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

[DanP]

I was looking at this fox News report regarding Bullock / James scandal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgG9ZWaSZrE&feature=popular

it seems to me that family laws, presumably thought to protect and encourage the institution of family are becoming the biggest reason not to ever get married in many states around the world.

It would be really annoying to see James walk away with half of what Bullock produced during the 5 years of marriage and pretty unfair.

But generally speaking, why should one support an ex spouse in any way whatsoever, fault or no fault ? You get married, you get divorced, that's it, if there are no children both should walk away with their fortunes regardless if it was pre or post marriage income.
It;s idiotic to ask a man to support his ex-wife. Those laws seem determined to kill the marriage , not to strengthen it. Only a lunatic would consider marriage with such laws.

 

[zomgwtf]

This was all Fox speculation, no news reporting done that I can see.

 

[DanP]

This was all Fox speculation, no news reporting done that I can see.

Maybe, but no fault laws are not Fox speculations. Hopefully Bullock has a bulletproof prenup.

And then again, why would any sane person (not only celebrities) get married with such laws without a prenuptial cast in stone ? Why should anyone pay alimony ?

 

[zomgwtf]

Maybe, but no fault laws are not Fox speculations. Hopefully Bullock has a bulletproof prenup.

And then again, why would any sane person (not only celebrities) get married with such laws without a prenuptial cast in stone ? Why should anyone pay alimony ?

I'm pretty sure it all depends on time your with the person and stuff as well. It has nothing to do with a sane person questioning marriage. It has to do with a sane person not getting married once every 7 years. The entire purpose of marriage is to be one with the person, it's a religious sacrament and if you read religious scriptures that's specifically what marriage entails.

So if you don't want to be at 'one' with a person then don't marry them. If you do marry them and they screw you over then expect that everything earned while you were 'one' with the person to be equally theres.

 

[DanP]

I'm pretty sure it all depends on time your with the person and stuff as well. It has nothing to do with a sane person questioning marriage. It has to do with a sane person not getting married once every 7 years. The entire purpose of marriage is to be one with the person, it's a religious sacrament and if you read religious scriptures that's specifically what marriage entails.

Sorry, I don't buy the religious part. Marriage it's a civil contract. Church didn't granted divorces anyway in past, so the issue of somebody walking away with your hard earned money was not really a possibility. And it's 2010, not 1400. We should stop citing religious scriptures for things which affect our lives.

We seen the light and allowed couples to divorce relatively easy. Maybe is time to put an end to laws which grant support to ex-spouses. There is no wonder that more and more couples choose not to enter marriage, not even when children enter the equation.

So if you don't want to be at 'one' with a person then don't marry them. If you do marry them and they screw you over then expect that everything earned while you were 'one' with the person to be equally theres.

This is a very antiquated view. Half of the marriages in our society fail from one reason or another. Unfortunately, with civil laws like no fault divorce, the society really makes it hard
to enter a marriage. Why would you after all ? With common sense legislation, maybe, it's worth trying to build a family.

 

[turbo]

The best thing Bullock and James can do is avoid divorce lawyers like the plague, save those millions and the messiness, and part as amicably as possible. In CA, spousal support following dissolution of a short-duration marriage is limited to no more than half the duration of the marriage, though James should refuse even that option and walk away. His tattooed mistress won't make his high-dollar clients for custom bikes blink an eye. He can come out of this looking badder and more famous than before.

 

[zomgwtf]

Sorry, I don't buy the religious part. Marriage it's a civil contract. Church didn't granted divorces anyway in past, so the issue of somebody walking away with your hard earned money was not really a possibility. And it's 2010, not 1400. We should stop citing religious scriptures for things which affect our lives.

We seen the light and allowed couples to divorce relatively easy. Maybe is time to put an end to laws which grant support to ex-spouses. There is no wonder that more and more couples choose not to enter marriage, not even when children enter the equation.

That's exactly the problem, people enter marriages NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE. Who cares if it's 2010 or 1400? It's still a marriage and it's purpose has always been the same. As well when talking about MARRIAGE you have to understand where it came from, which would be RELIGIONS/SPIRTUAL systems. It came from religion and it came with a purpose. Just because you don't like religion (assumption from the way you talk) has no bearing on the fact that it came from religion for a specific purpose and we still utilize it today.
It doesn't matter if you see it as being a 'civil contract' under law or whatever, that's modern it's not where marriage comes from and it doesn't change its PURPOSE.

This is a very antiquated view. Half of the marriages in our society fail from one reason or another. Unfortunately, with civil laws like no fault divorce, the society really makes it hard
to enter a marriage. Why would you after all ? With common sense legislation, maybe, it's worth trying to build a family.

Marriages should be hard to enter, that's the entire point. You do not enter a marriage with someone merely for the purpose of 'making a family', that's STUPID.

 

[DanP]

That's exactly the problem, people enter marriages NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE. Who cares if it's 2010 or 1400? It's still a marriage and it's purpose has always been the same. As well when talking about MARRIAGE you have to understand where it came from, which would be RELIGIONS/SPIRTUAL systems.

I don't see it as a problem. Religion is not part of my life. Frankly I don't care for the marriage spiritual part. The world has changed. Trying to keep things in antiquated mystical forms is nothing but a factor delaying progress towards a better world.

Today, we allow gay ppl to get married. We *legally* recognize them the right which religion denies. World changes.
Marriage slowly becomes what it should be: strictly civil union.

Marriages should be hard to enter, that's the entire point. You do not enter a marriage with someone merely for the purpose of 'making a family', that's STUPID.

Nor you enter a marriage for some mystical religious reason. Thats mighty STUPID and antiquated. Much more stupid than entering a marriage to form a family and raise some kids.

 

[D H]

But generally speaking, why should one support an ex spouse in any way whatsoever, fault or no fault ? You get married, you get divorced, that's it, if there are no children both should walk away with their fortunes regardless if it was pre or post marriage income.

You get married and there is no longer a "his" and "hers". The correct term is "ours" -- unless of course you wrote a rock-solid pre-nup that not only covered wealth accrued prior to getting married but also wealth accrued while being married. If you are that paranoid about getting married, why get married?

 

[mgb_phys]

Simple - make marriage licenses renewable, just like driving licenses or dog licenses.

 

[DanP]

You get married and there is no longer a "his" and "hers". The correct term is "ours" -- unless of course you wrote a rock-solid pre-nup that not only covered wealth accrued prior to getting married but also wealth accrued while being married.

Because we live in a world where success of a marriage is pretty much heads or tails. Laws should reflect this social reality. Wealth is not easy to acquire.

 

[jobyts]

Simple - make marriage licenses renewable, just like driving licenses.

Am I allowed to drive many cars with one license?

 

[DanP]

Am I allowed to drive many cars with one license?

Yes but your insurance goes way up

 

[NeoDevin]

But generally speaking, why should one support an ex spouse in any way whatsoever, fault or no fault ? You get married, you get divorced, that's it, if there are no children both should walk away with their fortunes regardless if it was pre or post marriage income.
It;s idiotic to ask a man to support his ex-wife. Those laws seem determined to kill the marriage , not to strengthen it. Only a lunatic would consider marriage with such laws.

The laws are based on the assumption that both partners contribute equally to the marriage, even if they do not contribute equally financially.

If one partner decides to forego pursuing their own career in favour of keeping house/preparing meals every day, raising children, while the other partner pursues a career to support them both financially. Presumably, both partners have agreed that this is an equitable division of labour for the duration of the marriage. Upon divorce, however, the partner who was the house-wife/house-husband would be left with nothing, despite having been an "equal" contributor.

 

[NeoDevin]

zomgwtf, you're way off on marriage having it's roots in any religion.

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.

One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access. Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage. But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."

In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife. Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".

Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History"

 

[DaveC426913]

Simple - make marriage licenses renewable, just like driving licenses or dog licenses.

Awesome idea!

Any you wouldn't be allowed to renew until you'd paid off all outstanding moving violations and passed a clean emissions check.

 

[mgb_phys]

And it would make some husbands a lot more attentive come the wedding anniversary (or at least help them remember the date)

 

[MotoH]

Awesome idea!

Any you wouldn't be allowed to renew until you'd paid off all outstanding moving violations and passed a clean emissions check.

I like to take a classical car for a drive every now and then. Will I no longer be able to take old cars for drives because they do not pass the emission standards?

 

[DaveC426913]

And it would make some husbands a lot more attentive come the wedding anniversary (or at least help them remember the date)

Yep. If you're not paid up on renewal date, you're pulled off the road.

 

[DanP]

The laws are based on the assumption that both partners contribute equally to the marriage, even if they do not contribute equally financially.

If one partner decides to forego pursuing their own career in favour of keeping house/preparing meals every day, raising children, while the other partner pursues a career to support them both financially. Presumably, both partners have agreed that this is an equitable division of labour for the duration of the marriage. Upon divorce, however, the partner who was the house-wife/house-husband would be left with nothing, despite having been an "equal" contributor.

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.

 

[NeoDevin]

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.

And the spouse who is without a career or an income because they stayed home?

As an example: My wife currently runs a business, while I'm a student. Our plan is that once I am finished school, and have a good job, she will close the business to be a house-wife/stay home mom. This is what she wants to do, while I would prefer to work than worry about housework. If, hypothetically, we were to get divorced in 15 years, why should she suffer with little-to-no income, when, had she been working at a career/business the whole time, she would have a not-insignificant income. Meanwhile, I will have had 15 years to focus on my career, without having to spend any of my time on housekeeping, etc. How do you take into consideration the many years she will have spent unemployed, not learning new employable skills?

In the absence of a prior agreement, both partners are assumed to be equal contributors to the marriage, and thus they both deserve to leave the marriage on equal footing.

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.

 

[DanP]

And the spouse who is without a career or an income because they stayed home?

As an example: My wife currently runs a business, while I'm a student. Our plan is that once I am finished school, and have a good job, she will close the business to be a house-wife/stay home mom. This is what she wants to do, while I would prefer to work than worry about housework. If, hypothetically, we were to get divorced in 15 years, why should she suffer with little-to-no income, when, had she been working at a career/business the whole time, she would have a not-insignificant income. Meanwhile, I will have had 15 years to focus on my career, without having to spend any of my time on housekeeping, etc. How do you take into consideration the many years she will have spent unemployed, not learning new employable skills?

In the absence of a prior agreement, both partners are assumed to be equal contributors to the marriage, and thus they both deserve to leave the marriage on equal footing.

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.

As I said, any lawyer worth his salt can quantify income, contribution lost to retirement founds and so on. It is done many times in pre-nuptials. Whats fair it's fair, and that's it.
Division of the so called common goods should be subject to this as well. Subsequent support should be a big 0.

Furthermore, no alimony whatsoever should be awarded in the case when both spouses worked. The standard of living during marriage was an advantage of the marriage itself. Upon termination, is it unfair to ask a part to maintain the living style of an ex-spouse who , despite that it works, can only afford to live to lower standards.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No fault divorce technically only means that either spouse may seek a divorce without showing fault by their partner. Pre-No-Fault in order to get a divorce you had to prove that your partner had broken the marriage contract otherwise you couldn't get a divorce.

The trade off here is that by making it "no fault" then neither party is at blame and neither party can be penalized.

 

[DanP]

No fault divorce technically only means that either spouse may seek a divorce without showing fault by their partner. Pre-No-Fault in order to get a divorce you had to prove that your partner had broken the marriage contract otherwise you couldn't get a divorce.

Which is fair, ppl shouldn't be forced to stay in a marriage.

The trade off here is that by making it "no fault" then neither party is at blame and neither party can be penalized.

Yeah. So dissolute the union, and let them go forward with their lives. Quantify the potential obligations, and that's it.

No ulterior support. No-one to blame, no one to have any further obligations. (Save for cases for children are present).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah. So dissolute the union, and let them go forward with their lives. Quantify the potential obligations, and that's it.

No ulterior support. No-one to blame, no one to have any further obligations. (Save for cases for children are present).

Alimony is typically considered part of the obligations. I do think that the amount is dependent upon certain factors such as how much each person makes at their job or what have you though this probably varies from place to place. I would agree though that if a person does not need alimony then they should not get any.

The big issue is that, short a prenup contract, any property gained during the marriage is automatically communal property. So any thing you gained such as savings, investments, a car, a house, ect are all the property of both persons and the court needs to decide how to deal with that.

Divorces are just messy.

 

[Char. Limit]

Maybe if people made sure that the person they were marrying was the person they wanted to spend their life with, divorce would be unneccesary.

I think that there should be some sort of examination or counseling BEFORE marriage, to prevent accidents during it.

Ah, the cool, heated eye of an outsider.

 

[DanP]

The big issue is that, short a prenup contract, any property gained during the marriage is automatically communal property. So any thing you gained such as savings, investments, a car, a house, ect are all the property of both persons and the court needs to decide how to deal with that.

Divorces are just messy.

Yes. And it is unfair. Ideas that married couples are "one" and that marriage is somehow a mystical union where maybe fit in 1400, but they are becoming obsolete in today's society. The basis for considering anything produced during the marriage as common property doesn't exist in reality. Its enforced, and probably can be traced to times when religion ruled the world.

Divorce laws should be changed to reflect the reality of today. Wealth is not easy to come by.

After those laws, if a prenup doesn't exist, Bullock gets what ? She gets to be cheated, and the state , by the virtue of it's laws, further punish the victim by stripping her of millions of dollars from her income during the 5 years of marriage. Really ?

Maybe if people made sure that the person they were marrying was the person they wanted to spend their life with, divorce would be unneccesary.

Yeah. If only life would be perfect, there would be no disease, no poor ppl , no pain and cows would fly.
Time for a reality check. It doesn't happen

As for counseling, gimme a break. Who cares. You shouldn't impose anything on humans. Easy marriage and easy divorce with no fuss, this is the future.

ADD:

Pre marriage consulting is offered by many couple therapists. It is an option for the couples who want to spend a serious chunk of their money on a preventive counseling. However, its not mandatory, and it shouldn't ever be made mandatory by laws.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Maybe if people made sure that the person they were marrying was the person they wanted to spend their life with, divorce would be unneccesary.

I think that there should be some sort of examination or counseling BEFORE marriage, to prevent accidents during it.

Ah, the cool, heated eye of an outsider.

I used to think along similar lines too. But that was back when I figured that I would never want to get married anyway. Now that I have more experience with red tape and have actually considered marriage, to a woman who dumped me no less, I really don't think that I would want anyone telling me what inane hoops I have to jump through to marry.

Yes. And it is unfair. Ideas that married couples are "one" and that marriage is somehow a mystical union where maybe fit in 1400, but they are becoming obsolete in today's society. The basis for considering anything produced during the marriage as common property doesn't exist in reality. Its enforced, and probably can be traced to times when religion ruled the world.

Divorce laws should be changed to reflect the reality of today. Wealth is not easy to come by.

After those laws, if a prenup doesn't exist, Bullock gets what ? She gets to be cheated, and the state , by the virtue of it's laws, further punish the victim by stripping her of millions of dollars from her income during the 5 years of marriage. Really ?

It is common to different types of contract. You don't even have to get married for this to happen, just sign a contract with the wrong person. If you do not want to risk your property being taken by a person you should not have trusted then you shouldn't have entered into the contract.

As opposed to the type of counseling that Char suggests maybe all soon to be married individuals ought to receive some legal counseling. ;-)

 

[DanP]

It is common to different types of contract. You don't even have to get married for this to happen, just sign a contract with the wrong person. If you do not want to risk your property being taken by a person you should not have trusted then you shouldn't have entered into the contract.

However, there are striking differences in those situations. The legal system has ample provisions in contracts of civil (family laws excluded) and commercial law. Some breaches of trust in those systems may be even of criminal nature.

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".

What I am saying that divorce laws should adapt to the social reality, and have a through revision of what can constitute common property, minimize it's extent, and minimize any support obligations towards an ex-spouse. Save for the cases where children are involved, those should be 0. I simply don't care if the quality of life of an ex-spouse diminishes after marriage. So what ? Stay married if you want the standard of life. If you choose to leave, Ok, all good, but accept the potential changes in your life standard. Adapt. Your ex-spouse is not there to cuddle you from a financial point of view and feed you, while you spread with another man/ women in bed. The only obligations whatsoever should be linked to child support.

The whole argument "if you trusted the wrong person, you deserve what's coming to you" is fundamentally flawed. It's a big problem in our mentality today. In extrema cases, this psychology is at work when we assign blame to the victim in criminal cases. On the lines "she is such a teaser, she wears such short skirts, so yeah, she holds a significant part of blame for the fact she was raped".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

However, there are striking differences in those situations. The legal system has ample provisions in contracts of civil (family laws excluded) and commercial law. Some breaches of trust in those systems may be even of criminal nature.

Criminal conduct is not necessary. A partner in a contract may simply not do what you expected of them and reap more benefits than you would like based on their action or lack thereof. Without clearly defined conditions (such as a prenup in the case of marriage) you can not legally expect a person to act as you would prefer. Of course social conditioning makes most of us see prenuptial agreements as bad.

The whole argument "if you trusted the wrong person, you deserve what's coming to you" is fundamentally flawed. It's a big problem in our mentality today. In extrema cases, this psychology is at work when we assign blame to the victim in criminal cases. On the lines "she is such a teaser, she wears such short skirts, so yeah, she holds a significant part of blame for the fact she was raped".

If you enter into a legal contract with someone and simply trust them to do as you expect then that is on you. A person does not need to have done anything illegal or ethically reprehensible to have basis for divorce. 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?

 

[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.