This is clearly a bill made by a man, since very few men get alimony. But this
needs to be made an equal opportunity law--I know many women who have suffered
years of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse because they are at a severe
economic disadvantage because they completely marginalized their careers to be
stay-at-home LDS moms. So how about alimony is TRIPLED in such cases, as well
as being denied in cases to an unfaithful spouse as the original bill states?
I can see child support but I never understood alimony, we you get divorced you
should not have to pay your ex spouse to not live you. She can go out and get a
job. Too many men have been left with nothing in a divorce and the ex is do
will and he has to work two or three jobs just to pay child support and alimony,
plus the ex get everything in the divorce. I had a uncle who own a business
before he got married and when the divorced she got the business Laws have
always been un fair to the man in a divorce. I have un Army friend who caught
his wife in bed with a anther man will the children were in the house and the
judge gave her everything they had, out rages amount in child support plus he
had to pay her an our rages amount in alimony and it was all he could do to put
food on his table so he could eat and have roof over his head. Law are unfair
to the man.
Madden - Actually I do get the point, I probably just didn't explain myself
well enough. I actually have a friend - male - whose wife cheated on him
multiple times. She had always taken advantage of his niceness... but
eventually thought there were greener fields elsewhere ( as usual ) and she
asked for a divorce. And with it, she asked for the home, and half his imcome
as well.... nice huh. I think the courts need to take this all
into account. Was my buddy a perfect husband - nope. But didn't violate
his vows either. And yet at the end of the day, it is a no-fault divorce, with
the house, and alimony for several years. In this case, I would not be in
favor of paying her one red cent. Both kids are college age, and I don't
see why any support my friend gives them ever needs to go through her pockets
what so ever. You see, I think there needs to be consequences
either way. If the breadwinner violates his contract -they own the spouse for
the breach of contract. If the non-breadwinner breaches the contract, they
should be get nothing.Its a contract.
1. This seems biased against women, since many more women than men are left
unprepared for careers when a marriage breaks up, so the subtext to this law is
that when women leave their husbands, the husbands shouldn't have to pay
alimony. Sounds like a few high-powered divorced men lobbied our lawmakers.2. Will this result in morality trials in divorce courts? Spouses hiring
detectives and bringing in evidence of wrongdoing by their definition? So if a
husband wants to get out of alimony, he shows some phone records of calls to men
and gets the judge to "convict" his wife and cancel any payments. I don't see any mention of increasing alimony as a penalty when the
payer is guilty, just lowering it when the receiver is guilty.
@UtahBlueDevil - I don't think you understand their argument. They are
saying that you didn't want to break the contract, the other person did,
yet you are forced to pay them. While two make a contract, it only takes one to
break it in divorce.They should follow up this article with in-depth
coverage of the purpose of alimony and child support. US law is very liberal in
rewarding damages, even so far as to make a man may child support for a child
after he finds out it wasn't his kid - his wife cheated on him before the
divorce. The law is built to favor supporting children at pretty many any cost,
fault and blame have little to do with it. Is that just? I admit, I'm torn,
but lean towards fault being a factor to be considered.
Put a cap on fees that attorneys can charge for divorce which would encourage
attorneys to resolve issues between the parities vs stirring the pot and
increasing acrimony.In the event of abuse, the innocent should not
be required to pay alimony to the abuser.
It's about time someone brought this type of legislation to the table. My
husbands ex-wife cheated on him for 16 years. While he was in the hospital
recovering from a brain anurisym she had another affair. When he came home to
recover she kicked him out, moved the boyfriend in, and filed for divorce. When
the boyfriend went back to his wife and kids and her (then) husband
wouldn't move back in she modified the divorce request to include alimony.
And she got it!! People who committ adultry should not receive
Alimony has its place. Known too many women sacrifice their careers by working
to put their husbands through college and graduate programs, have the children
and be rearing them when the husband cheats on the wife. How would it be fair to
make her go back to work at a lower rate, barely subsistence while he goes on
with his good salary that she helped him get? I'd trust the judges to
figure out that for a certain period of time he must pay her alimony provided
she's using it to get on her feet, get education and into a paid profession
or... married again... And to let one party who in some cases is the sole reason
for the divorce get away without recriminations -- no. That is not fair.As to the argument against this saying it will force people in their
infidelity to be more careful, that is the bogus argument used in enforcing
immigration, drugs and many other laws.
I wonder how the patrons at the oyster bar feel about this.
I have always disagreed with alimony for anyone but if there are children
involved they should still be taken care of by both parents. They had nothing
to do with mom or dad cheating and they are still parents
Take away or severely limit the amount and time that Alimony has to be paid and
you will see divorce rates drop at least in half.During my single
years, I dated dozens of divorced women. Many were receiving, or did receive
Alimony for a time. Most of these women sought the divorce for no reason other
than irreconcilable differences (aka, no-fault). Eliminate Alimony in no-fault
divorces then you will absolutely see a dramatic drop in divorces.
I love all these comments that alimony and such are pointless. Two adults
enter a contract - a legal contract - where certain conditions and promises are
made... pure and simple. Now we have a crowd that feels that if you do not live
by these agreements, well, there you go.... How would these
people feel if their banks lived by the same moral standards with their
mortgages - that one day they could just say "hey, we found someone we like
to lend to better than you - we are cancelling your mortgage... deal with
it." Or two companies decide to do a joint venture, and then mid way through
the project, one partner could just walk from the legal agreement without any
penalty. Why is a legal contract of marriage any different? You
made a contract. You breach the contract - you owe damages, just like any other
legal contract.Commitment and personal integrity seems to be a dying
ethic - what feels good in the moment and living without consequences rules the
Whoa, wait a minute here. Someone is proposing a law that makes people
accountable for their actions? That's just crazy tall!
Why not a bill to discourage divorce? I know that at times, divorce is
warranted. But I've seen divorces for no other reason than someone wants
to do something different and doesn't want to have the commitment. People
should keep their pants on and keep married. No alimony! Yes child support.
There should never be alimony period.Just child support.
This from the folks who claim we need smaller government and less intrusion into
the lives of Americans. What's next "Scarlet Letters"?
I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not, but one comment told me this
is needed - in response to the bill, the lawyer saying it wasn't necessary
argued that the bill would make people work harder to cover their tracks.
That's a good thing, isn't it? To make people work harder to skirt
Pointless law is right. Shared property is their only assets to divide. Alimony
is wrongfully being applied to divorces. Alimony should be removed from any
divorce, each can and should live by their own merits and not on the back of
others as dependents.Proving a case for unfaithful marital partners
should have no bearing on divorce settlement. Just as in premarital cohabitation
and bearing children has become acceptable lifestyles then this should nullify
any and all expectations of alimony by either party. The marriage was a life of
immorality to start with and a divorce is the wrong time to try and apply some
morality laws for a marriage.In a divorce, why is the non custodial
parent the only one required to pay child support? Shouldn't both parents
be required to supply "equal" financial child support funds? Fathers and
mothers share costs and the lowest income provider is the basis of child support
payments. If mothers income is less, the fathers share can not exceed the
taxable "earned" income of the mother and vice verse. Household or joint
incomes of new marriages or cohabitation of ex's shall not be a basis to
calculate/adj child support.
While I can see that having fewer laws and allowing judges more leeway in
determining alimony makes sense, the assumption is that the judge has a clue.
More laws takes away some of the judges' ability to interpret the
situation, but also protects against judicial bias. Certainly the laws need to
be updated from the time when alimony was intended for the wife to reflect our
current time when it could be the husband who has set aside his career, is the
primary caretaker of the children, and is deserving of alimony to help him get
back up to speed following a divorce. Some divorces are "caused" by a
spouse's infidelity, abuse or indifference, yet most have have contributing
factors of bad behavior or poor choices by both spouses. I do like the idea that
a financial remedy should exist for those whose spouse's infidelity or
abuse is clearly the cause of the divorce. My cynical side whispers to me that
sex and money are frequent partners, in or out of marriage, and it will always
be difficult to get a clear picture of cause or fault.
Why can't the court simply use common sense and grant alimony (or not)
based on the individual circumstances, instead of relying on a law telling them
not to reward the guilty??
It sure would have been great to include the abuse, neglect and cheating when I
got divorced. It feels like it was all glossed over with the no fault divorce.
It sounds good to make the cheating party pay. Not personal at all here. LOL
great another pointless message bill.
For example... a guy has a wife that cheats, tells him she wants a divorce when
he finds out, than gets half of the chaps income..... doesn't sound to
right to me. Some divorces are truly no fault, they married too early and just
didn't know each other for example. But many divorces actually have
someone who broke their contract... did damage to the other. The fact that
society has gone to the point that we don't hold these people responsible
for their actions... it is a sad direction we have headed.
Works for me. People who cheat on their spouses, destroy their marriages, and
inflict pain and suffering on their children should not be rewarded financially
for their selfishness.