No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

[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.

 

[DaveC426913]

To be determined on a case by case basis.

Thannng qew. That's all I needed to hear. You grant that it is not unilateral.

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.

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 you believe that it should have to be this way? Whether the couple want it or not? You believe that everyone ought to believe
the same thing you believe?

 

[DaveC426913]

I find it odd that you seem to assume that only women would get alimony, Dave.

I'm not assuming anything. It is simply that "He or she" is difficult to write/read everytime.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm not assuming anything. It is simply that "He or she" is difficult to write/read everytime.

Usually when I have to write something cumbersome many times, I use the copy-paste keys. It makes it so much easier.

Just a tip.

 

[DanP]

Thannng qew. That's all I needed to hear. You grant that it is not unilateral.

You are welcome, but I was only referring to the fact that you assumed faithfulness in any marriage.

...and you believe that it should have to be this way? Whether the couple want it or not? You believe that everyone ought to believe
the same thing you believe?

Of course not. Everybody is entitled to his way to see life. This is why politics exist. So we can impose our ideas and our ways to be on others who don't agree with us.
And yes, this is how it should be. This way no one would be entitled after 5 years of marriage to the wealth produced unilaterally by the other spouse. This is how a normal world should work. But yeah, everybody would be done a great favor if we have the family laws changed drastically. Give it time. In my opinion we will get there. The "for life, in good and evil" view of marriage is deprecating everyday right before our eyes. Laws will follow sooner or later.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

No. Any contract requires a certain level of assumed obligation and duty, regardless of any added specifications, otherwise the contract may as well have never existed. In a No Fault divorce any argument that one spouse or the other did not live up to their responsibilities and obligations as party to the contract are given up. So all obligations, as assumed by contract, are considered to be in force.

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.

Then you are no longer talking about marriage since marriage, by definition, is a life long contract. If you have issues with a life long contract then do not enter into one. You can not simply up and walk away from a contract and there by erase all obligation to the other party. Again, with such an interpretation, there may as well have never been a contract in the first place.

To be determined on a case by case basis.

That would be an At Fault divorce. In No Fault there is no determination of whether or not either spouse lived up to expectations.

 

[DanP]

Then you are no longer talking about marriage since marriage, by definition, is a life long contract. If you have issues with a life long contract then do not enter into one. You can not simply up and walk away from a contract and there by erase all obligation to the other party. Again, with such an interpretation, there may as well have never been a contract in the first place.

By this logic, we finished talking about marriage several centuries ago then. The moment when divorce was wrestled from religious authority to the civil authority where it belongs.

Marriage is not a life long contract. Not anymore. The sate does recognize divorce. And this is all it needs to be said regarding your point on marriage as lifelong contract.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By this logic, we finished talking about marriage several centuries ago then. The moment when divorce was wrestled from religious authority to the civil authority where it belongs.

Marriage is not a life long contract. Not anymore. The sate does recognize divorce. And this is all it needs to be said regarding your point on marriage as lifelong contract.

Of course marriage is still a life long contract. Just because you are legally allowed to break it or dissolve it does not change that the contract unbroken will be in effect for the rest of your life with no need of renewal and no expiration other than the death of one of the parties.

I can enter a two year contract with my phone company and then break from contract after a year if I so choose. That does not mean that it was not a two year contract and that I have no further obligation to the party whom I was in contract with. The fact that many people break from contracts with their phone companies does not change the fact this was a two year contract either.

 

[DanP]

Of course marriage is still a life long contract. Just because you are legally allowed to break it or dissolve it does not change that the contract unbroken will be in effect for the rest of your life with no need of renewal and no expiration other than the death of one of the parties.

If you refer to this particular legal aspect, it's called undetermined length contract, not life long contract. The wording is important. A "life long" contract is a determined length contract, for the life spawn of the parts. It was a life long contract when the church was prohibiting the divorce.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you refer to this particular legal aspect, it's called undetermined length contract, not life long contract. The wording is important. A "life long" contract is a determined length contract, for the life spawn of the parts. It was a life long contract when the church was prohibiting the divorce.

That a contract can be broken or dissolved does not mean that it is of an undetermined length. As I noted there are obviously contracts of determined length that one can back out of before the expiry.

 

[DanP]

That a contract can be broken or dissolved does not mean that it is of an undetermined length.

It is not the fact that it can be broken or dissolved which gives this particular aspect. It is whatever the contract is determined in time or not.

 

[Evo]

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.

What is a marriage contract?

A marriage contract is a legal agreement, very much like any other type of contract. It’s a written document between two people. It can be between two people who are already married, or two people who are planning to marry (called a “pre-nuptial agreement”) to take effect on the date of their marriage. A marriage contract identifies who you are and usually makes some statement about the purpose of the agreement. Then it sets out a series of promises that you each make to the other.

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

 

[DanP]

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.



http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

This is a great point. Interesting enough, it produces a lot of legal effects though.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is not the fact that it can be broken or dissolved which gives this particular aspect. It is whatever the contract is determined in time or not.

I am unaware of any definition of marriage that does not at least imply a life long commitment. People generally do not marry as a temporary state of affairs and usually marriages that are for temporary purposes (ie, gaining citizenship) are not considered legal.

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.



http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/marriage/
Perhaps they have oddly worded definitions in TX. As far as I understand a contract is any agreement between two parties, either express or implied, which meets certain criteria.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contract-law/
Perhaps TX treats the contract as implicit and terms "marriage" as any so-called union legally recognized and binding or not.
I only mention TX since you seem to reference experience and I assume you were divorced in TX?
Note that I am only

 

[DanP]

I am unaware of any definition of marriage that does not at least imply a life long commitment. People generally do not marry as a temporary state of affairs and usually marriages that are for temporary purposes (ie, gaining citizenship) are not considered legal.

The problem is that this idealized model in inherited from the times when the church enforced a true "life long" marriage.

Such Definitions are getting obsolete nowadays. The practical reality of the world doesn't give a dime of wording implying life long marriages. The fact is almost half of the marriages are doomed and end up in divorce or legal separation. 10-20 years ago you could not talk about marriage between 2 same sex persons. You would have been called insane to imply that 2 same sex persons can get married. The church still goes insane when it hears such things. Yet the society changed this, and rightly so, in many places of the world. Today we allow gay persons to get married. It becomes a more and more widespread fact. Wordings are to be changed with social pressure.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem is that this idealized model in inherited from the times when the church enforced a true "life long" marriage.

Such Definitions are getting obsolete nowadays. The practical reality of the world doesn't give a dime of wording implying life long marriages. The fact is almost half of the marriages are doomed and end up in divorce or legal separation.


10-20 years ago you could not talk about marriage between 2 same sex persons. You would have been called insane to imply that 2 same sex persons can get married. The church still goes insane when it hears such things. Yet the society changed this, and rightly so, in many places of the world. Today we allow gay persons to get married. It becomes a more and more widespread fact. Wordings are to be changed with social pressure.

Regardless, when two people get married they typically do so with the understanding that it is a life long commitment. That it is statistically unlikely to be so is irrelevant. It is not legal to enter into a contract with express or implicit terms and then turn around and say "You didn't really Believe that, did you?"