This wrong. Imagine a young woman marrying, trusting the husband is going to love, provide and protect her for life, and in that assurance, focuses on raising the family, caring for the home and advancing the interests of the family for years, sacrificing her own career in the process. After a time of career development, enhanced by his status as a married man, husband has a zipper problem, wants to spend “his” income elsewhere, on loose women, liquor, a snazzy car, so dumps devout and faithful wife and mother of his children, suddenly thinks kids can be raised on a few hundred bucks a month, yanks the security blanket of multiple people so he can go find himself.
Or worse, husband has been abusive for years, wife is attempting to raise the children in an intact home, sacrificing her career, husband decides to cut bait and “take care of himself” and believes the garbage fed him by his “therapist” that “the kids will be fine as long as he takes care of himself”.
So off he drives in his new BMW, with Trixie LaRue at his side, his wife and kids are left devastated without even the will to put one foot in front of the other due to his treachery.
Divorce law reform needs to take better care of the wife and kids, not worse. Women still can’t earn what men earn and after years out of the job market and a terrible economy, expecting the wife to “bounce back” or “get on her feet” is disgusting and evil. The husband couldn’t have had the career they had without the wife’s assistance and the law needs to acknowledge that contribution.
I need to check my link. I thought I was on Free Republic, not DU.
You must be joking. Divorce law is heavily weighted toward the wife and kids. This legal change is ispecifically about alimony, and DOES NOT affect child support, so let's consider it:
If the woman decides to leave - she gets alimony.
If the man decides to leave - he pays alimony. (In the general case)
What we REALLY need is marriages that last - but we explicitly DO NOT need court ordered money transfers in perpetuity from one party to the other - in either direction - for the dissolution of marriage.
Your post is hyperbolic and emotional. It depends on the reader not thinking in order for the reader to agree with your position. Such methods of argument are beneath us, as thinking conservatives.
Hmmm... I thought that's what community property laws were about - governing the accumulation of items DURING THE MARRIAGE, but not the future potential. After all, would you support a rule that says the woman, after being paid alimony for years, who wins a big lottery jackpot has to share that money with her ex husband?
Essentially, you are arguing that the man must forever hitch his ex wife's wagon to his locomotive, so that she enjoys all of the benefits but none of the risk of his future endeavors.
Hmmm... That would probably be even more detrimental to the foundation of marriage, if only because the perpetual obligations clause would make it prohibitively expensive for any young man in a potentially lucrative career track.
I’m puzzled, because alimony is rarely heard about today. Now it’s “child support.”