A divorce in Italy destroyed my researcher career

You are saying that if one of the parents sacrifices their future to care for the child, and the other does not, during a divorce, the latter does not owe the former anything.

The better question is - why do you want to moat the latter parent moated from the duty of parenting so much?

Or, if parenting is too complicated, here's a simple example.

Bill marries Jill. Bill works, buys their food, pays their rent, pays their bills, does the housework, and pays Jill's way through medical school. Bill and Jill have no assets, because all the money went into Jill's education.

Jill graduates, becomes a doctor, starts making mountains of money, meets a pretty intern, and divorces Bill.

Does Jill owe Bill anything?

It's the same situation as with childcare. Bill put more into maintaining the marriage/child than Jill did. Jill benefited/was harmed less during the marriage. Bill deserves compensation after the fact.

Had the fruits of his labours gone into a savings account, he'd receive at least half of it on divorce. Instead, they went into developing Jill's earnings potential - so he's entitled to a share of it. Likewise, if instead of paying with money, he paid with childcare that was damaging to his career.

shop assistant: 1,000-1,100 Euro/month but for 13 months of wage[0]

web designer[1]: 1,800-2,200 Euro/month but for 11 months of work only

[0] the 13th month wage is only part of the full month wage, but for low pays, like 1,000-1,100 it is a large part, probably 850-950 Euro

[1] maybe you are misguided on the definition of web designer, here in Italy that generally (but not always) means "a self-educated programmer that makes a somewhat basic living doing a few very small company sites at 500-2,000 Euro each and, if he/she is good, maybe has a handful of yearly contracts to maintain them, at 100-200 each per month".

So no, there are no studies directly on this, just as there are no studies on how divorce has no effect on children. The fact is that when the first decision was made to allow no-fault divorce, such a system had never existed in the Western world and it eschewed thousands of years of practice. This demanding of scientific study for every little social detail is a major problem. Previous generations would have resorted to philosophy, rather than demand empirical data. CS Lewis's book 'The Abolition of Man' goes into why demanding empirical data for every little social policy, rather than listening more to tradition, is both self-contradictory as well as dangerous. So I'll refer you to that as the best 'study'.

In the grand scheme of history, the burden of proof is still on the people promoting no-fault divorce to produce a valid study showing that society is better off with no-fault divorce.

My viewpoint does not require as much proof since it is -- still today -- the typical state of western society.

At this point, no-fault divorce has been a thing for about 50 years in the USA, which is barely a blip in the grand scheme of history. In many parts of Europe, it is still not a thing, or much younger.

Suppose today I decided to raise my daughter without looking at her in the eye anymore. I made this decision without any data to either validate or invalidate my claim that raising her in such a way would make her a better person (how could there be such a study today?). However, since it's more comfortable for me to not make eye contact, it seems that this is my right as her father.

Now obviously, most people would say that that sounds cruel and inhuman. But really, it must appear no different to us than the idea of no-fault divorce would have appeared to our forerunners.

Now imagine that if a large subset of society made the same choice I did with my daughter, but many kept the normal view such that it was still normal to look children in the eye. Still, a large enough group of people didn't. Now suppose that 50 years later, after mental health and attachment problems appear in greater numbers in the populace, someone who questions why some no longer look our children in the eye is asked for a 'study' to show that looking them in the eye would fix things? Certainly such a demand should be met with incredulity.

So that's my response to you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and society is still waiting for the extraordinary evidence that no-fault divorce does not increase mental health problems in children. Otherwise, the original claim deserves to be prevented -- at least temporarily -- from influencing our social policy.

EDIT: downvotes should explain why, otherwise I interpret it as someone who disagrees but cannot formulate a cohesive argument to critique mine, which is rather sad really.

Having gone through an ugly family breakup, I can attest to how painful and stressful it is for everyone. Especially once the courts get involved.

From my experience the courts are very unsympathetic to any arguments outside the general consensus, almost to the point of being obtuse or jaded.

I know people think that children are better off having both parents involved in their lives but I beg to differ when selfish vendictictive parents are involved.

Childhood is important but it is not a lifetime, in some ways it is better to check ones ego and just step back and wait. Support the child as ordered by the courts and then when the child is an adult they can decide whether or not to have a relationship with the estranged parent. If they choose not to.. Accept that and live your best life, after all You don't own the child. (eventhough your ex may believe they do!)

This can be much easier on the child than witnessing constant bickering, accusations and pettiness between the parents. Possibly resulting in self harm or violence.

Just my point of view, might be wrong but nevertheless how I see it.

- start to work part time as an employee.

- formally earn about the relatively high non-impoundable minimum.

- pay zero alimony.

- start a limited liability company to do business.

- have the business pay himself/herself zero wages, just benefits in kind (no or low tax).