No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you for saying that I have no understanding.

EDIT: Actually, it seems like 95% of the population isn't inclined to listen to what I have to say at all, no matter how much understanding I show. My entire school and work are against me on this issue, as, it seems, the government is. And haven't you heard of faith, and hope, and trust, and all of those things that any relationship is really supposed to have?

And trying to get people to grant each other their due is physically impossible. It absolutely goes against human nature, which is to take everything for yourself by any means necessary.

Sorry for the miscommunication. "Show" and "have" are two different things. I tend to be argumentative(you may have noticed). People often do not think I care about their opinions because in their estimation I only trample on them by arguing all the time. I apparently do not show that I care though I personally assume that they should believe I find some value in their opinions if I am willing to discuss them all the time. They don't see it my way, so I try to be careful to show people that I value their opinion.
Perhaps your argument comes off different here because it is the internet but it seems to me that focusing on the rights of men leaves the impression that you care little for women and their rights the same way that feminists can sometimes seem like cold hearted b****es that could care less about men.

 

[Char. Limit]

It leaves the impression, yes. But there is the famous saying, "don't judge a book by its cover", because I actually do care about the rights of women. For example, I honestly believe that we need more women in government and in the highest echelons of business, where women are at present underrepresented. However, I also honestly believe that in the area of family law, men are at present underrepresented, and so in that area, I support men.

So I guess you could say that I help out the underdog.

And don't worry, I'm just easily inflamed. I actually enjoy a good argument, but I aim to win, and I seize on perceived insults to attempt to weaken my opponent. After all, I always try to win an argument. This has a problem when the argument has no clear victory.

So don't misunderstand me, and I won't misunderstand you, I guess. Even if neither of us have done that yet.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It leaves the impression, yes. But there is the famous saying, "don't judge a book by its cover", because I actually do care about the rights of women. For example, I honestly believe that we need more women in government and in the highest echelons of business, where women are at present underrepresented. However, I also honestly believe that in the area of family law, men are at present underrepresented, and so in that area, I support men.

So I guess you could say that I help out the underdog.

And don't worry, I'm just easily inflamed. I actually enjoy a good argument, but I aim to win, and I seize on perceived insults to attempt to weaken my opponent. After all, I always try to win an argument. This has a problem when the argument has no clear victory.

So don't misunderstand me, and I won't misunderstand you, I guess. Even if neither of us have done that yet.

Its omnibenevolent.

Certain arguments may require different approaches if one wishes to make headway is all I mean really. A moderate angle may get you as close to victory as you can get when you can't really win in totality. And showing understanding of your opponents position can greatly reduce their ammunition for counter arguments.

 

[Char. Limit]

Its omnibenevolent.

Wait, what? What's omnibenevolent? You mean IT from A Wrinkle In Time?

Certain arguments may require different approaches if one wishes to make headway is all I mean really. A moderate angle may get you as close to victory as you can get when you can't really win in totality. And showing understanding of your opponents position can greatly reduce their ammunition for counter arguments.

Perhaps before we branch too far off topic we should make a separate thread titled "How to Handle Arguers and the Ethics of Debate"?...

I don't know, I try to understand their position, but it just comes up as a blank to me. I mean, it seems to me that some of these women are down-right cheating their guys. But the part about no-fault divorce that seems even worse (to me)...

is that it's so often unilateral. One person can file for it against the other's wishes. And it just isn't right to unilaterally destroy a marriage that way.

 

[DanP]

I. For example, I honestly believe that we need more women in government and in the highest echelons of business, where women are at present underrepresented. However, I also honestly believe that in the area of family law, men are at present underrepresented, and so in that area, I support men.

Representation in any domain should be based on merit, not sex.

 

[Char. Limit]

Representation in any domain should be based on merit, not sex.

Hoisted by my own petard, I see. I've been preaching that at my school for years, but when I went too far in trying to defend myself, I got hit by it myself.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wait, what? What's omnibenevolent? You mean IT from A Wrinkle In Time?

I haven't read that since I was a kid so I do not remember that.
"Its omni(all)benevolent(good)" ;-p

is that it's so often unilateral. One person can file for it against the other's wishes. And it just isn't right to unilaterally destroy a marriage that way.

Its usually probably not a good idea to enter into an unconditional contract of faith and honour with a person that will last for the rest of your life. You REALLY need to be careful who you choose to have such a relationship with. Most people are not.
The No Fault allows people to get a divorce that simply no longer want to be together. It also allows people who are in bad situations to get out without having to actually prove to a court that their spouse is an abusive ***hole or a psychotic b****.
The disposition of the finances is more a matter of the nature of the contract and not so much the divorce.

 

[GeorginaS]

The No Fault allows people to get a divorce that simply no longer want to be together. It also allows people who are in bad situations to get out without having to actually prove to a court that their spouse is an abusive ***hole or a psychotic b****.
The disposition of the finances is more a matter of the nature of the contract and not so much the divorce.

Emphasis mine. In keeping with the title of this thread, SA's assertions are precisely what you need to keep in mind. It bears repeating. All that the words "no fault divorce" mean is that people no longer have to offer evidence to the court meeting some sort of criteria as set out by law that allows them to get a divorce. There used to a be a time when, to get a divorce, you had to have a darned good excuse (darned good as defined by local laws) collect evidence, and then stand up in court, and assert the truth of that excuse. People had to go through a bunch of contortions and even make up stuff -- such as one of the parties agree to be photographed in an intimate situation with a third party, even though it may be staged -- in order to be able to dissolve their union.

From Wiki (I know, I know, but I'm not asserting stuff that needs peer review)

the dominant American understanding of divorce was as a form of punishment for misconduct by the occasional miscreant who had behaved so criminally that his or her spouse was morally obliged to separate and seek a judicial remedy. All the varied divorce regimes in all the states were premised on the notion that a divorce was awarded to one party because of the fault of another party and because of the wrong done to the innocent party. A divorce case bore similarities to a criminal case, and many of the practices of the case law are understandable only if one recognizes that judges worried about tarring a wife or husband with a quasi-criminal label—as an adulterer or a deserter or someone guilty of "extreme cruelty" (which at first denoted physical abuse).

And

Beginning early in the nineteenth century, judges and legal commentators warned about the evil of a "collusive divorce." Standard legal lore stated that if both parties wanted a divorce, neither would be entitled to one, and yet couples, even in conservative divorce jurisdictions, manipulated the rules to end their marriages. They used lawyers and others to reproduce the circumstances that entitled them to divorce. For example, in New York a man would travel to New Jersey, where he would be photo-graphed by a detective while sitting on a bed in the company of a prostitute. Or, alternatively, men would fund their wives' travel to liberal jurisdictions (Indiana or South Dakota in the nineteenth century, Nevada or the Virgin Islands in the twentieth), where they could be divorced. By the early twentieth century, collusive divorce had become ordinary legal practice across America, a cultural symbol depicted in novels and movies and New Yorker cartoons.


http://www.answers.com/topic/divorce-and-marital-separation"

So, truly, I have no idea why the OP takes such issue with "no fault divorce". All it means is that, should two people figure out that it's just not working between them any longer, they can stop without having to walk across legal hot coals to make it happen.

 

[DanP]

So, truly, I have no idea why the OP takes such issue with "no fault divorce". All it means is that, should two people figure out that it's just not working between them any longer, they can stop without having to walk across legal hot coals to make it happen.

If you would have read the thread carefully, you would have realized that my beef is with financial issues , wealth division and ex-spouse support, resulting from current divorce legislation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you would have read the thread carefully, you would have realized that my beef is with financial issues , wealth division and ex-spouse support, resulting from current divorce legislation.

I do not believe that it is legislated. I am pretty sure that it is simply a matter of the conditions imposed by a one size fits all contract. The nature of the contract is necessary to provide the advantages and protections of the wed. Most rules of thumb regarding disposition of finances after breaking of the contract, with no fault to either party, are likely set by judicial precedent and adjusted to fit individual circumstance. If a person wishes to set guidelines for the breaking of the contract then they need to outline these guidelines at the outset. US legislature has a limited authority to interfere in private party contracts and I am unsure to what degree they would be capable of influencing them even to make them more amenable to anyones opinion of decency.

In the end anyone can place limitations and guidelines on a marriage contract but it is considered bad form by most to stipulate the conditions of the demise of a life long contract of trust and good faith. The most that a court or legislature can do is manipulate the associated contract laws, or their application, in concurrence with what is considered to best serve the interests of the people. So those who are disproportionately disadvantaged by divorce will be more protected. This unfortunately leaves loopholes that can be exploited by those who are not so terribly disadvantaged though on the whole it theoretically protects more people than it hurts and the court should be capable of determining who is and is not disadvantaged and adjusting its rulings accordingly.

tl;dr
Culture is more to blame than the courts or legislature.

 

[DanP]

tl;dr
Culture is more to blame than the courts or legislature.

The factors are very much more complex the simple legislature. But consider this:
Family legislation include ex-spouse support laws in many countries. Failure to pay it may result in jail time. Previous court rulings, in many parts of the world, can serve as legal precedents.

Culture alone is no legal obligation. You can spit in the face of the culture and get away with it, what you can't do is spit in the face of a court order without jail time.

The issue is simple: clean the laws from any archaic forms of obligations. Alimony for example has no place in a civilized world.

 

[GeorginaS]

If you would have read the thread carefully, you would have realized that my beef is with financial issues , wealth division and ex-spouse support, resulting from current divorce legislation.

I'm pretty sure I didn't earn that condescension, but okay.

If you had worded the title of your thread carefully, you would have conveyed the issue at hand properly.

 

[DanP]

I'm pretty sure I didn't earn that condescension, but okay.

If you had worded the title of your thread carefully, you would have conveyed the issue at hand properly.

The thread has gone almost 5 pages discussion alimony, wealth division, origin of divorce laws and so on, despite my wording of the title. I've only pointed out the obvious, that once you read the posts here, some of which where very interesting, you would have got the answers about what the OP takes issues. It was also pretty much obvious from my first post.

No condescension.

 

[Char. Limit]

Emphasis mine. In keeping with the title of this thread, SA's assertions are precisely what you need to keep in mind. It bears repeating. All that the words "no fault divorce" mean is that people no longer have to offer evidence to the court meeting some sort of criteria as set out by law that allows them to get a divorce. There used to a be a time when, to get a divorce, you had to have a darned good excuse (darned good as defined by local laws) collect evidence, and then stand up in court, and assert the truth of that excuse. People had to go through a bunch of contortions and even make up stuff -- such as one of the parties agree to be photographed in an intimate situation with a third party, even though it may be staged -- in order to be able to dissolve their union.

From Wiki (I know, I know, but I'm not asserting stuff that needs peer review)

the dominant American understanding of divorce was as a form of punishment for misconduct by the occasional miscreant who had behaved so criminally that his or her spouse was morally obliged to separate and seek a judicial remedy. All the varied divorce regimes in all the states were premised on the notion that a divorce was awarded to one party because of the fault of another party and because of the wrong done to the innocent party. A divorce case bore similarities to a criminal case, and many of the practices of the case law are understandable only if one recognizes that judges worried about tarring a wife or husband with a quasi-criminal label—as an adulterer or a deserter or someone guilty of "extreme cruelty" (which at first denoted physical abuse).

And

Beginning early in the nineteenth century, judges and legal commentators warned about the evil of a "collusive divorce." Standard legal lore stated that if both parties wanted a divorce, neither would be entitled to one, and yet couples, even in conservative divorce jurisdictions, manipulated the rules to end their marriages. They used lawyers and others to reproduce the circumstances that entitled them to divorce. For example, in New York a man would travel to New Jersey, where he would be photo-graphed by a detective while sitting on a bed in the company of a prostitute. Or, alternatively, men would fund their wives' travel to liberal jurisdictions (Indiana or South Dakota in the nineteenth century, Nevada or the Virgin Islands in the twentieth), where they could be divorced. By the early twentieth century, collusive divorce had become ordinary legal practice across America, a cultural symbol depicted in novels and movies and New Yorker cartoons.


http://www.answers.com/topic/divorce-and-marital-separation"

So, truly, I have no idea why the OP takes such issue with "no fault divorce". All it means is that, should two people figure out that it's just not working between them any longer, they can stop without having to walk across legal hot coals to make it happen.

I don't believe that the principle of no-fault is bad. I believe that the present system has problems, and I choose to fight to eliminate those problems. One problem I see is that one person can completely terminate a marriage against the wishes of the other person, who might want to try talking it out instead. That's a bad idea, I think.

 

[DanP]

I One problem I see is that one person can completely terminate a marriage against the wishes of the other person, who might want to try talking it out instead. That's a bad idea, I think.

No, it;s a good idea. But anyway, in my country the "no fault" equivalent requires the consent of both parts, and I think it's the same everywhere.

If no fault can't be pursued because one of the partners doesn't agree to sign the divorce papers, the divorce will proceed on a non-amiable basis.

Divorce laws should be made so anyone can divorce as easy as possible and as hassle free.

For example, why would anyone continue to be married to a person who literally sucks the life out of you ? Ppl change during life and many issues and problems are surfacing only after many years of marriage.

 

[NeoDevin]

One problem I see is that one person can completely terminate a marriage against the wishes of the other person, who might want to try talking it out instead. That's a bad idea, I think.

So you think that it would be better if one partner could force the other to stay in a marriage against their wishes?

 

[Char. Limit]

So you think that it would be better if one partner could force the other to stay in a marriage against their wishes?

I think it would be better if partners could try to solve their marriage problems by communication rather than by divorce. However, no-fault divorce makes it easy (and profitable) to choose the second option without consideration for the first.

And remember, there is the element of profit involved: for the divorce lawyers, for the judges, for the spouse who makes less money. And per my belief that human nature is inherently evil (unchallengeable as it is subjective), profit could easily be a major motive.

 

[BobG]

Regardless of ANYTHING edpell?

What if the dad got laid off and is homeless right now? Still demanding the original amount, right? The amount from when he had a high paying job, and could afford $300 a month, RIGHT?

The problem with child support is that you can't adjust it for losing your job or anything like that. In jail? Don't care, pay up. Laid off? Don't care, pay up. Prisoner of war? Don't care, pay up.

I am unsure about elsewhere but here in CA you can go to court and explain your circumstances to have your payments adjusted or suspended.

Are you suggesting the kid doesn't eat?

In practice, if a person paying child support is laid off from their job, they'll still owe the same amount of child support. That doesn't mean they can pay it and it doesn't mean there will be any punishment for not paying. It usually means that once the person is employed again, they'll be making payments for back child support in addition to their current payments. They build up arrears and it can pretty much guarantee they'll be having child support payments garnisheed from their pay once they find employment again, that any income tax refunds they get will be diverted to their ex, etc.

There's no benefit to tossing someone in jail for contempt of court when tossing them in jail just ensures the person will earn no money to make child support payments. A person would have to be several months behind before a court would even consider finding a person guilty of contempt of court.

Going to court to explain your circumstances will virtually guarantee there will be no punishment for non-payment, and it might possibly get payments suspended or even reduced if the person winds up having to accept a lower paying job. About the only time the payments would actually be suspended is if the parent with primary custody had a high income even without the child support.

In other words, a court decision doesn't mean a divorced person and their kids are immune from the same bad things that happen to married people and their kids.

By the way, wouldn't a prisoner of war still get paid? I'm not sure what the military does in those situations - whether they continue to pay the military member via direct deposit and his/her spouse could continue to access the money (presuming the money's being deposited in a joint account) or if payment is suspended with the balances accruing until the member returns. Even in the latter, I would think there would be a way for the spouse to get the military to pay at least a portion of the member's pay, since military members are obligated to support their dependents. Which might be your point, but I don't think the first thought of a POW would be, "Great! Now I don't have to support the kids, anymore." Normal preparation for deployments is for the member to figure out what specific power of attorneys they should delegate to their spouse and for how long the power of attorney should be effective. (It's a really bad idea to sign a general power of attorney with no end date, but many do so, refusing to believe their spouse may find their absence very liberating.)

 

[BobG]

In the US most divorces have equal custody of children, it's only in unusual cases where one parent isn't fit that they award single custody now. That also means that the support is based on the individual's earnings. In my case the amount of money I earned reduced my child support from close to $3,000 per month to $700 per month. I was designated the primary caretaker. Plus I had to pay the children's medical insurance and all of their expenses, which far exceeded $700 per month. My financial liablity was unlimited, his was limited to $700, and there is no such thing as alimony for many years now.

BobG, you should sue your lawyer for malpracticve, I can't believe that laws in Colorado allow for what you are being held to. If it's no fault, then you shouldn't have to pay a dime. You should be able to go to court and have that revoked, you can do that. If your lawyer failed to inform you of the current laws, you can probably get a nice settlement from him.

Actually, Texas is more unusual than Colorado when it comes to divorce settlements.

My payments are above average for Colorado, but not spectacularly so.

 

[GeorginaS]

Regardless of ANYTHING edpell?

What if the dad got laid off and is homeless right now? Still demanding the original amount, right? The amount from when he had a high paying job, and could afford $300 a month, RIGHT?

The problem with child support is that you can't adjust it for losing your job or anything like that. In jail? Don't care, pay up. Laid off? Don't care, pay up. Prisoner of war? Don't care, pay up.

I'm curious to know where you live, Char. Limit. Granted, I'm in Canada, but I haven't yet seen that divorce and custody and child maintenance (ie: child support) are a whole lot different.

I'll preface this by telling you that I worked in law for a decade as a paralegal with concentrations in corporate and commercial law as well as wills and estates and helped out a bunch with family law work. Which means I've actually done a whole bunch of divorce work. Fair? Okay, so, when you have a child, yes, you have a financial obligation to that child until they reach the age of majority notwithstanding your relationship to their other parent.

When child maintenance payments are established, they are based on (here) an average income over three years. Should the person who is paying maintenance have a drastic material change in circumstance -- job loss, change of job that pays far less etc. -- then that person makes a court application called a variation application. They present (with proof) their change in circumstance to the court and the court then readjusts the amount payable. That also goes if there's material change in circumstance in the other direction and the person's income increases substantially.

The thinking/logic behind that whole process is that, if the child had continued to live with that parent, then any change in financial circumstance would directly affect that child's life and circumstance. That doesn't change because their parents divorce.

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but that's what I know for a fact for where I live. I've done the documents, dealt with the clients, and dealt with the courts.

 

[BobG]

What Georgina says is true in the US, as well.

You can divorce your spouse. You can't divorce your kids.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The factors are very much more complex the simple legislature. But consider this:
Family legislation include ex-spouse support laws in many countries. Failure to pay it may result in jail time. Previous court rulings, in many parts of the world, can serve as legal precedents.

The likelihood that you will actually go to jail for a thing you are told you could go to jail for is usually fairly slim unless you willfully defy the court. I recently had some legal issues. I was told left and right that if I make even one little slip up I could wind up in jail. Circumstances made things not turn out as planned in more than one instance and I was worried that I would be sent to jail. In each instance I simply went to the court and talked to a judge and never had to go to jail. As Bob points out throwing you in jail is not going to get any money out of you, rather it will have an opposite effect of preventing you from having money to pay. So there is little reason that one would be jailed for not being able to pay alimony.

Culture alone is no legal obligation. You can spit in the face of the culture and get away with it, what you can't do is spit in the face of a court order without jail time.

What I mean is that there are plenty of legal protections and culture prevents people from taking advantage of them. Culture creates the situation where more often than not the female in a marriage will be the one who has made more sacrifices of education and employment than the male leaving her far less well off than her spouse if they ever divorce. Perhaps even leaving her without a job or place to live if she does not get anything in the divorce because big strong bread winner man paid for everything while she stayed home at his insistence.

The issue is simple: clean the laws from any archaic forms of obligations. Alimony for example has no place in a civilized world.

Alimony has its uses. And as I have already noted the obligations are intrinsic to the contract. People only need to make provisions to the contract to avoid obligations that they are not willing to deal with. If I were to sell you my car and simply made you promise to pay me at some point then a year later when you have yet to pay me I am the idiot for not having stipulated a time frame or payment system in the contract. You will still have my car and I will still have no money for it and the only thing a judge may do is set up a minimal payment plan to get you to start giving me money, if that. Technically since I never proscribed guidelines for payment then you are free to pay me back how ever you like in a "reasonable" period of time.

 

[Char. Limit]

I just thought of a great solution that would cause there to be no more divorces and no more angry couples!









Ban marriage.

No, hear me out. We already have civil unions and cohabitation. What purpose does marriage serve? I'll bet (although I've never been married and am no divorce lawyer) that you can get alimony and child support from separation of cohabitation as well as through divorce... and if you really love each other, getting married is unnecessary.

Also, the Republicans will quit yammering about gay marriage. That's the biggest plus yet.

 

[DanP]

I think it would be better if partners could try to solve their marriage problems by communication rather than by divorce.
.

Those are such cliches.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I just thought of a great solution that would cause there to be no more divorces and no more angry couples!



Ban marriage.

No, hear me out. We already have civil unions and cohabitation. What purpose does marriage serve? I'll bet (although I've never been married and am no divorce lawyer) that you can get alimony and child support from separation of cohabitation as well as through divorce... and if you really love each other, getting married is unnecessary.

Also, the Republicans will quit yammering about gay marriage. That's the biggest plus yet.

Yes. I have heard it before. I kind of agree though I do not think many people would go for it.

 

[Char. Limit]

Those are such cliches.

So? Just because something is, as MW reports it, "a trite phrase or expression" doesn't mean that it carries no weight. Cliches, like stereotypes, usually have some basis in fact.

Yes. I have heard it before. I kind of agree though I do not think many people would go for it.

...

No argument to stimulate my day? Aww...

Well, it's 1 AM here anyway. I really should be abed, as I have work in 9 hours. Goodnight... maybe.

 

[DanP]

. So there is little reason that one would be jailed for not being able to pay alimony.

Sure. I agree. Yet it can happen. And it did happen. The mere existence of such a possibility makes those laws garbage.

What I mean is that there are plenty of legal protections and culture prevents people from taking advantage of them. Culture creates the situation where more often than not the female in a marriage will be the one who has made more sacrifices of education and employment than the male leaving her far less well off than her spouse if they ever divorce. Perhaps even leaving her without a job or place to live if she does not get anything in the divorce because big strong bread winner man paid for everything while she stayed home at his insistence.

Obviously, there is no plenty of legal protection to prevent ppl taking advantage of divorce and spousal support laws. About the culture:

Yes, at this time there are probably more women leeching alimony than man. Who cares , really, it's not that being a man and leeching makes it better.

Alimony has its uses.

What are the uses of alimony ? Support a leach ? Be a thorn in the side of the the one who pays it for many years ? Lowering the life standard of the one who pays ? Yeah, it has it uses.

And as I have already noted the obligations are intrinsic to the contract. People only need to make provisions to the contract to avoid obligations that they are not willing to deal with.

There are legislation which don't allow prenuptial contracts. But the true gain for everybody would be to change divorce laws, what is constituted common property in a marriage and ex-spouse support laws.

 

[DaveC426913]

What are the uses of alimony ? Support a leach ? Be a thorn in the side of the the one who pays it for many years ? Lowering the life standard of the one who pays ? Yeah, it has it uses.

You cannot possibly feel this way in all cases; I just don't believe it.


You must surely recognize that there are circumstances under which alimony makes sense.

 

[Char. Limit]

That doesn't mean that alimony is given at (oh so many) times that it doesn't make sense, simply because the wife got a good lawyer or the judge feels sympathetic towards her or she lies about the state of affairs in the household or...

 

[DanP]

You cannot possibly feel this way in all cases; I just don't believe it.You must surely recognize that there are circumstances under which alimony makes sense.

Only in the case when children are present, and the spouse was a stay at home parent, which I said earlier it can be worked out fairly by a court. For the rest, really ...

Why would you support somebody which ain't part of your life anymore ? It does not make any sense whatsoever to be forced to support another's human being welfare against your will.

It;s the same as being required to give whatever % of your income to a random passer by on the street. If it didn't worked out, say your goodbyes, and look for the future. The last thing you need is an ex-spouse to draw you to the bottom by pretending a part of your income.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why would you support somebody which ain't part of your life anymore ? It does not make any sense whatsoever to be forced to support another human being welfare against your will.

Why are you looking at it from only one side?

The last thing you need is an ex-spouse to draw you to the bottom by pretending a part of your income.

I cannot imagine why you think alimony is for the benefit of the one with the income.

 

[DanP]

Why are you looking at it from only one side?

Because even if I look at this issue from the other side, for example in the fantasy situation I would be given alimony, the only thing I feel is a cold shiver along my spine. I can't imagine why anyone would force my ex-spouse to keep me feed.

I cannot imagine why you think alimony is for the beneift of the one with the income.

I don't know how you got this idea, because this is not why I say. It certainly doesn't benefit me to support an ex-spouse.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because even if I look at this issue from the other side, for example in the fantasy situation I would be given alimony, the only thing I feel is a cold shiver along my spine. I can't imagine why anyone would force my ex-spouse to keep me feed.

Why aren't you able to imagine it from a point of view that's not yours? A wife stays home to look after house, the property the client parties, the food, the everytngi else, while the husband brings home the bacon. This is a mutally beneficial partnership, with division of responsibilities, that they both agreed to and it worked for them to build a life together.

Twenty years later, for whatever reason, they divorce. She has given up the best years of her life and will have to get a job starting from scratch. She is entitled something from his earning potential, since she had a hand in getting him where he is.

It certainly doesn't benefit me to support an ex-spouse.

Of course it doesn't. It's not meant to.

But you keep talking about how it would be bad for the supporter; I don't hear you saying anything about the supportee.

"Why would you support somebody which ain't part of your life anymore ?"
" forced to support another human being welfare against your will."
"The last thing you need is an ex-spouse to draw you to the bottom..."


It is for the benefit of the supportee because you made a promise to a life together, and (she) comported her life accordingly. She helped you get where you are by foregoing a promising career in favour of looking after you and your house and everything else so you could concentrate on your salary. Come the divorce, she is entitled it part of the benefits of your impressive salary.

 

[DanP]

Why aren't you able to imagine it from a point of view that's not yours? A wife stays home to look after house, the property the client parties, the food, the everytngi else, while the husband brings home the bacon. This is a mutally beneficial partnership, with division of responsibilities, that they both agreed to and it worked for them to build a life together.

If it's agreed before, then it should be put in a prenuptial. Like, you get X amount of currency for each year spent with me. The family laws shouldn't not generalize any kind of wealth division and ex-spouse support. The law should provide no provisions for those altogether, IMO.

It is for the benefit of the supportee because you made a promise to a life together ...

I believe this is a view of the marriage which doesn't work very well in today society. As I said, nowadays a marriage is a coin toss. Head or Tails. The promise of a life together doesn't hold much water in practice nowadays.

and (he )(she) comported her life accordingly.

To be determined on a case by case basis.

She helped you get where you are by foregoing a promising career in favour of looking after you and your house and everything else so you could concentrate on your salary. Come the divorce, she is entitled it part of the benefits of your impressive salary.

Like Jesse and Sandra ? Sandra is a self made women. I hear (dont know if its true) she doesn't have a prenuptial. So now Jesse gets to get support in the case of a divorce and a share of her earnings during those 5 years of marriage ? Go justice !

Most of man and women are really self made. I really don't see how a spouse would help my career staying at home , washing my underwear and cooking for me. Somehow so far I managed to do those things alone. If she should dedicate her time to raise our children so she can spend all time with them, then yes, that's another story.

There are exceptions to this, but in most of those cases both spouses has rock solid contracts and shares in the enterprises they built together.

 

[Char. Limit]

Why aren't you able to imagine it from a point of view that's not yours? A wife stays home to look after house, the property the client parties, the food, the everytngi else, while the husband brings home the bacon. This is a mutally beneficial partnership, with division of responsibilities, that they both agreed to and it worked for them to build a life together.

Twenty years later, for whatever reason, they divorce. She has given up the best years of her life and will have to get a job starting from scratch. She is entitled something from his earning potential, since she had a hand in getting him where he is.



Of course it doesn't. It's not meant to.

But you keep talking about how it would be bad for the supporter; I don't hear you saying anything about the supportee.

"Why would you support somebody which ain't part of your life anymore ?"
" forced to support another human being welfare against your will."
"The last thing you need is an ex-spouse to draw you to the bottom..."


It is for the benefit of the supportee because you made a promise to a life together, and (she) comported her life accordingly. She helped you get where you are by foregoing a promising career in favour of looking after you and your house and everything else so you could concentrate on your salary. Come the divorce, she is entitled it part of the benefits of your impressive salary.

I find it odd that you seem to assume that only women would get alimony, Dave. Especially considering that the original post was about a man leeching alimony from his wife.

Also, Jesse getting alimony is bullcrap. I have absolutely no pity for any celebrity asking for alimony, because they can obviously take care of themselves. After all, celebrities are almost never poor. And if they are, it's because they blew all of their cash.

And why would any wife give up her job anyway? That's her future, because considering the divorce rate in America, her man sure isn't.

Ditto for men, the idea of being a stay-at-home mom or dad is just plain loony if you consider the facts. Like the divorce rate. That's a fact, and is one of the reasons why I might refuse to marry someone who would give up their job for me.