News No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

[DanP]

You also seem to not consider the person who victimizes their spouse and requests a divorce themself. I led you to believe that I loved you Dan and then I changed my mind and split after assuring you that you didn't need that lousy job of yours and that I would take care of you. How do you feel about that?

If you are a stay at home mom or dad, there are compensations which can be fairly awarded, on the schema I outlined before, calculating potential income, lost contributions to retirement funds, and so on.

In rest it is my believe that both partners should work. If they choose not too, and let themselves being supported (you can be still supported if you have a low income and your spouse earns a fortune even if you work a modest job, your sugarmomi can buy you all cool toys and sport cars ) then they didn't brought anything in the marriage anyway, so who cares :P

So yeah, I wouldn't care if it happens to me. Life, shake the dust, and go forward. What else can you do?

 

[BobG]

Note that I don't agree that alimony should be "half of one's income for the rest of one's life". I think a decreasing percentage over time, starting at 50%, would be more reasonable, to reflect the former stay-at-home spouses increasing ability to earn an income for themselves as time progresses (the decrease should be fixed, and not dependant on the stay-at-home's actual income, to discourage laziness/mooching). Maybe 50%, decreasing by 10%/year or so.

I don't think alimony would ever be half of one's income, although alimony plus child support could come close. A more realistic estimate would be around a third of the difference in incomes (and even a person that's been a stay at home mom will be expected to hold at least a minimum wage job).

And the duration does depend on how long the marriage lasted. Most people aren't going to get alimony for a short marriage (less than 5 years). Alimony usually lasts for somewhere around half the duration of the marriage unless you've been married around 20 years or more.

Of course, there's other ways to get hit, too. Pensions, retirement funds, stocks are assets that get split, as well.

Everything combined, the ex siphons off about $24k a year from me and there is no child support since the kids are grown. If you take the average amount of time she actually spent at home before I divorced her, it costs me about $200 a day to make her stay away completely. I should be a little more bitter than I am.

 

[Evo]

I don't think alimony would ever be half of one's income, although alimony plus child support could come close. A more realistic estimate would be around a third of the difference in incomes (and even a person that's been a stay at home mom will be expected to hold at least a minimum wage job).

And the duration does depend on how long the marriage lasted. Most people aren't going to get alimony for a short marriage (less than 5 years). Alimony usually lasts for somewhere around half the duration of the marriage unless you've been married around 20 years or more.

Of course, there's other ways to get hit, too. Pensions, retirement funds, stocks are assets that get split, as well.

Everything combined, the ex siphons off about $24k a year from me and there is no child support since the kids are grown. If you take the average amount of time she actually spent at home before I divorced her, it costs me about $200 a day to make her stay away completely. I should be a little more bitter than I am.

I got my first divorce in Texas and there is no alimony. You can file for limited support if you are uneducated and never worked due to marrying and being a stay at home spouse. But the money isn't much, enough to pay for some vocational training for a couple of years. Since I made more than my husband when I divorced, I had to pay him, even though he was set to inherit a fortune, that was not something I could get a split of. :(

 

[BobG]

Im not saying that adultery should be made a misdemeanor or so. Everybody has to have the right to have sex with whoever she / he chooses, regardless of the marital status. Furthermore, everybody should have the right of dissolving marriage at any time, on no other pretenses than "irreconcilable differences".

This is the definition of no fault divorce.

I think you have a problem with how the financial settlements in divorce work out, not no fault divorce.

Divorce in states that don't have no fault divorce is even more convoluted. The divorcing couple gets to decide who is going to be the one at fault and what the fault should be, even when there is no other reason than they can't stand living with each other anymore.

In New York (I think it's the only state that doesn't have any kind of no fault divorce), that means one of the couple gets to be guilty of "cruel and inhuman treatment" just so they can finish the divorce in a reasonable amount of time. And the longer the marriage, the more severe the level of mental cruelty has to be. A person can't even choose to be guilty of "adultery" unless they can find someone who will say they had sex with them (it has to be corroborated by a third party - admitting adultery isn't enough).

And things like alimony, etc are barely affected, if at all, by who is at fault. Sometimes, the decision about who will be the at fault party simply depends on who's bothered by it the least or who wants the divorce more.

The alternative is to get a legal separation (about the same cost as divorce), live separate for a year, and then eventually get the separation converted to a divorce (which also means paying the legal costs a second time).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think you have a problem with how the financial settlements in divorce work out, not no fault divorce.

Its sort of linked. Saying it's no fault essentially leaves it up to the court to figure out what an "equitable" split of the finances should be if you two can not decide on your own.

 

[DanP]

This is the definition of no fault divorce.

I think you have a problem with how the financial settlements in divorce work out, not no fault divorce.

Yes, you are right, but those are working under the guidelines of divorce laws, aint it ?

Everything combined, the ex siphons off about $24k a year from me and there is no child support since the kids are grown. If you take the average amount of time she actually spent at home before I divorced her, it costs me about $200 a day to make her stay away completely.

She is leeching you big time. With the support of the state :P Sorry man

 

[Char. Limit]

I got my first divorce in Texas and there is no alimony. You can file for limited support if you are uneducated and never worked due to marrying and being a stay at home spouse. But the money isn't much, enough to pay for some vocational training for a couple of years. Since I made more than my husband when I divorced, I had to pay him, even though he was set to inherit a fortune, that was not something I could get a split of. :(

Although not one to betray a fellow male, I'm thinking you should have waited a bit longer...

 

[NeoDevin]

Its sort of linked. Saying it's no fault essentially leaves it up to the court to figure out what an "equitable" split of the finances should be if you two can not decide on your own.

No, the court decides that either way. Even in the case of a divorce where one partner was "at fault" the courts are still supposed to divide property equally.

 

[Moonbear]

The problem is that those laws apply in other cases as well, when no children are involved.

In the problem with stay at home moms, their contribution by doing so can be easily quantified. It doesn't mandate any kind of support after divorce, it only mandate a fair division of the common goods, taking in consideration how many years she spent raising the kids and making you food.

I agree on this. Especially when there are no children involved, I think it's ridiculous for someone to have to keep supporting an ex-spouse. When there are children involved, I don't think it's the ex-spouse to be supported, but the kids. Now, if both parents still agree that even in spite of the divorce, it is best for the kids to have a stay-at-home parent, then sure, that can be worked out as part of the support payments, but it shouldn't be automatically assumed that the ex should continue to be supported just because they don't feel like going back to work. And, if they can't find gainful employment, maybe they shouldn't be the custodial parent if the other one is more financially supporting the kids anyway.

And, just because someone is a "stay-at-home parent" doesn't mean they're pulling their weight. I know of a couple of dubious happiness with their marriage where the wife is playing the stay-at-home mom role while the husband works insane hours to bring in a paycheck that supports everyone. That made sense when the kids were babies and needed a lot of round-the-clock care. But, now the kids are in school, so not even home half the day. Okay, so you say that just means the wife has time to do the housekeeping and other stuff that needs doing around the house. Mmm...nope. They hire a housekeeper to do the cleaning, and a landscaper to do the yard work, some plow guy to clear snow from the driveway, and if something breaks, she either complains until the husband fixes it, or again hires someone else to do it. And, then she asks her husband to leave work early to watch the kids so she can go out with her friends. I can understand her not getting a full-time job so she's home when the kids get home from school, but if she's not doing anything to help around the house and just hiring people to do the "job" she is supposed to be doing, then it's time for her to go out and get a part-time job at least.

I think all of this should be considered...just being lazy and letting your spouse support you isn't justification for them to continue supporting you after a divorce. If there really is a mutual agreement on childcare and both parents think that arrangement should continue, then it's not hard to quantify the cost of childcare and pay the ex a "stipend" for their contribution to childcare. But, when the kids turn 18 and don't need a full-time caregiver, that should be the end of any such support.

The other way I look at this is...if one ex-spouse claims they need alimony because they can't work or that staying home too long has made it hard for them to get a job...what exactly were they planning to do if it wasn't a divorce but their spouse died instead? Who was going to support them? Nobody should be so foolish as to set themselves up to be completely unable to support themself and their kids should something happen to their spouse.

 

[BobG]

The other way I look at this is...if one ex-spouse claims they need alimony because they can't work or that staying home too long has made it hard for them to get a job...what exactly were they planning to do if it wasn't a divorce but their spouse died instead? Who was going to support them? Nobody should be so foolish as to set themselves up to be completely unable to support themself and their kids should something happen to their spouse.

They were probably planning on getting remarried. And they'd have to meet their new spouse all on their own.

At least in divorce, the ex paying alimony might help the payee spouse find a date.

Or they were hoping the dead spouse had good life insurance. (If a person is lucky, they only have to pay alimony until they die. If they're unlucky, they have to buy insurance so the ex can still get their share even after the paying spouse dies.)

 

[Pattonias]

Wouldn't a better solution to this be to require a couple who wishes to obtain a marriage license attend classes that will help them understand the real impact the marriage will have on them. From the legal stand-point marriage allows a certain level of protection for the couple that decides to have a family. If you want to have kids its like creating a guarantee of security that they will be cared for even if you split up. Of course, child support can cover those that split up after having children out of wed-lock, but this doesn't allow for the security that marriage provides. I think that if everyone really understood how powerful of a contract a marriage is they would be more likely to take it seriously. It is society that has made marriage such a frivolous event.
Are we to conclude that because people don't know how to abide by a serious contract that we should make contracts easier to break?

 

[BobG]

Are we to conclude that because people don't know how to abide by a serious contract that we should make contracts easier to break?

Perhaps it would help if we understood what contract you're talking about.

Civilly, marriage is a partnership contract (at least since the advent of no fault divorce). It applies as long as both parties want to remain partners. Things like adultery, alcoholism, committing felonies, cruelty, and abandonment have traditionally been considered violations of a marriage contract. A divorce is just a dissolution of a partnership; not a violation of a contract.

Depending on the type of wedding service a couple had, I guess you could say they made a verbal contract to maintain the partnership until death. I think that's a somewhat valid argument, if that was part of your wedding ceremony. It's just not generally recognized unless you get it in writing. Wedding vows have a tendency to be designed for the sense of romance they convey, including things that couldn't possibly be enforceable by a court.

Which is where covenant marriages come in. If you really want "until death do us part" to be a part of your marriage contract, then opt for a covenant marriage (if available - currently there's only a handful of states that offer that option.) Even covenant marriages have conditions where opting out is allowable, but the no fault portion basically disappears. The only valid grounds for divorce become that one party violated the marriage contract via the tradional means (adultery, alcoholism, etc). And most states that have covenant marriages make pre-marriage counseling a prerequisite for obtaining a covenant marriage.

I'd still think twice about the advisability of a covenant marriage. If conditions have changed and you or your spouse is no longer the type of person you wish to be married to, being chained to them for the rest of your life is actually the best option? I guess that's why the requirement for pre-marriage counseling. That's the think twice part, since there is no way to legally require your spouse to remain the loving, good-looking person you married.

 

[DanP]

Wouldn't a better solution to this be to require a couple who wishes to obtain a marriage license attend classes that will help them understand the real impact the marriage will have on them.

No. I don't agree on any such ideas as forcing a human to take a "course" to get married or something. I wouldn't go to such a class personally. Make the laws of such a nature that is easy to get married, easy to get divorced, and no hassle with ex-spouse support.

A world with a 50% failure in marriages mandates such changes.

 

[turbo]

When I was working as the lead operator on the start-up of a high-tech paper machine. I saw stuff that would make your hair curl. For the first few months, we all worked 12 hours a day, every day with no days off. Later that was cut back to 10 hours a day x24 days a month, and finally, down to 8 hours a day x24 days per month (but with mandatory unpredictable overtime whenever the machine was in upset, which was often). During that time, some junior members of the crews found themselves pulling in more money than they ever thought possible, so they went out and bought houses, new cars, etc. Once the trap was set, several of the wives sprung it. Wives got to keep the house until the kids were 18, wives got to keep the cars, wives got sole custody of the kids, since the husbands were working rotating shifts, and the judges only allowed visitation, not even joint custody. Plus, the judges computed child support payments based on how much money the guys were making during the most money-making part of their lives. So now I have to contend with co-workers who are despondent and borderline suicidal. They paid huge child-support payments, mortgage, car-payments, etc, (which kept the ex-wife living high) and ended up with barely enough money left out of their checks to live in a flea-bag motel that rented by the week to transients. Those guys were forced to scramble and beg for overtime, extra shifts, etc, just to keep from defaulting on all the court-ordered payments. Plus, with no defined custody, their ex-wives used their kids as bargaining chips. Sad!

 

[turbo]

Lowest kind of bitches.

It happened. A young father on my shift used to come to work a bit early sometimes, just to have some companionship, but when I'd ask how he was holding up, he'd often break into tears. He had no suitable place to take the kids for a bit of visitation, unless he wanted to take them to a movie or maybe out to lunch, which he could not afford. The rent-by-the week room he lived in was in a really seedy motel with a seedier bar, and he didn't want to take them there. His family lived in a distant town, and the ex-wife's family refused to have anything to do with him, so he couldn't take the kids to visit their relatives. That poor guy got kicked when he was down, over and over again. He eventually remarried to a co-worker who was a very sweet lady, but she fell into depression and committed suicide. The fact that they faced another 12 years or so of crushing child-support, mortgage payments on the ex-wife's house, etc can't have helped.

 

[BobG]

Once the trap was set, several of the wives sprung it. Wives got to keep the house until the kids were 18, wives got to keep the cars, wives got sole custody of the kids, since the husbands were working rotating shifts, and the judges only allowed visitation, not even joint custody. Plus, the judges computed child support payments based on how much money the guys were making during the most money-making part of their lives. So now I have to contend with co-workers who are despondent and borderline suicidal. They paid huge child-support payments, mortgage, car-payments, etc, (which kept the ex-wife living high) and ended up with barely enough money left out of their checks to live in a flea-bag motel that rented by the week to transients. Those guys were forced to scramble and beg for overtime, extra shifts, etc, just to keep from defaulting on all the court-ordered payments. Plus, with no defined custody, their ex-wives used their kids as bargaining chips. Sad!

Most of that is part of the bad old days in most of the states. That dream of trapping your spouse into paying your mortgage is long gone - whoever gets the house gets to pay for it, nowadays. Except nowadays, spouses pay the other to get the damn thing off their hands before it forecloses.

Timing is everything, though. If your spouse made big money in the financial industry, finishing up the divorce just prior to the 2008 melt down would have been best. Those asking if spousal support will be based on his salary when he had a job or on his unemployment might wind up being disappointed. (It would be based on his expected long term future income and it's doubtful his income will be as high as it used to be.)

It's still the bad old days when it comes to custody, though, especially for military. If a military member is divorcing a civilian spouse, who do you think is most likely to get custody: the civilian or the military spouse that might have to deploy for a year? Or the military parent that has custody, but deploys and has the ex spouse go to court to change the custody while the military parent is overseas? The Soldier/Sailor Act protects military members from defaulting on most court cases simply because they're overseas fighting. Child custody cases don't get delayed since the welfare of the kids takes priority over fairness to the military member.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, the court decides that either way. Even in the case of a divorce where one partner was "at fault" the courts are still supposed to divide property equally.

I suppose it depends on the state. In "at fault" divorce the "at fault" spouse can be penalized in the disposition of the finances for breech of contract, as with any contract where punitive recourse is taken. That's the issue with no fault divorce. The contract is being dissolved and the two parties can not come to a resolution on disposing their finances but no one is at fault. No one is supposed to get more or less than that other. Since, due to the nature of the contractual relationship, everything is common property regardless of who provided it then everything gets split evenly by the court (not accounting for special provisions based on the length of marriage ect).

 

[edpell]

I think the government has no place in marriage. If two people want to get married before their church, community, friends, whatever that is fine they should be free to do so. And how those bodies view un-marriage is up to them. The government only sets tax rate while alive and tax rate upon death. I would say tax rate while alive should be independent of marital status and the ability to transfer wealth tax free upon death could be a common law right given to any two people who have lived together for 10 years or more.

I do favor the government forcing parents to support their children regardless of anything.

 

[calculusrocks]

If marriage is truly holy, then I see no reason why gov't would be needed to enchant them.

 

[calculusrocks]

I do favor the government forcing parents to support their children regardless of anything.

I agree with that too. That would be a travesty if parents did not support their own kids.

 

[Char. Limit]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem with child support is that you can't adjust it for losing your job or anything like that.

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.

 

[calculusrocks]

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.

Are you suggesting the kid doesn't eat?

 

[DanP]

Are you suggesting the kid doesn't eat?

Are you suggesting that the dad should go to jail because he was laid off and doesn't have any money ?

 

[calculusrocks]

Are you suggesting that the dad should go to jail because he was laid off and doesn't have any money ?

Nope. I was just wondering who should feed the kid. I mean, someone has to right?

 

[Max Faust]

If marriage is truly holy, then I see no reason why gov't would be needed to enchant them.

Marriage is, obviously, as much about uniting the two families (relatives on both sides) and creating an economical arrangement, as it is about creating a new legal union between two people. I think they have solved this pretty well in France; where the union itself is considered legal and binding only if it's done by a judge, and you are free to *sanctify* it in whatever additional way you might prefer through this or that religious ceremony - but a religious ceremony in and of itself, and on its own, carries no legally binding powers.

At my age (47) I have gotten to witness quite a bit of messy break-ups, with or without any legally binding contract at the bottom of the relationship, and I have even tried it myself. That stuff is always horrific, no matter where you're from or what are the details of it all, and I can only speculate on what it must feel like to have your emotional intestines spread out all over some public news channel as well. Quite disgusting it is.

 

[Char. Limit]

Nope. I was just wondering who should feed the kid. I mean, someone has to right?

Sure. Let's just have the guy who's been a prisoner of war for ten years, and whose wife divorced him because she wasn't getting any action, and who doesn't have a job because he WAS A POW, pay for the child. Because apparently, to you, that makes total sense.

 

[DanP]

Nope. I was just wondering who should feed the kid. I mean, someone has to right?

The mother who got the children in custody ? Aint it crystal clear ? But no, many of those women will just hit the guy who lost his job in his nuts again :P

 

[edpell]

Regardless of ANYTHING edpell?

Clearly if both parents are run over by a bus they will not be supporting the child.

I should have said the first responsible party is the parents.

 

[Char. Limit]

Clearly if both parents are run over by a bus they will not be supporting the child.

I should have said the first responsible party is the parents.

Far, far better.

I hold by my belief that if a parent is somehow incapacitated, he shouldn't have to support. In jail counts as incapacitated. So does laid off. So does being a POW.