Res Ipsa wrote:I don't know what to make of the divorce funding. My ex and I both worked. I earned more, so I think I paid a share of her fees. But I also think her folks paid for her share. I think they did it to show support for her and to help her through a rough time. I paid mine out of my pocket. But my family did give me a place to live for a couple of months. Families help out where they can. So I don't really see the funding of the divorce as evidence either way.
Agreed... I've seen lots of great ways couples worked together to make the funding of the divorce fair.
The red flag that's jumping out at me is that Karren is claiming the fact that Miklesen helped his daughter pay for the divorce is a way that K was victimized by M and by extension, because of M's calling, the church. M had every right to help his daughter in a time of need and it seems logical that M would have appreciated not having to fork money over. Having women without incomes is also the fault of the culture and can give abusive men another handle over their wives. I see it again and again. Women can't get away from men who treat them horribly because they don't have the money for the attorney retainer and the men intentionally keep money from them and even spend money so that the retainers can't be paid. Access to bank accounts and credit cards is denied, etc. Women are told that to get away they must abandon their children and get jobs (EDIT: meaning their husbands say, "this divorce is your idea so you need to move out and earn money to pay your attorney because these kids are mine and I'm not leaving"), but they don't have the degrees and resumes that their husbands do. It is hard to watch.
We don't know what happened in this situation, but the claim that K was a victim of M or the church because M helped his daughter not only doesn't amount to much but is indicative that K wasn't much of a team player come divorce time and that he's making at least one false he's-the-victim claim that is convincing to some people. Maybe his wife wasn't much of a team player either, we don't know. It only takes one person to turn a divorce into a nightmare for everyone, though. It doesn't look to me like K was a sheep, so either they were both wolves or K was the wolf and his wife the sheep. That's what the fact that M paid for the divorce indicates to me.