An argument can be made in court for funds put in a 401K after the marriage. The appearance here is that we are talking about funds invested prior to marriageThat depends on the state. In TX it isn't so cut and dry. I know one woman who indeed did get a part of her husbands 401k as part of the divorce right here in TX. So that isn't the case here. Here in TX inherited property and lottery winnings don't commingle if one doesn't want them to.
It is however irrelevant as he made the decision all on his own, and he got paid back.
Step fathers are real step fathers
A step father should not expect to get custody of step children except under the most unusual /of circumstances. And a biological mother relinquishing is indeed unusual and speaks of her character. If she can't care for her own children she has no business trying to take care of an entire stateSo real fathers. Or shouldn't a step father expect a fathers day card?
I know you have paid for me, and taken care of me since I was one, but you aren't a real fathers to no card for you.
That is an interesting philosophy. I am sure all the step fathers will agree with you.
A step father should not expect to get custody of step children except under the most unusual /of circumstances. And a biological mother relinquishing is indeed unusual and speaks of her character. If she can't care for her own children she has no business trying to take care of an entire state
A step father should not expect to get custody of step children except under the most unusual /of circumstances. And a biological mother relinquishing is indeed unusual and speaks of her character. If she can't care for her own children she has no business trying to take care of an entire state
Sure. Step fathers shouldn't get custody. Ok. That is like your opinion man. You don't think step fathers are real fathers, and thus shouldn't have rights. I get you.
Many disagree though.
Yes. All things being equal, a biological mother would trump a step father in regards to custody of children 100 times over, no question.
So, there had to be unique circumstances, for a biological mother to not have custody in this situation.
Now, she may have volunteered that she didn't want primary custody of her own kids, I haven't seen the court documents. Or, it could have been for other compelling reasons, to give a step father custody.
Does it tell me something about her if she voluntarily gave up custody of her own children to a step father? Yes it does and everyone else can decide what it tells them.
As you would say, it is a "fact" that courts favor mothers in all custody issues and it is also a fact that a biological mother, would be heavily favored by the courts vs a step father. Read up on how states decide custody for clarification.
She may have volunteered to not want custody, for her own personal reasons, or the court decided the step father was more "fit" to have custody. Either way, this is information about the women, that people can use to get a picture of what makes her tick.
How exactly did I paint her as evil. Be specific.
Even Wendy Davis admitted having problems at the time of divorce: from the Dallas Morning News:Seeing as how they decided who got custody I am thinking your attempt to paint her as evil fails.
Then you have nothing to back up your claim that I painted her as evil. I thought so.
People without income generally don't get awarded children.
The court ordered Wendy Davis to provide child-support.Not true. It is called child support. He also had other income.
The court ordered Wendy Davis to provide child-support.
LOL ... semantics.No she volunteered to.
The court simply agreed to their arrangement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?