Lawyer Visit Report

I return from the lawyer visit feeling considerably better. The divorce laws in our jurisdiction are painfully progressive - no punitive elements, all based on principles of fairness and equal division of assets and parental access (usually this helps women more than men). Here's the scoop:

1) Property and income would be split down the middle. Mrs_C actually makes about $5K/yr more than me, so I'm OK (I wouldn't be asking her for support payments...).

2) I would get half her pension (and she half mine - but hers is worth more than mine), but I wouldn't take that either - I would request we just retain our own.

3) The law in our jurisdiction has full joint custody as the starting point of any separation and divorce, so I'm safe there. Outside of being able to show I am a danger to my children, there is no way Mrs_C could do anything to stop joint custody.

(theoretically she could take me to court and some initial judge could make a whacked out ruling [not likely to happen - but hey, maybe they would lose their mind in the middle of writing the ruling], but it would be overturned on an appeal)

4) There is nothing I could do (assuming I maintain my present state of mind and actions) that would affect the above.

• Having an affair could only affect the declared date of separation (the date of effective property split) - not that I am intending on having an affair.
  
• Even that previous unfortunate event with Mrs_C would not affect custody. Relations between spouses are considered separately from relations with children under our divorce laws.
  
• Even if I were to leave the house, and the kids were to remain with their mother in the house we currently own, while I set up my own domicile it would not affect either a property split or custody.
  

I was discussing the property division with my lawyer (a woman). I was saying that I was thinking of only taking 40% of the value of our property because I had paid less of the bills during the time I was unemployed and underemployed.

She stopped me and said "I thought you told me you were looking after the kids?" I replied in the affirmative. She said "So, it was entirely your decision to stay home, and if you'd been offered a job in that period you would have dumped the kids at the first possible moment and taken the job - and your wife would have agreed you should do that?"

I had to say "No". On both counts. I was running my business, but I had the opportunity to get a more fixed hour job at one point - we decided that it would be disruptive to the kids if I did. Me being home for them after school most days, driving my daughter to pre-school and then to her grandmother's place, covering the days Grandma couldn't look after her, lessons, all the doctor's appointments, sick days, every school skit/concert, parent/teacher interview, school volunteering - all were my bailiwick.

I realised for the first time that it was not just me being unable to get work - the mythology that holds in our house - it was a joint decision. It was not just me "wanting" to run my own business and Mrs_C "supporting me" (as she said not three days ago) - it was a joint decision. She said I should not accept the job I was offered - it paid only slightly more than I was earning in my business (about $32,000) and would have locked in my hours. Just for the record I consider the business to have paid about $4000 per year more because it (being primarily home based) covered a bunch of bills that are now paid out of pocket (and business related expenses/write-offs).

She said two days ago (when she was in a snuggly mood) that she always liked me being home all the time before because then she could have as much of my time as she wanted. This stands in direct contrast to her statement of the day before when she said she had to support me while I was "slacking at home" running my "loser business" while she "paid the bills".

Sorry, I'm getting off topic slightly.

The bottom line is that I am also now fully considering the value and priority we placed in our marriage of the childcare I provided and the fact that it was indeed a joint decision, and that I shouldn't be guilty or embarrassed that I earned less in that period because at least part of that lower earning level was a joint decision.