What's the advantage of doing it first?

[SweetBella]

I hear often that people who file first have the advantage? Can anyone explain how or why and what this means? Thanks!

 

[JohnDB]

Judge shopping.
Most judges have track records and predispositions to rule in particular manners. Some for the man and some for the woman...

It isn't exactly right but that never stops people from doing it.

 

[ShainaBrina]

I don't get the judge shopping thing. In any given area there would be a set number of judges... how would you know which one you get?

Up here the judges rotate so you get whoever happens to be sitting on the day your court case is booked. Of course being in a rural area... there are only the 3 judges in that travel between the 2 courts in the area.

I liked the judge I had the last time I was in court... hope I get him again.

 

[SweetBella]

i dont get the judge thing either.

 

[JohnDB]

If you are a father who wants custody of your children and most of the judges except for one most likely will favor maternal rights instead of paternal...you need to file first in the court where paternal rights are recognized. Otherwise the mother will get primary custody of the children...regardless of her sanity.

Here in TN most courts favor maternal rights over paternal. Fathers have it rough here. Child support Nazis have it in for all dads because for so long there were a lot of dead-beat dads running about. There is one court/judge that gives a father paternal rights more so than the others. Has even been known to award men palimony when the case seems to be fair in that direction.
It is also the court where if you are in contempt of court you need to bring your toothbrush too. (IE haven't paid child support or visited at least up to the scheduled amounts)
Most courts here will give the mother primary custody of the children unless she currently is in jail for a felony at the moment....then maybe the father will get primary custody if he is squeaky clean....but only maybe. Usually a family relative will get them till she gets out. That is how insane it has become.

My ex happened to file in a court Paternal friendly court first. She didn't know what she did when she did it...I couldn't have filed better than that so...

Some people file in a court that has an acquaintance or affinity of some form with the sitting judge. They believe that it helps their case. Appeals are expensive. Most people don't have the money for that so...they don't.

Mostly a divorce is a continued fight from the marriage with lawyers doing the fighting for you...and very expensive. Nothing gets solved except that the marriage is dissolved and the two are broke from spending all their money on lawyers.

My wife just left me right before the holidays. She closed checking accounts and cancelled leases and all kinds of nasty stuff. When the time comes to file for divorce I will charge her with abandonment and might get relief for that in the form of palimony. (she moved out while I was off at school and work)

So she might try to file in another county or something but...I will have the case judicated here in the court that I have favor. (it actually is in this jurisdiction) She would be better off in another county than I...but won't get it. She lives in this county too...so....she doesn't stand much of a chance.

 

[chaz345]

Child support Nazis have it in for all dads because for so long there were a lot of dead-beat dads running about

There has always been a PERCEPTION that there is a large number of dead beat dads, but there's nothing to show that it is, or ever has been the case that it's anywhere near the problem that it's been portrayed as. Yes any dad not supporting his kids is a problem, but in terms of big picture, overall type things, it's just never been anywhere near as widespread as some would have you believe. If you wonder why anyone would overstate the problem, you just need to look at who benefits from the perception.

 

[SmileAndAHandshake]

I hear often that people who file first have the advantage? Can anyone explain how or why and what this means? Thanks!

In theory it's an out-dated viewpoint that is no longer true. Most information I can find in a simple google search actually directs me to sites that specifically say "There is no advantage to filing first in the State of [whatever]"

However, then there are sites like this: Illinois Divorce - The Advantages of Filing First - Family Law Article

But I still think it's all in people's heads.

My ex and I filed jointly (which means no one was suing the other like in a regular divorce) and agreed on everything together like civil people. Totally the way to go if you can.

 

[Autumnleaf]

For most people the only advantage is to agree on the terms of the divorce and to file jointly without using lawyers. That way you both get something you can live with, and the lawyers don't take everything which they will if you give them half a chance. If you are married to someone who is very wealthy then it might be better for you to get a good lawyer and 'take them for all you can'. That is not very nice though.

 

[chaz345]

For most people the only advantage is to agree on the terms of the divorce and to file jointly without using lawyers. That way you both get something you can live with, and the lawyers don't take everything which they will if you give them half a chance. If you are married to someone who is very wealthy then it might be better for you to get a good lawyer and 'take them for all you can'. That is not very nice though.

Even in the most amicable of divorces, there's absolutely NOTHING nice going on anyway.

 

[eatenbylocusts]

My wife just left me right before the holidays. She closed checking accounts and cancelled leases and all kinds of nasty stuff. When the time comes to file for divorce I will charge her with abandonment and might get relief for that in the form of palimony. (she moved out while I was off at school and work)

I am very sad to hear this.

There has always been a PERCEPTION that there is a large number of dead beat dads, but there's nothing to show that it is, or ever has been the case that it's anywhere near the problem that it's been portrayed as. Yes any dad not supporting his kids is a problem, but in terms of big picture, overall type things, it's just never been anywhere near as widespread as some would have you believe. If you wonder why anyone would overstate the problem, you just need to look at who benefits from the perception.

I don't know what the real life percentage is, but my ex hasn't paid a dime in about 5 years. My best friend's dad stopped paying child support for her when she was still little and then borrowed money from her when she was saving for her first car and still hasn't paid it all back. Her half-brother's dad stopped paying child support until her got thrown in jail. They're out there, but there are also those who are technically deadbeats because they haven't gone back to court to report a change in income. Some men are real bad about doing that stuff.

 

[chaz345]

I don't know what the real life percentage is, but my ex hasn't paid a dime in about 5 years. My best friend's dad stopped paying child support for her when she was still little and then borrowed money from her when she was saving for her first car and still hasn't paid it all back. Her half-brother's dad stopped paying child support until her got thrown in jail. They're out there, but there are also those who are technically deadbeats because they haven't gone back to court to report a change in income. Some men are real bad about doing that stuff.

Yes, there are some, and any is too many, however, no matter what the number, it's not enough to even begin to justify the mechanism that some states have where every child support case is handled by the state garnishing the wages and then paying the mother. That happens from the beginning, before any payments have had the chance to be missed. Her deciding that she'd be happier with some other guy is as common as him running off with his secretary.

As for reporting a change in income, I can see why they might not when a decrease in income doesn't necessarily automatically result in decreased support amounts.

And keep in mind, more often as not the divorce is for reason's other than him simply bailing out on his responsibilites in the first place.

 

[ido]

The only advantage I had in filing first was that I was able to move before filing, so that my ex couldn't force me to move back to our hometown. I moved b/c I took a FT job in another town (I was a SAHM when I filed) after looking for FT work in my hometown and the town I moved to (my sister lives here) for 6 weeks.

My ex filed an emergency custody motion, claiming I kidnapped our sons - despite having ample notice of the move. He also closed our checking account and cleaned it out.

When we went before the judge, she dismissed the emergency custody motion and also ordered temporary child support. So, I feel like filing first protected me from some of my ex's antics (trust me, he did a lot more than just that - and still does stuff).

 

[DZoolander]

I don't know if there are any legal advantages gained by being the one who files first (at least in California where I went through one - I don't think it really matters at all) - I think there are definite psychological advantages to being the one who files first.

...and mostly it's simply for yourself.

There's something to be said for being the one who finally says "I don't want this any more." Just that step - in and of itself - is extremely important in moving on.

 

[chaz345]

...and mostly it's simply for yourself.

Yup, that pretty much sums up the mentality involved in most divorces. Although many try to pretend that it's for the kids.

 

[DZoolander]

In a lot of ways I agree - but I take a different spin on it.

Sometimes you can have situations where you *do* deserve better than what you have - and I see no sin in recognizing that.

 

[ido]

IMO - if abuse or infidelity is involved, then it's not selfish and is being done in the best interest of the children.

Anything else should be able to be worked through or around or at least acknowledged as a personal choice - not something being done for the welfare of the children.

 

[chaz345]

IMO - if abuse or infidelity is involved, then it's not selfish and is being done in the best interest of the children.

Anything else should be able to be worked through or around or at least acknowledged as a personal choice - not something being done for the welfare of the children.

Actually I said nothing at all different than this. MOST divorces involve neither abuse nor infidelity.

 

[chaz345]

In a lot of ways I agree - but I take a different spin on it.

Sometimes you can have situations where you *do* deserve better than what you have - and I see no sin in recognizing that.

If better than what you have entails abuse or adultery, I agree.

 

[DZoolander]

No argument there

 

[ido]

Actually I said nothing at all different than this. MOST divorces involve neither abuse nor infidelity.

I didn't say that you did. I was just adding my two cents. *shrugs*