Looks like another way to discriminate against men to me.
Ah, the good old days of divorce. no taxes break, not able to eat because I had
to save up when the kids do come by for their appointment on the weekday and
weekends so you could feed them. The courts are biased and even if you get some
one who is fair AND can prove so called FAULT, there is someone to mess it up.
Most Dad's can't afford live as it divorced. Sandstrom if you want to be fair,
make each side have equal incomes so the kids aren't pawned.
Alimony is a ridiculous idea. What is this, the 1960s? Women are capable of
going out and getting a job these days. The idea that a man has to pay to
support an ex-wife is just completely outdated. Child support is a no-brainer,
obviously, but nobody should have to support a grown adult after a divorce.
re - My2Cents | 4:48 a.m"Make it illegal to get a divorce"wow. crazy. then NO ONE would get married. but good way to stop gay
marriage.the fact is, alimony is supposed to be paid for a little
while so the non-working spouse can get skills and get their own job. this is
especially true for a stay-at-home mom, which it seems a lot of Utah women
are.unfortunately, with Utah women having so many kids, it can take
years and years for the children to all grow up, leave home, and the at-home
spouse go out and get a career. in the meantime, the paying spouse pays a
fortune of alimony.we have a bigger problem in california. the
calculation of alimony is based on "standard of living" during
marriage, so even when there are no kids, if one spouse makes anything over what
the other spouse makes, the court awards alimony for half the duration of the
marriage.and fault plays no part in a no-fault divorce state. the
other spouse can cheat, lie, have affairs, etc and the court will still give her
alimony.guess I sound bitter, huh...
Studies have shown that even when parents fight, it is better for the children
when the parents stay together, therefore, Cedarites comments are invalid,
unless there is abuse to the children. Parents use that excuse for make
themselves feel better about their selfishness. Also, I know of one person who
was not at fault at all in the divorce. Very rare, I know. She is left with
three children. That man should pay alimony until she has the training to get a
good job, which she is doing her best to do. She stayed at home and raised her
children and he cheated on her with a married woman. When I found out, I
couldn't believe it. Last person on Earth I thought it could happen to. He has
totally blown it and deserves to pay the consequences.
In my divorce, I was the victim of a smear campaign by my ex. There were
absolute, unfounded lies spread about me, which were used to keep me from seeing
my children. I spent thousands of dollars defending myself. I want to know why
my ex gets to say these things without any recrimination from the courts, and I
am told to "just live with it." (exact quote, BTW)
The problem with this bill is that it adds nothing new. Utah code section
30-3-5(7)(b) specifically provides that a judge may consider fault in
determining alimony. But the courts try to avoid those considerations because
of the evidentiary challenges presented, and because often times there simply is
not enough money to go around.The goal of alimony is to preserve
both spouses at the same standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage, to
the extent that it is possible. Unfortunately, a judge can rarely cut a blanket
to cover both beds. Rep. Sandstrom said his bill was based upon one
constituent's bad experience. As much as I sympathize with that constituent,
and honor his representation of that constituent, its is a bad idea to make law
based on one case.
How about they both work?About the children? Maybe they should have
thought about them before they got a divorce.Make both divorcees
work. One shouldn't have to foot the bill for everything while one gets
handouts. If you want a divorce and bail out of your marriage? then
be fully aware of its costs. Work like the rest of us.
@Cedarite: Decent parents don't yell and scream at each other in front of their
children? That smacks of child abuse.After the divorce little
Johnny gets bounced around from on parent to the other so that they can lie to
themselves that they are providing the child with "quality time".
Rifleman, sometimes divorces happen because of intense constant fighting, in
which case, as a child, the end of the endless screaming and flying hate comes
as a relief.
@PODIt is in the best interest (welfare) of the child to be able to
come home to both of the parents he/she loves.Getting jerked around
from one home to the other so they can be shared is so unfair to a child.
Sooner or later both parents get new spouses or live-in lovers who couldn't care
less about little Johnny.My sympathies are with the children and not
with the parents who think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Dont' be deceived. Alimony is all about protecting the State from potential
welfare expense. It has NOTHING to do with the welfare of children or fairness
Rarely is one person 100% "at fault" in a divorce. At least not in
one of the many divorces I have seen family and friends go through.
I think Sandstorm is proposing a vengeance bill demeans parents custodial
rights. Its bad enough divorce courts are already so biased and prejudiced we
don't need more judicial interference of parental rights.The fault
clause is too ambiguous and phony it would be too easy to abuse such a clause.
Judges already have the latitude this law proposes, or at least the parties
involved do. We don't have to add another level of hate in a divorce. Maybe we
should make it harder to get a divorce, not encourage an easy out parental
system of family destruction. Make it illegal to get a divorce, mates for life.
Put some teeth in people decision to marry and why they marry.