When I was getting ready to file for divorce, my attorney mentioned that it helps if I am the first to file. While I was still preparing all the financial paperwork, my STBXW filed false DV against me, got me thrown out of the house and then proceeded to file for divorce right before the DV hearing.
Since she didn’t have any proof for the false DV allegations, the judge has almost dismissed her case pending one last alcohol test from me (which I know for a fact that will come clean as I have no alcohol problem) and also asked for the police report she made before the DV to prove my attorney’s argument that her story changed significantly from that first police incident to the DV allegations. I am hopeful that the DV case will be dismissed.
Now, is it really true that since my STBXW filed for divorce first, she somehow gets a favorable view since she again gets to be referred to as the “Petitioner” and I the “Respondent”? Or does it really not matter?
What exactly changes when one person files first, if anything? Does the court generally views Petitioners more favorably or is this just anecdotal and far from reality?
[–]MartyMcFly7 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JohnnyMnemo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheFirstNobleTooth 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]divorceunderground 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]tanotsurewhattodo121 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
Can you explain what you mean by venue? If my SBXW and I are in the house still.. and one of us files.. but neither of us can move out/away.. is that allowed and/or affects venue? I am guessing venue means if I move 200 miles away.. one of us would have to travel? Not sure why though since at least right now seems everything is done via zoom calls?
Also.. not trying to hijack the OP topic, but if someone files first.. and the other has 30 days.. what if that person doesn't have the money for a lawyer? I assume there is no pro bono divorce lawyer. My concern is my SBXW doesnt care how much she spends and forces me in to paying for lawyers.. dragging it out. I have already told her I would split everything in half, she can have almost all belongings.. and we sell the house... so unsure what happens if I don't have the money to either find a lawyer.. or file first.
[–]converter-bot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]divorceunderground 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]tanotsurewhattodo121 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
Thank you for that. :) Yah.. I am in CA (California right.. some use it for Canada lol) as well. I am still trying to determine if she is able to work full time (but works part time now) and would make as much (more actually with her benefits package, retirement, etc) than I do.. if I would have to pay alimony because she works part time, and how long that might be required (been married 20 years now). I assume that is different in every case though, not some clear cut answer for that?
[–]divorceunderground 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]tanotsurewhattodo121 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
So if we live for 30 more years.. or longer.. how does it make sense I would have to pay that long? Like.. I don't understand how a judge says "Yah.. you pay 2K a month..for life.. and if that is 40 years more.. you basically have paid 1mil to her..". I don't see how the hell that makes any sense.. regardless of marriage duration. If she is capable of working full time and making more than me.. why is it allowed that she gets to work part time for life while I pay the difference? How about I work part time.. so she will make more than me? Then I suspect the judge would still fork me over and say I did it on purpose to avoid SS. I don't understand how these "rules" came about. Women today want equal rights, and I am all for it. But why are they still given this sort of "Oh you poor thing.. we'll fuck the guy over for you" setup? I realize that's not always the case.. but it seems to largely still go in favor of the woman.. even if she is capable of easily supporting herself and possibly able to make more money. I thought CA was a 50/50 state.. and I have been told that though it may be case by case.. often a persons potential is accounted for, not just the last few W2s that show I make 2x as much. If I end up having to pay 2K to 3K a month for life.. she'll never go full time.. she'll make as much just staying part time while I have to pay almost half my paycheck to her. Fucking makes no sense. I want that. I want to work 4 hour days and live nicely. We got married.. together.. so why is it I am the one that gets screwed... and I realize that I may not.. but it seems more times than not, to this day, the man gets screwed big time. Where is the "we're all equal" shit when it comes to divorce and surviving?
[–]divorceunderground 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WartimeDad 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tariqrocks[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WartimeDad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tariqrocks[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]divorceunderground 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rsmiley77 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]livinthedream17 -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tariqrocks[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]divorceunderground 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link