www.courant.com/sports/hc-nantz-divorce,0,5782196.story

"Under the ruling, Nantz must pay $72,000 in alimony monthly until he dies or his ex-wife remarries, and another $1,000 weekly in child support for the next two years."

That's for ONE child. 

You know, this isn't my money on the line and if that's what the law of the land decrees then I guess that's just the way it is.  But hell if I want to see another woman running for office when this kind of thing is still going on.

Maybe I'm not understanding, but according to that article he makes over $3,000,000 a year in salary alone and even more than that in other income.  They were married 26 years and have a child.  If he was the main support for the family, how is it not fair?  He's not even contesting it.  And I don't understand what any of it has to do with women running for office?  If the woman was the main support, who's to say the judge (who was a man, by the way) wouldn't have ruled the same way?

If it had been a woman, the man wouldn't get custody or visitation rights, and would still have to pay her. Most likely he would be reduced to hanging off  Big Ben dressed as Batman all day.

Originally posted by baff

If it had been a woman, the man wouldn't get custody or visitation rights, and would still have to pay her. Most likely he would be reduced to hanging off  Big Ben dressed as Batman all day.

It's an acknowledgement that there are indeed differences between the sexes, and the roles they serve in raising children. The fathers should get visitation rights, but I am going to agree that the mothers should generally have custody unless something is terribly wrong.

As the father, yes he should be financially obligated to help with the children regardless of whether he sees them or not. If he is making over THREE MILLION A YEAR a few thousand is actually a disgustingly, offensively, small pittance towards his own flesh and blood. I am sure he didn't contest that, it was a real god damn deal wasn't it?

I think you forgot to factor in he is in the upper income bracket so 50% of his income goes to various taxes.  $1.5 million in earnings and paying $912k in alimony, and $48k in child support is actually a lot.

I think the whole system is screwed up. Yes they should have to pay for the kid, should not even be contested. But so many get screwed on alimony. No reason she should be taking home 916k a year for doing NOTHING. And she had been looking fo 1.5million. He also has to pay 70k so she can join any country club she wants......this is crewed up no matte rwhich way it goes. Yeah if she gave up her carrer to stay at home he should have to pay while she gets started again. 5-10 years tops, life though is stupid. Shes taking home a good chunk of his pay after taxes. No reason she should be getting more of his pay then he is. She didn't like the job he took but shes happy to take the money he earns from it.......

Originally posted by Arndur

I think the whole system is screwed up. Yes they should have to pay for the kid, should not even be contested. But so many get screwed on alimony. No reason she should be taking home 916k a year for doing NOTHING. And she had been looking fo 1.5million. He also has to pay 70k so she can join any country club she wants......this is crewed up no matte rwhich way it goes. Yeah if she gave up her carrer to stay at home he should have to pay while she gets started again. 5-10 years tops, life though is stupid. Shes taking home a good chunk of his pay after taxes. No reason she should be getting more of his pay then he is. She didn't like the job he took but shes happy to take the money he earns from it.......

They were together for however many years and living a certain lifestyle, IE a pact was made between them. One should not be able to simply drop the other, especially (and it usually is the male) if that one is responsible for what lead to the divorce. What you are arguing in defense of is actually reprehensible, it has terrible and sometimes fatal consequences more so than the current system. Wives that marry into wealthy or even just appealing lifestyles to find out that their husbands are monsters won't/can't get a divorce because then they will also be financially/socially ruined and she would have to start not just from the bottom up, but at a negative.

How many stories are there where wives want to leave but can't do so because the husband has too tight a grip on social/financial situations, and even wind up getting murdered? Too many.
 

I wobbled off the path there, but one of a pair whom have been married for years and built things up as a couple should not be able to simply say "sorry, that's tough" and simply bail. Like I said, especially if that one may be responsible for what lead to the divorce in the first place. It isn't fair, and the law agrees.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Arndur

I think the whole system is screwed up. Yes they should have to pay for the kid, should not even be contested. But so many get screwed on alimony. No reason she should be taking home 916k a year for doing NOTHING. And she had been looking fo 1.5million. He also has to pay 70k so she can join any country club she wants......this is crewed up no matte rwhich way it goes. Yeah if she gave up her carrer to stay at home he should have to pay while she gets started again. 5-10 years tops, life though is stupid. Shes taking home a good chunk of his pay after taxes. No reason she should be getting more of his pay then he is. She didn't like the job he took but shes happy to take the money he earns from it.......

They were together for however many years and living a certain lifestyle, IE a pact was made between them. One should not be able to simply drop the other, especially (and it usually is the male) if that one is responsible for what lead to the divorce. What you are arguing in defense of is actually reprehensible, it has terrible and sometimes fatal consequences more so than the current system. Wives that marry into wealthy or even just appealing lifestyles to find out that their husbands are monsters won't/can't get a divorce because then they will also be financially/socially ruined and she would have to start not just from the bottom up, but at a negative.

How many stories are there where wives want to leave but can't do so because the husband has too tight a grip on social/financial situations, and even wind up getting murdered? Too many.
 

I wobbled off the path there, but one of a pair whom have been married for years and built things up as a couple should not be able to simply say "sorry, that's tough" and simply bail. Like I said, especially if that one may be responsible for what lead to the divorce in the first place. It isn't fair, and the law agrees.

No whats not fair is that the main earner gets screwed. Hell look at Britney Spears she had to pay Kevin money thats bullshit. Is it fair that he might be paying so much money that he has to take a drop in life style? That happens too, main earner loses so much they can't live the life style they want but the other can. Child support and college are one thing, maybe even paying off the houses she gets if they aren't already. But supporting a life style she is not doing anything to earn anymore is stupid. Did she help his carrer? She even said she didn't like it. Also I call bullshit that their are too many stories of wives not being able to leave or getting murdered, have anything to back that up?

Originally posted by Arndur

No whats not fair is that the main earner gets screwed. Hell look at Britney Spears she had to pay Kevin money thats bullshit. Is it fair that he might be paying so much money that he has to take a drop in life style? That happens too, main earner loses so much they can't live the life style they want but the other can. Child support and college are one thing, maybe even paying off the houses she gets if they aren't already. But supporting a life style she is not doing anything to earn anymore is stupid. Did she help his carrer? She even said she didn't like it. Also I call bullshit that their are too many stories of wives not being able to leave or getting murdered, have anything to back that up?

I can tell from the red colored text there that everything I said above went sailing far above your head. I'm going to try this again, but first I must remind you that in the case of the teal colored text, the main earner does not have to pay as much if their situation has become dire. In the case of divorce, the main earner is living a quality of life much closer to the one they had as a couple then the other who earned less.

What you are having trouble wrapping your mind around is what a marriage actually is and can only focus on one particular item which is money and who earned the most. I am not surprised, it seems like the vast majority of people have no god damn idea anymore.

To say this again; One of a married couple should not be able to drop anchor on the other and essentially destroy the life that they had simply because they have more control or influence over the lifestyle. A marriage is an equal union, and one shouldn't be able to do something atrocious and levy their way of life over their spouses head anymore than they do now. What happens there is that women get turned into bitches and baby mommas that are used and then thrown away, which is what happens frequently in couples who are not married and do not have any real defense or rights.
 

She was a part of his life for at least a few years and together they achieved or took part in things together. He can't say, "well that was awesome but I don't need you anymore, take this pittance and child support and beat it" after all of that because it isn't fair to her. They got accustomed to a lifestyle together, it is wrong to give someone the finger like that just because you've got more money. Money is only 1 element.
 
Edit: To the last bit, um... that is commonly known. Women stay with abusive or otherwise terrible husbands because of precisely the reasons I stated: financial, social, their own job, etc. Generally men who are like that also happen to have that kind of power. Go call the hospital, local law enforcement, google, or watch some Court TV (tru TV) and ask. It's a very real and serious problem, even today.