect is an inconvenient truth, ignored because its not politically correct or advantageous to raise the issue.
Speaking for myself as someone who spent 8 years and about $300,000 to have an equal role in my children's lives... you can watch the damage this has on your children change them over time. Resignation, external locus of control, etc. are all divorce-induced impacts on kids who must endure the back and forth.
I can relate to this. I have spent the better part of two years in court proceedings.
In terms of child support, New York State is one of the few states that doesn't take into account parenting time when setting child support. Custody is solely determined by who earns $1 less than the other parent.
And NY courts have thrown up their hands saying "the legislature chose not to include it, it's not our problem". Sigh... The moment you (re-)discover that legal =! right.
This freaks me out as someone who briefly thought about getting married but largely talked myself out of it after a close relative (who's much more social and better at relationships) ended up in a horrible divorce with a kid involved.
To date, I don't really see the advantages of being married - seems like a whole lot of risk to take on someone who will likely change in 3-5 years.
This is astonishingly paranoid, even conspiracy-theory promoting. The writer claims at several points that divorce law in Italy is (allegedly) unfair because judges know that fathers typically have more resources to engage in litigation appealing bad judgments, and hence more lawyers and domestic violence clinics will get paid. Where is the evidence for such an over-the-top accusation?
The fact of the matter is that divorce is terrible, and there's no good way to allocate resources after the fact. Of course there isn't---divorce is fundamentally the destruction of all kinds of financial assets (all the economies of scale in the marriage) and the upsetting of huge social, financial, and geographic commitments, even without children being involved. Of course everyone is going to be dissatisfied with however the courts divide that poisoned pie.
I'm italian and I live in Italy. My wife's parents divorced when she was 8. My cousin divorced.
I can totally confirm what's written in this post.
99% of the times it's not even in question with which parent children should stay.
Anecdotally, but it is well known that divorced fathers are the new poors (sorry, couldn't find english article): https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/padri-separati-quando-l-asse...
Anecdotally, you should really live in Italy to understand its terrible legal system.
You can look at case law and common law for the roots of this, even in the US. The entire point of child support (especially in cases where there was no marriage) is so that the state does not have to pay to raise the child.
I can't speak for the 3rd party institutions like lawyers being paid.
> Amicable out of court settlement seems to be best.
This was my approach, and ultimately I got what I wanted because it was fair and because the courts here are generally fair. Although we didn't go to court, knowing how the court would rule was hugely supportive in me offering a fair deal and standing my ground.
It's almost impossible to amicably settle out of court, though. There are too many people on both sides trying to stir the pot to get the most for their client. If you're in this situation, you, as a client, need to be very clear about what you are trying to achieve with your lawyer. Their default is to go in guns blazing. I did this with my lawyer, and he only unleashed the nukes when necessary. My ex did not (and for reasons, it was very obvious to me that her lawyer was in charge, not her). It ended up costing both of us quite a bit. Just as one example, we spent five hours paying a private judge, two lawyers, and two accountants to ultimately reach a final agreement. The agreement we reached? The one my side offered in the first five minutes.
Then, even when it's over, maybe it's not. My ex's new husband convinced her to sue me over child support. More thousands in lawyers fees later, and nothing changed because it didn't have a chance in hell.
In more than 15 years of expérience in cross border divorces I have seen that the current complaints by fathers are often linked to the tentative by judges to redress open or hidden biases penalizing mothers. The route to equality is still very long, in both ways. Every case is different and the reason why a marriage ended with a divorce do matter in assessing the child’s best interest. Statistics on violence against women are far too high for invoking in the present moment the neutralization of maternal preference. Hopefully the moment will come for the next generation
No fault divorce needs to go away when there are children involved. That is basically the end of it. Marriage is ultimately about creating family. You can't undo your marriage once you have a child anymore than you can undo your parentage or undo your relationship with a cousin. If mom and dad want to screw around with other people, their rights to do so obviously should not be restricted, but there should be no out from the marriage itself, except for cases of abuse or endangerment.
What does it say to a child to unmake the very thing that made them? How awful. The wisdom of the past says that the old way was simply superior, and we see that when we look at things like the mental health crisis, the lack of grit, the prevalence of anxiety disordes. Generations past would look at our current system and say the obvious -- which was said at the time no-fault divorce became a thing as well, just forgotten by this day -- that the prevalence of family dissolution causes severe, apparently unrelated social ills. We need to put the brake on really.
Yep, they are a tad bit on the "extreme", but not that much off, if you asked me, I would have answered, from personal knowledge (these are "net" income, i.e. with income tax already paid):
shop assistant: 1,000-1,100 Euro/month but for 13 months of wage[0]
web designer[1]: 1,800-2,200 Euro/month but for 11 months of work only
[0] the 13th month wage is only part of the full month wage, but for low pays, like 1,000-1,100 it is a large part, probably 850-950 Euro
[1] maybe you are misguided on the definition of web designer, here in Italy that generally (but not always) means "a self-educated programmer that makes a somewhat basic living doing a few very small company sites at 500-2,000 Euro each and, if he/she is good, maybe has a handful of yearly contracts to maintain them, at 100-200 each per month".
[+] [-] dathinab|5 years ago|reply
It's also well known that sometimes, in some countries maybe more then others, decisions wrt. children are biased toward mother's.
I have seen one such case in my environment myself.
I belive it is important that such Curt decisions are based on the combination of the situation both parents are in and guidelines in a impartial non gender specific way.
Through just to be clear while I have seen one such case myself I also have seen many cases with very reasonable decisions (in Germany).
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaclaz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mixmastamyk|5 years ago|reply
Anyone who is interested in the subject should watch the “red pill” documentary.
[+] [-] talentedcoin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dirlewanger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] durnygbur|5 years ago|reply
In my 20s I was like "hell, people starts families, I could make it!". Now in my 30s knowing how awfully things can go south, having went through numerous within-EU emigrations and knowing the struggles... I don't know anymore what kind of partner would be even suitable to start a family with.
[+] [-] outime|5 years ago|reply
Unfortunately in some countries, forming a family can really go south for the guys if the woman decides so.
[+] [-] newyankee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|5 years ago|reply
Ironically, this widespread disinterest in child care is what have allowed women to get these rights in the first place, because the late 1800's was certainly not a period of feminist dominion.
[+] [-] thefz|5 years ago|reply
Al my sympathy to the author.
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cowpig|5 years ago|reply
That seems to be clearly best for the child (removes the instability of moving back and forth between homes) and while it's inconvenient for the parents, at least it's equally inconvenient.
[+] [-] kemiller2002|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giantg2|5 years ago|reply
I strongly believe that most divorces would logically and financially require the existing house to be sold so that two smaller/cheaper residences can be bought or rented. This is espesially important to financial stability in instances where child support is dictated by an arbitrary formula (which tends to produce an unrealilistic amount) rather than the actual needs of the children, or where finances were already somewhat tight (most cases?).
[+] [-] ogre_codes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roflc0ptic|5 years ago|reply
However, I was recently a very close witness to some divorce proceedings involving my girlfriend and the end of her polyamorous marriage, and boy, oh boy. The husband made the decision to make the divorce as painful as possible (falsifying evidence, perjuring himself) to try to get her to give up and let him keep all of the money (he keeps the $400k house, she keeps the $5k SUV), and ultimately, it largely worked. Would you pay $50k to avoid having a miserable year? I would've kept fighting on principle, but she's wiser than I am.
Whether or not any of this was fair, eh. The mistake she made was to enter into a binding legal contract with someone that didn't have a clearly defined, equitable exit path. She misjudged her husband, but no one's immune to that. Honest people will want to write everything down and be bound to their word.
Don't make agreements based on mutual trust and assumed cooperation into perpetuity. It's only once people's incentives shift away from cooperation that you get to see their true character, for better and worse.
[+] [-] arkitaip|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|5 years ago|reply
I use to say those are O(n!) when they work, O(n!!) when they fall apart.
[+] [-] fastball|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrur484|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sigmaprimus|5 years ago|reply
Having gone through an ugly family breakup, I can attest to how painful and stressful it is for everyone. Especially once the courts get involved.
From my experience the courts are very unsympathetic to any arguments outside the general consensus, almost to the point of being obtuse or jaded.
I know people think that children are better off having both parents involved in their lives but I beg to differ when selfish vendictictive parents are involved.
Childhood is important but it is not a lifetime, in some ways it is better to check ones ego and just step back and wait. Support the child as ordered by the courts and then when the child is an adult they can decide whether or not to have a relationship with the estranged parent. If they choose not to.. Accept that and live your best life, after all You don't own the child. (eventhough your ex may believe they do!)
This can be much easier on the child than witnessing constant bickering, accusations and pettiness between the parents. Possibly resulting in self harm or violence.
Just my point of view, might be wrong but nevertheless how I see it.
[+] [-] julianmarq|5 years ago|reply
What you said after this is not any more sympathetic.
> Childhood is important but it is not a lifetime, in some ways it is better to check ones ego and just step back and wait.
This is an astonishing display of lack of empathy for the unfairly estranged parent. Not having your child in your life is one of the worst forms of torture a person should not be forced to endure.
> Support the child as ordered by the courts
The courts are, as you said, obtuse and jaded. Not to mention very often biased.
> Accept that and live your best life
You can't, when you're a good parent, you can't "live your best life" if your child was torn away from you.
> after all You don't own the child
I'm trying to be charitable here, because the HN guidelines encourage steelmanning, but comparing "wanting to have your child in your life" with "thinking you own your child" is appalling, to put it mildly. I hope this is just very, very, unfortunate phrasing, because I could find no other way to read it.
> This can be much easier on the child than witnessing constant bickering, accusations and pettiness between the parents.
Being separated from a parent can have even more dire consequences on the child. And there actually are studies on that.
> might be wrong
You argued in favor of the extremely unfair status quo of the courts and tried to suggest it could be better for the child.
[+] [-] mlang23|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miker64|5 years ago|reply
Because that social expectation is there, it is far more often true that in a hetro marriage the wife will be the one who gives up their career path to take care of a child. Thus the court systems has standardized on an expectation that the mother will need spousal support, and child support in a divorce, because she is the one who'll need to retool and rejoin the workforce, while still _doing_ the parenting she did while in the marriage.
None of this happens in a vacuum.
[+] [-] mbeex|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] happytoexplain|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fire-Dragon-DoL|5 years ago|reply
Up to this day, I'm really conflicted about everything surrounding it. This article says the truth, but it does overlook how painful it is for a 3 years old to have 2 bedrooms and 2 different places to stay. I can confirm that, it's one of the things I suffered the most for. And it goes on until you are much older (14-16-18) when it becomes alienating.
My uncle went through a divorce and things went exactly how described on the article. The mother had no job, she was renting an owned place as income, so she took over their family house and the kids and she got also paid. My uncle was able to fix some of the situation, not sure how, it seems like he got in a better relationship with the ex wife.
It's a nightmare I'd never recommend to anyone and the psychological support I received as a child was not closely enough. I repeatedly had to "choose" between my parents throughout my life, even though it was clearly stated to me by the child support that it should never have happened. That money should have never been between me, my father and my mother, while it was repeatedly and continuously one of the key points. I blame both parents for that, but today I ask myself if the government shouldn't provide a lot more support to me, the kid (and my sister).
Anyway, it's a big mess, I can't help but seeing a lot of truth in what's written.
[+] [-] howmayiannoyyou|5 years ago|reply
Tl;dr ... A disproportionate share of seriously troubled boys share an alienated, minimized or absent father in common. The worthwhile and well intentioned effort to right the wrongs of past discrimination of women has traveled a bridge too far. Tragic unintended consequences plague children of divorce, working men, and stay-at-home fathers. This cause-effect is an inconvenient truth, ignored because its not politically correct or advantageous to raise the issue.
Speaking for myself as someone who spent 8 years and about $300,000 to have an equal role in my children's lives... you can watch the damage this has on your children change them over time. Resignation, external locus of control, etc. are all divorce-induced impacts on kids who must endure the back and forth.
Brutal stuff.
[+] [-] frenchman_in_ny|5 years ago|reply
In terms of child support, New York State is one of the few states that doesn't take into account parenting time when setting child support. Custody is solely determined by who earns $1 less than the other parent.
And NY courts have thrown up their hands saying "the legislature chose not to include it, it's not our problem". Sigh... The moment you (re-)discover that legal =! right.
[+] [-] batt4good|5 years ago|reply
To date, I don't really see the advantages of being married - seems like a whole lot of risk to take on someone who will likely change in 3-5 years.
[+] [-] paultopia|5 years ago|reply
The fact of the matter is that divorce is terrible, and there's no good way to allocate resources after the fact. Of course there isn't---divorce is fundamentally the destruction of all kinds of financial assets (all the economies of scale in the marriage) and the upsetting of huge social, financial, and geographic commitments, even without children being involved. Of course everyone is going to be dissatisfied with however the courts divide that poisoned pie.
[+] [-] albertopv|5 years ago|reply
Anecdotally, you should really live in Italy to understand its terrible legal system.
[+] [-] giantg2|5 years ago|reply
I can't speak for the 3rd party institutions like lawyers being paid.
[+] [-] tomcat27|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgriswald|5 years ago|reply
This was my approach, and ultimately I got what I wanted because it was fair and because the courts here are generally fair. Although we didn't go to court, knowing how the court would rule was hugely supportive in me offering a fair deal and standing my ground.
It's almost impossible to amicably settle out of court, though. There are too many people on both sides trying to stir the pot to get the most for their client. If you're in this situation, you, as a client, need to be very clear about what you are trying to achieve with your lawyer. Their default is to go in guns blazing. I did this with my lawyer, and he only unleashed the nukes when necessary. My ex did not (and for reasons, it was very obvious to me that her lawyer was in charge, not her). It ended up costing both of us quite a bit. Just as one example, we spent five hours paying a private judge, two lawyers, and two accountants to ultimately reach a final agreement. The agreement we reached? The one my side offered in the first five minutes.
Then, even when it's over, maybe it's not. My ex's new husband convinced her to sue me over child support. More thousands in lawyers fees later, and nothing changed because it didn't have a chance in hell.
[+] [-] etergri|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RegulaK|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stelonix|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _fq4v|5 years ago|reply
What does it say to a child to unmake the very thing that made them? How awful. The wisdom of the past says that the old way was simply superior, and we see that when we look at things like the mental health crisis, the lack of grit, the prevalence of anxiety disordes. Generations past would look at our current system and say the obvious -- which was said at the time no-fault divorce became a thing as well, just forgotten by this day -- that the prevalence of family dissolution causes severe, apparently unrelated social ills. We need to put the brake on really.
[+] [-] xenocratus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] commandlinefan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaclaz|5 years ago|reply
shop assistant: 1,000-1,100 Euro/month but for 13 months of wage[0]
web designer[1]: 1,800-2,200 Euro/month but for 11 months of work only
[0] the 13th month wage is only part of the full month wage, but for low pays, like 1,000-1,100 it is a large part, probably 850-950 Euro
[1] maybe you are misguided on the definition of web designer, here in Italy that generally (but not always) means "a self-educated programmer that makes a somewhat basic living doing a few very small company sites at 500-2,000 Euro each and, if he/she is good, maybe has a handful of yearly contracts to maintain them, at 100-200 each per month".
[+] [-] durnygbur|5 years ago|reply
1200 for shop assistant is rather unlikely.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]