My dad kept the original house

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well its circumstantial, but most women get the house because the judge prefers that the children stay in the same location.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, my parents can't really represent the typical situation because they didn't argue at all, and still talk to this day (3-4 years later) and we all go on family vacations still.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh wow. That's awesome. But most definitely not average. Lol

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Money issues, like most divorces.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It doesn't automatically go to the woman. When my parent's divorced my mum had to pay out my dad's half of the house otherwise it would have been sold and they would have gotten half each and both find new houses. If the house belonged to him prior to the marriage he should have signed a pre-nup before getting married if he wanted to keep it to himself if they ever got divorced.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Its basically just lazy judges that care about the kids instead of the individuals case. Its all circumstantial and most of the time the person who has the kids gets the house.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If the woman is keeping the kids, why shouldn't she get the house?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well why should she get it if it wasnt hers to start out with?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because she has kids... Most men would prefer to give up their house so their kids can have the same home rather than make everyone leave just so he can have it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't get it. Changing homes should not be detrimental to the kids. The man already would have to pay child support but then he also has to give up HIS house?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Did you not just say "Its all circumstantial"? It doesn't always happen that way. Obviously it's not detrimental to the kid but just because something isn't gonna cause harm doesn't mean you should do it. Most men would rather let their kids continue living their life as normally as possible after the divorce instead of being selfish over the house.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

When you get married you are giving up 50% of your assets (depending on the laws where you live). Everyone who gets married knows this. If you want a different arrangement then sign a pre-nup it's not that hard.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It actually depends on the judge. If he likes kids, the parent without them gets screwed. Then they have to give up kids, a house, and child support a month, and are only left with a measly couch (or whatever). And I find that hardly fair.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The one who has the kids should get to keep the house until the youngest kid is 18. Then it should be sold and they should get half each

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're forgetting the first rule of divorce. The husband gets screwed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But I feel like the house belongs to the children. In a marriage, everyone's money gets pooled together for one cause. If //everyone// uses it, I don't feel like there's really a line between whose property it is. Once two people have kids, the family property is for the kids. It's selfish to take away basically the only stability the kids have in the midst of a divorce and make them move away, perhaps to a new town and start a new life because of their //parents'// decision. Also, how can you say the father paid for it //all// by himself? In some circumstances that may be true, but in a family everyone pitches in. If the mother never paid for the house then she probably never worked, and stayed at home raising the children instead. If she truly didn't have a role, he would've had to hire a nanny or maid. He might have to take off hours to do things the mother did. I don't know, in a family I just don't feel the lines are so solid. Everyone did a little bit of everything, and the most logical thing would be to let the kids have the house; they're going to inherit it anyway.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I was mainly taking about a common case where a man buys a house, gets married, has kids with her, gets divorced, and then is told by a judge to leave HIS property so that the kids can have the same house.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, if the man truly did pay for the house all by himself before living with anyone, then logically it should be his. But I feel that in most cases, a couple buys a house together when they get married or when they want/have children. In that case, even if every cent came from the father's bank account, then it would be logical to give it to the children if they have any, because they are one family. If they don't have any children, then obviously the house would go to the person who paid for it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, like going through parents getting divorced isn't hard enough for a child to deal with, why add a move that puts a child in an unknown area, away from friends and the house they spent their whole lives in? But, I would probably agree that adding a stipulation that says 'once the last child reaches the age of majority the house be returned in the same condition (with exception of wear and tear) to the (whichever spouse bought it)' In the state I live in, if only one parent is on the deed/title, that person gets it. So, if the man owns the house, the only way he would have a chance of losing it is if he puts his wife on as co owner.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't understand why the kids in this situation are moving far away. Why wouldn't they move just a couple of blocks from the original house?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There's a slim chance there would be a house available in the area. Kids typically make friends/attend the school within their area. Moving out of the house would mean switching schools (if the area required kids to go to the nearest school, but also a parent might switch them to a closer school so they can walk/save on gas). Then, not only does the child have to make new friends, but grow accustomed to their parents being seperate. Throw in visitation, etc. My point is, the kids are the focus. They shouldn't be dealing with so much when they are just along for the ride. If the parent who owns the house is really more concerned with themselves than their children it is no wonder they didn't get custody.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So what if a kid moves to a new neighbourhood? This would only enhance their progress in life. Making new social connections is what helps people move on. Also is it really fair if you buy a house and then get divorced only to loose the house, the kids, and have to pay child support just because its a social normality? People should stop worrying about the kids who will be fine and worry more about how they are going to survive with this sudden loss themselves.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry, disagree. The children of a divorce are innocent. The parents are the ones who made bad decisions, the kids do need to be the focus. They don't get a say in what happens. That's why courts look to what is best for a child. Child suffering>adult suffering

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Lets just agree to disagree.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Awesome.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm sort of torn. I mean, yes, the husband should get what's rightfully his, but I also think it's good to have children living in a house.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

At least though, he should get a choice.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Right, like I'm also against it being so easy for the mother to get custody. I want it to be even, but I also want whats best for the kids. They shouldn't be screwed because they're parents are getting a divorce.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think that it's common for divorced parents to let one parent raise the children alone. I mean, you can't just sell the kids and share the money like with furniture. Would be fun, though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago