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

[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.

 

[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.