No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

[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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20063911,00.html
POW's wife divorces him. He retains custody of two of his four children, she gets no alimony, she has to pay back money she spent "traveling with other men", they denied her request for a portion of his POW compensation, and going forward he pays only $300 a month in child support (a pittance compared to most support requirements).

Anyone can go to court to request alterations in their child support requirements. The problem is that most people by this juncture are rather defeated and take little to no recourse. The court can not be faulted for a person not having the will to stand up for themselves and take advantage of their rights.

 

[Char. Limit]

Er... Statutory, no offense, but why did you pull up an article that describes his court case as "a galling defeat" and call it a victory for the guy? Things for him seem to have turned out pretty crappily, actually. She gets the house, she gets the car, and he has to pay child support, EVEN though he has half of the children. That's equal custody. It doesn't wash.

Also, I sincerely hope for the sake of our prisoners of war that that isn't the fairest case you can find.

 

[calculusrocks]

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.

That sounds like a reasonable way to go about it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Er... Statutory, no offense, but why did you pull up an article that describes his court case as "a galling defeat" and call it a victory for the guy? Things for him seem to have turned out pretty crappily, actually. She gets the house, she gets the car, and he has to pay child support, EVEN though he has half of the children. That's equal custody. It doesn't wash.

Also, I sincerely hope for the sake of our prisoners of war that that isn't the fairest case you can find.

I'm showing you that people don't just get screwed. The article is sympathetic to him so it will obviously contain sympathetic words. If you read the facts, without the opinion, then he is fairly lucky as far as these things go. It was a reasonably equitable decision. Remember that he was gone for five years and she had no idea whether he was alive or dead. She lived in that house and used that car for her self that entire time. Then one day he shows back up and she is not able to stay with him so she ought to give up her home and her car and what else? Its not a very good situation at the outset but the end result is nothing like you seem to make the system out to be.

And he has the two older children who likely are not as high of maintenance and who he will only be legally obligated to for another two to three years. As far as child support goes $300 a month is nothing.

 

[Char. Limit]

Maybe if she had stayed faithful to him like he had to her, none of it would have happened.

And yes, I may make the system out to be worse than it actually is. But I'm a guy, and I fight for the rights of guys. I fight for the rights of girls too, but family law is one case where I think girls already have the advantage. So I aim towards helping guys there. It's all bias.

And I'm glad I'm not that guy, as $300 a month is currently more than my monthly income. Of course, I only have about $80 a month in expenses, but still.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Maybe if she had stayed faithful to him like he had to her, none of it would have happened.

And yes, I may make the system out to be worse than it actually is. But I'm a guy, and I fight for the rights of guys. I fight for the rights of girls too, but family law is one case where I think girls already have the advantage. So I aim towards helping guys there. It's all bias.

And I'm glad I'm not that guy, as $300 a month is currently more than my monthly income. Of course, I only have about $80 a month in expenses, but still.

Its hard to be unfaithful when you are being held as a POW in some camp. Its probably a lot easier when you are not even certain the person is alive.

I understand wanting to stand up for men. I also understand women wanting to stand up for women. If we grant each other their due though then no one has to stand up for anyone. And roughly fifty percent of the population will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you just show some understanding.

 

[Char. Limit]

Its hard to be unfaithful when you are being held as a POW in some camp. Its probably a lot easier when you are not even certain the person is alive.

I understand wanting to stand up for men. I also understand women wanting to stand up for women. If we grant each other their due though then no one has to stand up for anyone. And roughly fifty percent of the population will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you just show some understanding.

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.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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.

I differ.

 

[Char. Limit]

I differ.

OK, do you mean "I differ" as in "I don't fit this idea" or "I differ" as in "I don't agree with this idea"?

If the first, ok, go right ahead. I love to see people who've conquered human nature.

For the second, well, you aren't the only one. In fact, I don't think anyone has definitively proven whether human nature is good or evil. So you get to choose which one you can believe in, and I choose to believe that human nature is inherently evil, and the good people on Earth are those who have conquered human nature.