Comments about ‘Should courts put a price on the impacts of adultery, abuse in ordering alimony?’

Shouldn't a spouse who, after her husband pays for her college education, decides to move in with her college instructor, discarding her temple vows, bear some penalty for her actions? In today's environment courts think not!

I remember when Utah adopted "no-fault" divorce decades ago. Right or wrong, I'm sure many of the same arguments for and against were had then. What has changed? Let's first look up why it changed then and not re-invent the wheel or revert to failed practices. There is more involved than just proving that this office-holder is on higher moral ground than that one.

@John C. C.
But "fault" is and has been allowed in Utah law for alimony for many years. It is only the last few years that the courts have been all over the place on whether or not a judge can use what is in the law. Either define "fault" or remove the "fault" option. What is currently in place, based on court rulings, doesn't work.

Well, first, let's define what this means. It seems to me it would require a law degree to even decipher what this article says.

Something must be done.

I know a man whose wife was stepping out on him with a co-worker (both the husband and wife worked in the same department in the same company). The husband wanted to reconcile but the wife divorced him instead and shacked up with her boy friend.

She got the kids.
She got the house.
She got the good car.
She got half her husband's salary in child support.

In the end she had her salary, half her ex husband's salary and her boy friends salary. So her household had 2&1/2 salaries and her ex had to move into an apartment.

He did nothing wrong and she reaped a massive reward for her adultery.

And they call that justice.

I think that the interfering party that breaks up a mmarriage should have to pay a matching amount in child support. This would be a deterant for some one to "steal" a spouse