US executive who fled to Thailand to avoid paying child support goes to prison

[rohlm50212]

Sad Fact is if he was a deadbeat, no Lawyer in the world would touch it.....Do they actually care, NO....A way to make a buck! Do they really know what has transpired? NO....Go watch TV or read the Paper in the good ol usa or UK....Lawyers Advertising "Call Me I will get you what you deserve" Yea It goes hand in hand with the insurance and hospital racked that keep feed the legal system and the mountains of cash handed to people in a position to write a new law or policy...What has happened to humanity....

[rohlm50212]

Capp76,

You should take your drugs and go to work for Disneyland writing farytales....Get in the real world and see what is actually happening, you speak with no vocal chords.......

[sumtingwong]

His wife was another winner of the marriage lottery.

[NeverSure]

Should not the mother also be required to pay $1,500 in child support? She is an adult and they are her children too.

Perhaps. It depends on how much money they each make, and how much time they spend with the kids.

If they both made the same amount of money, and had joint custody with 50/50 sharing of the kids, there would be no need for support from either.

If she made a lot more money than he did, and they had the kids 50/50, she would pay support.

We don't know the facts of how the judge arrived at the number of $1500, but we do know that he's the dummy who's going to prison, with a big debt he can never discharge.

[sirineou]

Just a blanket, the father must pay, may not always be just.

If for instance the wife leaves for no good reason and against the wishes of the father and moves in with another man should the father still have to pay.

This could be a real travesty if for instance the father is denied access to the child.

In this case he took off with the intention of withholding payments but what were the circumstances of the breakup.

I personally know of one case where a mother has moved out with children to live with another man and she and that man (unemployed) are living off Govt benefits while money is being is deducted from the fathers income to cover those benefits.

The circumstances of the brake up,or visitation rights, does not absolve some one of his parental responsibilities.

My Daughter from a previous marriage just turned 18 , some one commended that . finally I would not have to pay child support. My reply was, "why she stops being my Daughter after she is 18?"

Awesome.

Thank you for that kind reply

To me it seems that some people have lost sense of "My"

My Daughter, My wife, My Sister, My Mother in Law. My Country

I know it sounds possessive, but it is not, aside from the fact that you love these people, and even if you don't.

IMO a man need to take ownership . of what is his. Be a stand up guy.

When people screw with what is yours, they screw with you, and all all the gum flapping in the wind, and all the justifying does not change that. When you fail to take care of what is yours . aside from every one else knowing it, what is worst is,,, You know it

Of course when it comes to my Daughter it helps that she is the most wonderful,most beautiful, smartest girl in the whole wide world.

Signed

A Proud Dad,

worth a lot more than a few dollars

[capcc76]

Just a blanket, the father must pay, may not always be just.

If for instance the wife leaves for no good reason and against the wishes of the father and moves in with another man should the father still have to pay.

This could be a real travesty if for instance the father is denied access to the child.

In this case he took off with the intention of withholding payments but what were the circumstances of the breakup.

I personally know of one case where a mother has moved out with children to live with another man and she and that man (unemployed) are living off Govt benefits while money is being is deducted from the fathers income to cover those benefits.

The circumstances of the brake up,or visitation rights, does not absolve some one of his parental responsibilities.

My Daughter from a previous marriage just turned 18 , some one commended that . finally I would not have to pay child support. My reply was, "why she stops being my Daughter after she is 18?"

Awesome.

Thank you for that kind reply

To me it seems that some people have lost sense of "My"

My Daughter, My wife, My Sister, My Mother in Law. My Country

I know it sounds possessive, but it is not, aside from the fact that you love these people, and even if you don't.

IMO a man need to take ownership . of what is his. Be a stand up guy.

When people screw with what is yours, they screw with you, and all all the gum flapping in the wind, and all the justifying does not change that. When you fail to take care of what is yours . aside from every one else knowing it, what is worst is,,, You know it

Of course when it comes to my Daughter it helps that she is the most wonderful,most beautiful, smartest girl in the whole wide world.

Picture0009.jpg

Signed

A Proud Dad,

worth a lot more than a few dollars

Heck yeah, I would not trade my relationship with my daughters for anything. That's what life is all about and starting over with 3 year old at 44 made me feel 10 years younger. Candidly, I did want another child until I met my younger wife who did. Enjoying fatherhood this go around even more and cannot imagine messing a child up running off to another country and acting like they did not exist.

Congrats man!

Edited July 2, 2014 by capcc76

[AnotherOneAmerican]

The only winners in a Divorce are the Lawyers

Out of all your manic statements in this thread, this is the only rationale statement you have made. Wow, just reading your stuff . . . If you came across like that during a deposition or in court before a judge . .

A lot of divorce lawyers without sufficient business or that are just greedy bastards unnecessary run up large bills rather than sitting down at the very beginning, counseling their clients and saying this is reality. This is what will happen. We can fight over everything and I will be happy to take your money fighting over what ever you want to fight about it. This, however, is not the prudent course and in the end you will get nothing more except a large bill and you risk pissing the judge off and hurting your position. I constantly tell my client's when something is bad idea and a waste of their resources even though it would benefit me financially. Unfortunately, some lawyers may place their needs a head of their client's needs and those lawyers are a disgrace to our profession. Luckily, I encounter few of those types as I primarily represent large cap international corporations and musicians.

Divorce is different,

In a large number of cases (90%) the woman wants to hurt the man (financially and emotionally), more than they want an equatable settlement.

I generally represented middle class women, where the assets were limited.

Normally the women would choose financial ruin for both, over an equatable settlement that retained maximum equity for both.

That's just the way it works, ask your colleagues handling divorce if you want confirmation.

I had all the business I could handle and a waiting list.

No need for me to prolong cases or pad bills.

The solution,

IMHO the only way to make divorce fair for, men, women and children, is to award custody 50/50 in every case, divide marital assets 50/50 in every case, and stop awarding ongoing money from either parent.

Each parent pays for their kids when they are looking after them.

Edited July 2, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[oldsailor35]

Just a blanket, the father must pay, may not always be just.

If for instance the wife leaves for no good reason and against the wishes of the father and moves in with another man should the father still have to pay.

This could be a real travesty if for instance the father is denied access to the child.

In this case he took off with the intention of withholding payments but what were the circumstances of the breakup.

I personally know of one case where a mother has moved out with children to live with another man and she and that man (unemployed) are living off Govt benefits while money is being is deducted from the fathers income to cover those benefits.

Does it matter to the kids? If you have children, even with a bad mother, aren't you still responsible for your children?

Many of these battles are between that parents and the kids get caught in between.

The guy chose the woman, and then chose to have kids. He needs to pay for his choices even if they were bad.

The alternative is for me to pay for them as a taxpayer, which it sounds like I probably have been.

$ 1,500 seems a bit much for child care. If it's joint decision, the woman also should be paying the same amount for her kid, that would add the total cost for a kid in the States to 3,000$ a month. wow....... A whole family can live on that kind of money.

These payments are usually based on the "Old premise" of the father being the sole bread winner. However this is not necessarily the case in these days, and often the opposite. But many courts do not take this into account and the mother usually gets away with no payment and the father gets screwed. No wonder some do a runner !

[Berkshire]

I have been a lawyer for over 20 years and I can say unequivocally that the current child support guidelines and how it is calculated is extremely fair and reasonable. The current laws are in place because so many dead beat dads skipped out in their children.

Agree. These draconian laws had to be created because guys just weren't paying child support. It's obvious that if the west hadn't created and enforced strict child support laws, most western guys would not be paying child support. In other words, no different from Thai guys.

[oldsailor35]

I'm so glad I never had kids.

I concur. Too often women use children against the sperm donor to gouge every last penny they can out of them.

In many cases 'fathers' after paying for years, having been forced to by the court, are finding out with the aid of DNA testing, that they are not in fact the sperm donors. Then who has to pay the money back, the mother, the real father ( if traceable) or the court which awarded in the first place. I for one, sure as hell, would be looking somewhere for a refund.

[rohlm50212]

I saw how it protected three girls from a Deadbeat MOM.....

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[oldsailor35]

Most of what is being discussed here applies to the USA and a little of the UK. Nothing much can be said of Thailand, because the mother rarely gets any assistance at all. There are many thousands of fatherless families here and no one appears to care less, so many Thai men only hang around with their g/f until pregnancy appears and then they do the 'butterfly' trick, quite confident in the belief that they have no responsibility and can just move on. Sadly, this appears to be the general attitude. My own partner has a 15 yr old son and was married to his father, the marriage dissolved when the child was 3 yrs old. They met at uni and the father , now a lawyer and court judge has never paid one satang towards the boy, his now wife absolutely forbids it. My partner just refuses to approach him in any way for money to pay for this boy's further education ( and he certainly is worth it as he is very intelligent) his mother insists that it is not the Thai way to go to court over the matter..............Frustrating is how i describe it. I really don't care , but i know that i will be sending him to uni as he is a decent hard working intelligent lad.

[parmo2]

If you are really a divorce lawyer , you will surely know that nearly all divorces are Initiated by women and they get custody of the kids in almost all cases too. You may also know that these courts are secret in many countries, ostensibly to "protect" the family but in reality to hide the gross injustice.

You may also know about the false domestic violence claims and even sexual claims by mothers .

This is nothing to do with law it is a deliberate policy of defathering families . These women get new hubby - the state and matriarchal underclass born.

The state wants to maximose it's income by keeping the male working , that is what it is all about. Never listen to any legal worker liar

Thai women do get many benefits if they are single mothers , this is a lie.

[parmo2]

Western countries created unilateral divorces in 70s and the state had to pay greater amounts of social security to these women. They made fathers pay these "child support" payments which go to the government not the mothet

Most fathers would willingly take care of their kids but the law no longer allows this. These men saying majority of men are deadbeats are monstrous

Edited July 2, 2014 by parmo2

[AnotherOneAmerican]

If you are really a divorce lawyer , you will surely know that nearly all divorces are Initiated by women and they get custody of the kids in almost all cases too. You may also know that these courts are secret in many countries, ostensibly to "protect" the family but in reality to hide the gross injustice.

You may also know about the false domestic violence claims and even sexual claims by mothers .

This is nothing to do with law it is a deliberate policy of defathering families . These women get new hubby - the state and matriarchal underclass born.

The state wants to maximose it's income by keeping the male working , that is what it is all about. Never listen to any legal worker liar

Thai women do get many benefits if they are single mothers , this is a lie.

Most of your posts are completely bonkers.

But in this post you are remarkably accurate.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I'm so glad I never had kids.

I concur. Too often women use children against the sperm donor to gouge every last penny they can out of them.

In many cases 'fathers' after paying for years, having been forced to by the court, are finding out with the aid of DNA testing, that they are not in fact the sperm donors. Then who has to pay the money back, the mother, the real father ( if traceable) or the court which awarded in the first place. I for one, sure as hell, would be looking somewhere for a refund.

Under US law in most states, once you have accepted paternity you get to pay, even if at a later date you find out you were deceived.

If you move a woman with a child from another man and the child into your home, you may be considered the de-facto father, and in the event of a subsequent breakup, be required to pay maintenance for the child which is not yours.

Sorry, no refunds in the US.

[parmo2]

In New Zealand it is illegal to even have a paternity test , such are the draconian rules to recoup government cash from men.

Governments in the west are becoming much less democratic and spying on us all, the laws against men are becoming even more draconian each year .

But still women are not being held responsible for their own actions only men have reaponsibities.

There is contraception available for women before sex, during sex and after sex, but women are not held responsible for anything as usual

[rohlm50212]

In New Zealand it is illegal to even have a paternity test , such are the draconian rules to recoup government cash from men.

Governments in the west are becoming much less democratic and spying on us all, the laws against men are becoming even more draconian each year .

But still women are not being held responsible for their own actions only men have reaponsibities.

There is contraception available for women before sex, during sex and after sex, but women are not held responsible for anything as usual

Ask Capcc76 who has been highly Westernly educated if thats Just, since he is so morally and culturally the rightous man....He speaks about Western Law, but has no idea how the other 90% of the world lives.....Especially without his family invading advice and laws...

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[capcc76]

The only winners in a Divorce are the Lawyers

Out of all your manic statements in this thread, this is the only rationale statement you have made. Wow, just reading your stuff . . . If you came across like that during a deposition or in court before a judge . .

A lot of divorce lawyers without sufficient business or that are just greedy bastards unnecessary run up large bills rather than sitting down at the very beginning, counseling their clients and saying this is reality. This is what will happen. We can fight over everything and I will be happy to take your money fighting over what ever you want to fight about it. This, however, is not the prudent course and in the end you will get nothing more except a large bill and you risk pissing the judge off and hurting your position. I constantly tell my client's when something is bad idea and a waste of their resources even though it would benefit me financially. Unfortunately, some lawyers may place their needs a head of their client's needs and those lawyers are a disgrace to our profession. Luckily, I encounter few of those types as I primarily represent large cap international corporations and musicians.

Divorce is different,

In a large number of cases (90%) the woman wants to hurt the man (financially and emotionally), more than they want an equatable settlement.

I generally represented middle class women, where the assets were limited.

Normally the women would choose financial ruin for both, over an equatable settlement that retained maximum equity for both.

That's just the way it works, ask your colleagues handling divorce if you want confirmation.

I had all the business I could handle and a waiting list.

No need for me to prolong cases or pad bills.

The solution,

IMHO the only way to make divorce fair for, men, women and children, is to award custody 50/50 in every case, divide marital assets 50/50 in every case, and stop awarding ongoing money from either parent.

Each parent pays for their kids when they are looking after them.

Your 90% percent figure is misleading/incorrect. Most divorces in US are uncontested. Just more anti-female rhetoric bs. Judges also encourage 50/50 and want fathers to take more active roles, but it is typically the father that rejects.

Your statements are disconcerting. A lawyer has an ethical obligation not to engage in needless, frivolous litigation. This includes litigation designed to do nothing but cause unnecessary financial ruin of the other side. We control our litigation decision. I will fire a client if that client is directing me to engage in litigation or tactics that is inappropriate.

A lawyer that engages in such tactics is the problem and precisely the reason some on are are so angry with the system, i.e., lawyer is the problem, not their client or the judge.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Your 90% percent figure is misleading/incorrect. Most divorces in US are uncontested. Just more anti-female rhetoric bs. Judges also encourage 50/50 and want fathers to take more active roles, but it is typically the father that rejects.

Your statements are disconcerting. A lawyer has an ethical obligation not to engage in needless, frivolous litigation. This includes litigation designed to do nothing but cause unnecessary financial ruin of the other side. We control our litigation decision. I will fire a client if that client is directing me to engage in litigation or tactics that is inappropriate.

A lawyer that engages in such tactics is the problem and precisely the reason some on are are so angry with the system, i.e., lawyer is the problem, not their client or the judge.

First,

I was talking about 90% of cases in middle class contested divorce, sorry if that wasn't obvious.

(I didn't actually participate in uncontested divorce and poor people couldn't afford my services)

Second,

My ethical obligations were to represent my client, and follow their wishes within the framework of the law.

No judge ever suggested any of my cases were frivolous. The framework of the law is fairly flexible.

Third,

I usually won whatever result my client required, which is why I always had plenty of work.

Fourth,

Lawyers who don't engage in such tactics, usually lose, and tend to not have many or profitable clients.

Edited July 2, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[rohlm50212]

The only winners in a Divorce are the Lawyers

Out of all your manic statements in this thread, this is the only rationale statement you have made. Wow, just reading your stuff . . . If you came across like that during a deposition or in court before a judge . .

A lot of divorce lawyers without sufficient business or that are just greedy bastards unnecessary run up large bills rather than sitting down at the very beginning, counseling their clients and saying this is reality. This is what will happen. We can fight over everything and I will be happy to take your money fighting over what ever you want to fight about it. This, however, is not the prudent course and in the end you will get nothing more except a large bill and you risk pissing the judge off and hurting your position. I constantly tell my client's when something is bad idea and a waste of their resources even though it would benefit me financially. Unfortunately, some lawyers may place their needs a head of their client's needs and those lawyers are a disgrace to our profession. Luckily, I encounter few of those types as I primarily represent large cap international corporations and musicians.

Divorce is different,

In a large number of cases (90%) the woman wants to hurt the man (financially and emotionally), more than they want an equatable settlement.

I generally represented middle class women, where the assets were limited.

Normally the women would choose financial ruin for both, over an equatable settlement that retained maximum equity for both.

That's just the way it works, ask your colleagues handling divorce if you want confirmation.

I had all the business I could handle and a waiting list.

No need for me to prolong cases or pad bills.

The solution,

IMHO the only way to make divorce fair for, men, women and children, is to award custody 50/50 in every case, divide marital assets 50/50 in every case, and stop awarding ongoing money from either parent.

Each parent pays for their kids when they are looking after them.

Your 90% percent figure is misleading/incorrect. Most divorces in US are uncontested. Just more anti-female rhetoric bs. Judges also encourage 50/50 and want fathers to take more active roles, but it is typically the father that rejects.

Your statements are disconcerting. A lawyer has an ethical obligation not to engage in needless, frivolous litigation. This includes litigation designed to do nothing but cause unnecessary financial ruin of the other side. We control our litigation decision. I will fire a client if that client is directing me to engage in litigation or tactics that is inappropriate.

A lawyer that engages in such tactics is the problem and precisely the reason some on are are so angry with the system, i.e., lawyer is the problem, not their client or the judge.

My question to you, who gave the Judge any rights to decide anything concerning another Man that was born Equal....It is a big problem in the western world....Wonder how this godly figure treats his kids....Dont be so Nieve.....He is just a man...In Asia there is more real love within a family of 10 with a 500 USD income than there is in the Western world with a 500k income.....So taking Money and threats of jail do not help anything....Just aggrivates and feeds the Lawyers.....

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[capcc76]

I'm so glad I never had kids.

I concur. Too often women use children against the sperm donor to gouge every last penny they can out of them.

In many cases 'fathers' after paying for years, having been forced to by the court, are finding out with the aid of DNA testing, that they are not in fact the sperm donors. Then who has to pay the money back, the mother, the real father ( if traceable) or the court which awarded in the first place. I for one, sure as hell, would be looking somewhere for a refund.

Under US law in most states, once you have accepted paternity you get to pay, even if at a later date you find out you were deceived.

If you move a woman with a child from another man and the child into your home, you may be considered the de-facto father, and in the event of a subsequent breakup, be required to pay maintenance for the child which is not yours.

Sorry, no refunds in the US.

You are apparently in California. The law is not the same in all states on either issue so please be more responsible when making representations about the "law."

Below is husband awarded damages for wrongfully paying child support after later paternity test proved he was not the father. Courts in all states also do not order step father to pay child support for children from previous marriage unless step father wants to and agrees to do it.

Below is a victory for a man and shows US courts are not as anti-male as some here would have you believe.

Hodge v. Craig

Following the dissolution of their nine-year marriage, the former husband of the childs mother discovered that he was not the childs biological father. He filed suit against the childs mother in the Chancery Court alleging that she had intentionally misled him into believing that he was the childs biological father. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the mothers former husband had proved that his former wife had intentionally misrepresented the parentage of the child and awarded him $134,877.90 in compensatory damages for the child support, medical expenses, and insurance premiums he had paid following the divorce, emotional distress, and attorneys fees. Court of appeals reversed.

The former husband filed an application for permission to appeal arguing that Tennessee should permit recovery in cases of this sort for intentional or negligent misrepresentation of a childs paternity. Tennessee Supreme court held that the existing common-law action for intentional misrepresentation encompasses the claims made in this case by the former husband and that the trial courts damage award based on the former husbands post-divorce payments for child support, medical expenses, and insurance premiums is not an improper retroactive modification of the former husbands child support obligation.

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/hodgetmopn.pdf

http://www.tba.org/legal-opinion/tina-marie-hodge-v-chadwick-craig

[GentlemanJim]

At the end of the day it's the US and you are stuffed whatever you do. Here a guy has been given 180 days for overpaying his child support!

Here a man in jail for not paying child support and he never even had a child! The court knew he had no child.

There are clips of sperm donors who have been made to pay child support. And here is a guy who was a victim of child paternity fraud still made to pay child support.

Edited July 2, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[capcc76]

Your 90% percent figure is misleading/incorrect. Most divorces in US are uncontested. Just more anti-female rhetoric bs. Judges also encourage 50/50 and want fathers to take more active roles, but it is typically the father that rejects.

Your statements are disconcerting. A lawyer has an ethical obligation not to engage in needless, frivolous litigation. This includes litigation designed to do nothing but cause unnecessary financial ruin of the other side. We control our litigation decision. I will fire a client if that client is directing me to engage in litigation or tactics that is inappropriate.

A lawyer that engages in such tactics is the problem and precisely the reason some on are are so angry with the system, i.e., lawyer is the problem, not their client or the judge.

First,

I was talking about 90% of cases in middle class contested divorce, sorry if that wasn't obvious.

(I didn't actually participate in uncontested divorce and poor people couldn't afford my services)

Second,

My ethical obligations were to represent my client, and follow their wishes within the framework of the law.

No judge ever suggested any of my cases were frivolous. The framework of the law is fairly flexible.

Third,

I usually won whatever result my client required, which is why I always had plenty of work.

Fourth,

Lawyers who don't engage in such tactics, usually lose, and tend to not have many or profitable clients.

Although you cut it out, this is what you said:

"Divorce is different,

In a large number of cases (90%) the woman wants to hurt the man (financially and emotionally), more than they want an equatable settlement.

I generally represented middle class women, where the assets were limited."

No limitations here.

Uncontested divorces are not limited to "poor people." Good lawyers triage cases before burning thousands of dollars to determine best route for client, not lawyer's pocket book. Collecting and blowing through large retainers before discussing resolution serves only the interests of the lawyer. Serving client's best interests obtains and retains business. I am fighter and have close to 100 jury trials in civil tort cases and over 100 security or employment arbitrations, but there is a difference between fighting for a client and unnecessarily burning through all marital assets/money in a divorce case that you ultimately settle for what you could have settled for prior to spending all of their money.

Contested v. Uncontested figures

I have seen mixed figures (90 to 95%) on contested v. uncontested divorce cases (5 to 10%), but obviously many on here got stuck in the churning of a contested case that no doubt left them bitter and upset.

___________

San Jose lawyer article noting, in MODERN TIMES, uncontested divorces comprise 95% of all divorce cases.

Divorce proceedings are linked inexorably in the public imagination with bitter, vitriolic court battles over ownership of the house, custody of the children and alimony payments. However, despite this image's pervasiveness of this image, it is largely untrue for modern divorces. While many contested divorces can end in acrimonious court battles, this form of divorce makes up only 5% of modern divorces. Uncontested settlements - in which the couples come up with their own agreement without the courts - make up the other 95%.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Contested-Divorces-Vs-Uncontested-Divorces&id=4022267

Uncontested Divorce

It is estimated that upwards of 95% of divorces in the US are uncontested. Uncontested divorce means that the two parties are able to come to an agreement, whether with or without lawyers and mediators in regard to property division, children and support issues. When the parties agree and they present the court with a fair and equitable agreement, approval of the divorce is almost always guaranteed. If the two parties cannot agree, they may ask the court to decide how to split property, deal with children, etc.

http://www.straightdivorce.com/divorce_articles_divorce_type_statistics.asp

Edited July 2, 2014 by capcc76

[capcc76]

Haha, "CARMA" does not pay bills to raise the 61 year old's children or repair damage to children of being abandoned by their father.

Karma may have landed his butt in jail though . . .

[rohlm50212]

Haha, "CARMA" does not pay bills to raise the 61 year old's children or repair damage to children of being abandoned by their father.

Karma may have landed his butt in jail though . . .

Ur a clown, grow a set and realize that Men hold responsibility to powers beyond you and some other clown judge an get a real job that does not feed of others misfortunes....Life is mostly luck from the day you are swatted on the ass at birth, and even before that....Some of the most talented people come from slums and out Class YOU as human beings...Your type make me Vomit....Watch the Vidio posts...Monkey Brain....

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rohlm50212]

And remember your type has only been around for ....less than 150 yrs, THATS EQUILIVENT TO NOTHING

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[folium]

IMHO any "man" who dumps his children and runs off to places such as LOS is beyond contempt.

If avoiding responsibility for one's children was a deportable offence in LOS, methinks the bars in Pattaya, Phuket etc might be a shade less busy....

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll and inflammatory posts and replies deleted.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Uncontested divorces are not limited to "poor people." Good lawyers triage cases before burning thousands of dollars to determine best route for client, not lawyer's pocket book. Collecting and blowing through large retainers before discussing resolution serves only the interests of the lawyer. Serving client's best interests obtains and retains business. I am fighter and have close to 100 jury trials in civil tort cases and over 100 security or employment arbitrations, but there is a difference between fighting for a client and unnecessarily burning through all marital assets/money in a divorce case that you ultimately settle for what you could have settled for prior to spending all of their money.

Contested v. Uncontested figures

I have seen mixed figures (90 to 95%) on contested v. uncontested divorce cases (5 to 10%), but obviously many on here got stuck in the churning of a contested case that no doubt left them bitter and upset.

Once someone hires a lawyer, the contest begins.