Reddit mentions: The best family law books

California Family Law attorney here. Greetings and salutations!

>I'm turning 28 next week and recently asked my wife for a divorce. I guess the reason would be irreconcilable differences, but I can go into more detail if needed. We've been married for just over three years. We rent an apartment, don't have any kids, but we have 2 cats. We got married in Florida, but we've been living in California for ~2.5 years.

California properly has jurisdiction over your divorce, as you have been living in the state for at least 6 months. I will assume you have been living in the same county for at least 3 months - that is where you file.

>I also make a lot more money than her. About 3x as much. And my assets are significantly more than hers. About 10x as much. We've had conversations where she's stated she doesn't/wouldn't want any money from me, but as far as I know the state of California is unrelenting in its desire to bend you over the table and give it to you good. So I guess one question I have is - is it possible to do this without lawyers and just get a divorce without all kinds of asset allocation bullshit?

Here is the good news - if you and your wife agree to the terms of your divorce, the court in California does not give a rat's ass what that may be. Unrelenting? My good man, you give a California judicial officer too much credit - he or she has a packed calendar and if they can see one case resolve itself, they're apt to yell, "Mazel tov!" and sign whatever you place in front of them. Especially if there are no kids.

So, yes, you can do it without lawyers, and there are a number of books to help you, my own being one of them. Mind you, I always recommend that once you and the wife have agreed, if you want some peace of mind, it is not a bad idea to go pay a lawyer for an hour of his or her time to tell you what kind of deal you made.

In my experience, I have seen people give away the farm to their ex-spouse . . . and walk away, happy and whistling. I have also seen couples fight to the death over . . . Beanie Babies. You see what I'm saying? Your divorce is what you and she make it.

And let me explain what the "6-motnh waiting period" is. One of the "results" of your divorce is that your marital status is terminated. All that means is that your legal status as a married person is converted into that of a single person. The law states that the court cannot terminate your marital status no sooner than 6 months after the Petition - the initial filing that gets the ball a-rollin' - has been served. So, there can be a couple who, in a matter of a few days, files everything, exchanges their declarations of disclosure, writes up a judgement, and submits it all to the court. At that point, their divorce can be said to be "final" in that all they are doing is waiting for the signed judgement to come back. Let's say a month later, it does. They have a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage. Everything is done . . . except there will be a notice that at a future date - 6 months + 1 day since service - their marital status ends and they will wake up on that morning as single people, free to go out and file taxes as a single person, remarry, whatever you crazy single people do. See, most people take longer than 6 months to divorce, so when they finally get a Judgment in for His Honor or Her Honor to sign (whether by agreement or nasty, expensive trial), when their judge actually does so, their marital status is terminated on that date, as it has been longer than 6 months.

But, for shits and grins, let's say she wants spousal support. 2.5 year marriage? Ah, unless there are some crazy circumstances - like she has no arms, no legs, and never learned to read or write - your worst case scenario is likely to be 1/2 that duration, some 14, 15 months to pay. And yes, the court takes into consideration her PT salary; hell, you can get a judge ask, "Ma'am, have you looked into getting a second PT job?" So if she wants something and/or you don't want to be an asshole, you can always agree to pay for something for about a year, after which spousal support ends.

Oh, and btw, spousal support is income. That means it is taxable to her and tax-deductible for you. So long as it is paid pursuant to an order of the Court, like your Judgment.

Also, check out these guidelines - you may qualify for a Summary Dissolution, which is easier to file and process the paperwork.

>Of course, if the state of California awards her half my money she's not going to have any financial issues for a while.

Don't confuse spousal support with property division. CA is a community property state, meaning community property is split evenly. Spousal support takes other factors into consideration and it is rare you're going to see the court divide your paycheck, if that is what you were thinking.

Buena suerte, ese!

Luckily most Americans put a huge value on independent thinking, even when it is divisive (compared to many other cultures). I'd say this has more to do with the growing secularism than any birth statistics.

On the other hand, his point is generally on target, though narrowing it down to the single issue of pro-choice/life is too simplistic. If you step back to the larger "conservative vs liberal" families and how that impacts opinion towards reproduction, there is a whole book on it.

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Families-v-Blue-Polarization/dp/0195372174

"Families in the bluest states have fewer teen mothers and lower divorce rates, and emphasize responsibility; red states have high teen birth and divorce rates and emphasize tradition. According to the authors, these core differences are the crucible from which the battles over abortion, same sex marriage, and contraception spring."

"Blue" families tend to have fewer kids and take longer to have them (average age of the woman having her first child is higher). Both of these factors contribute to lower effective reproduction rates, so yes, the same people that are pro-life have a pretty good shot at outpacing the pro-choice crowd in baby output alone. Luckily, kids don't always believe what their parents did, and society is growing more liberal on issues like this every day... so it works out in the end.

>Millions of children have been born in the United States with the help of cutting-edge reproductive technologies, much to the delight of their parents. But alarmingly, scarce attention has been paid to the lax regulations that have made the U.S. a major fertility tourism destination. And without clear protections, the unique rights and needs of the children of assisted reproduction are often ignored.
>
>Babies of Technology, hardcover out April 4th from Yale University Press, is the first to consider the voice of the child in discussions about regulating the fertility industry. The controversies are many. Donor anonymity is preventing millions of children from knowing their genetic origins. Fertility clinics are marketing genetically enhanced babies. Career women are saving their eggs for later in life. And Third World women are renting their wombs to the rich. Meanwhile, the unregulated fertility market charges forward as a multi-billion-dollar industry.
>
>Who will protect our babies of technology? Ask me about that, or anything.
>
>Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BabiesofTechnology/
>
>Twitter: https://twitter.com/BabiesofTech
>
>Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32073353-babies-of-technology?from_search=true
>
>Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Babies-Technology-Assisted-Reproduction-Rights/dp/0300215878
>
>
>THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR THOUGHTFUL AND PIERCING QUESTIONS. I AM NEW TO REDDIT AND IT MIGHT TAKE ME A FEW HOURS (OR DAYS), BUT I HOPE TO RESPOND TO YOU ALL. CHEERS!

For the Prohibition aspect, you can take a look a many of the biographies of early feminist icons, but Susan B. Anthony and Carrie Nation are perfect examples. The ties between women's suffragism and women's temperance movements were legion. The first part of Ken Burns' Prohibition documentary has a decent overview, and this account from a modern feminist has a few more details.

For the "Tender Years" doctrine, the first chapter of Mothers on Trial by Phyllis Chesler has a readable and brief feminist version of the history leading to modern custody law.

For the last, the link between early feminism and eugenics is explored in a good research paper by Mary Zeigler available online. There was also a dust-up over some university with a building named for Carrie Nation a few years back, over the some blatant white supremacist bits in her letters, which I'm sure is Google-able.

I did it myself in MA for a whopping $250 with 2 kids in the mix.
We both agreed on everything including custody, financial support etc.
Did it all without lawyers.. just a lot of reading..

The most important thing is the separation agreement which will contain custody information. You need to get that right. The more detailed the better. (Mine was 32 pages) There are tons of examples out there and the best resource for me was this book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1413320678/ref=cm_sw_su_dp
And for the general process:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1413317138/ref=cm_sw_su_dp


It can be done, its a lot of paperwork that will need to be on the correct paper (colors, weight, acid free archival etc)

Feel free to PM me if needed, I may not be familiar with CA.. but I can point you in the right direction if needed.

Popular media articles are all over the internet:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-sci-sn-red-states-religious-conservative-divorce-20140116-story.html

Here is an abstract of the original research:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/674703?uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21104260291177

Book by the same authors:
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Families-v-Blue-Polarization/dp/0199836817

Edited to add an excellent article on teen sex in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

There are some AMAZING resources here, so I'll just throw in a few others:

The Body Remembers

The Body Keeps the Score)

Enrique's Journey

Crossing Over

The Devil's Highway

Random Family

Lost Children of Wilder

There's a book out called The Successful Divorce that details your rights in Alabama. https://www.amazon.com/More-Successful-Divorce-Alabama/dp/0965927385?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-ffab-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0965927385

Highly recommend this book
.written by adoption lawyer covers state by state laws, different types of adoptions and what to look out for. I got it at my local library but its available on Amazon and kindle.

Adopting in America: How to Adopt Within One Year (2018-2019 edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0983942552/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_-hKUCbNAA1VVM

Have you tried contacting his old law partners?

Barandes appears to be still practicing (http://nearyous.com/b22000522/2123081717-gerald-barandes-law-office-new-york-city-1-212-308-1717.html)

He also worked with Irving I. Erdheim and Michael F. Erdheim at one point, may be worth asking the too.

Edit: It also looks like he wrote at least two books on divorce law, maybe try those publishers too?

yeah, like I said, go for it. 1L Family Law.

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Law-Materials-University-Casebook/dp/1609300548

THe book Women on Trial does a good job showing that when men ask for full custody they get it.

Feminist have created a false narrative that men don't get custody so hey won't even ask, because in a fair court of law it is obvious women are inferior single parents.

Amatonormativity = the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types.

Elizabeth Brake talks about this in her book Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality and the Law (Studies in Feminist Philosophy), but it is quoted and talked about in depth in this article in NY Mag.

I don't know where you are but in Michigan you only need to pay the fees. I got this book from a bookstore and it had all the forms in it. (can't remember what filing fees were). This only works if you actually get along and agree on everything (which we did)
http://www.amazon.com/Michigan-Divorce-Book-Uncontested-Attorney/dp/0936343117

1. Full support.
   
   
2. I saw above you don't know what Privilege means. Which means you don't know what intersectionality means. You know that's worriesome right? Here's an exercise: Define racism for me in your own words as you understand it.
   
   
3. "It does happen to me, on a weekly basis." I find this hard to believe. How?
   
   
4. Got some cash? Pick up this book. (No seriously. Buy it. Hell, torrent it if you can) Not for the written material itself but the heavily cited sources in the glossary. That should be what interests you. Secondly
   
   Custody statistics are warped by the fact that most fathers don't even fight for custody. They move on. Statistically, often to start an entirely new family. This has been counted in the MRA stats as women "winning custody". When Father's actually fight for custody they get full or partial 70% of the time.
   

For those who are considering marriage, I suggest you go pick up the book Fathers Rights by Jeffery Leving.

Read the stories of what the men profiled in that book had to go through (and spend in legal fees) just to see their own kids.

Then let it sink in that it can happen to you too.

If you still decide to go through with it (marriage that is), at you'll know what you're getting into.

You'll need this

New York Family Law by Schechter is on point:
https://www.amazon.com/New-York-Family-Sara-Schechter/dp/1111648441

The system is actually not fair. Women often lose custody to fathers when the father asks for it, see this interview with Phyllis Chesler, the author of Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody

> That puts the burden of proof on finding those others on you! This is basic debate. This is high school level shit!

May be I need to come back and debate after I have had sleep then.

Chew on this. It supports what I had to say.

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html

http://www.amazon.com/Divorced-Justice-Children-Divorce-Lawyers/dp/0060391847

There's a book about it.

> Points 1 and 3 in the summary I quoted apply to measures of income regardless of whether you're counting household size or individual income.

Okay. Taken together, the following issues would tend to make me question my men's wage example:

1. The tables in the article found by /u/YaDunGoofed show that the median working man's income did grow, even if it grew less than women's.
   
   
2. As /u/GodoftheCopyBooks' article showed, the median man was actually doing worse than any other man - including the first, second, fourth, and fifth quintile. So using the median man as a representative indicator is a bit misleading.
   
   
3. Finally, there are plenty of female Trump supporters - how do I explain that?
   
   One resolution could be that we are looking at the wrong time frame (30-45 years vs. 8 years). EDIT: Here is an article from five thirty eight, looking at a 15 year time frame. There is some sense in attributing the rise of Trump to things that happened recently as opposed to 45 year trends.
   
   It's also possible that what is "lost" can be not just economic but social or cultural ... e.g. Putnam #1, Putnam #2, Cahn and Carbone. This would still relate to loss aversion, it would just be a loss of a more intangible sort.