Replies

You are confused.

Alimony is an obligation to financially support another person.

Alimony can be for:
- Spousal support
- Child support
- or even parental (or grandparental support)

For example:

“Art. 229. Reciprocal alimentary duties of ascendants and descendants.

Children are bound to maintain their father and mother and other ascendants, who are in need,

and the relatives in the direct ascending line are likewise bound to maintain their needy descendants,

this obligation being reciprocal.

This reciprocal obligation is limited to life’s basic necessities of food, clothing, shelter, and health care, and arises only upon proof of inability to obtain these necessities by other means or from other sources.

Amended by Acts 1970, No. 436, §2; Acts 1972, No. 668, §1; Acts 1979, No. 249, §1.”

Actually, no. Child support is not alimony, and alimony is not child support. There are various kinds of each type of support, but the two categories are different; and the most obvious reason the courts make a distinction is that they are taxed differently.

The percentage of income cited on standard child support schedules varies from one state to another, as previously noted “a patchwork of standards.” Here are some of the various rates in several states for a person with a net income of $3,000 per month ($36,000 annually) for one child:

Washington State 561

Louisiana 548

Colorado 720

Alabama 587

Ohio 514

Rhode Island 540

New Jersey 447

Arkansas 521

N. Carolina 571

New York 510

As you can see, the rates vary greatly and the way they are applied not only varies from state to state, but also may vary based on negotiations between the two parties to the divorce, with additions or subtractions based on items such as who pays for health care coverage, who provides babysitting (nursery school fees vs. grandma volunteering) and a host of other issues such as braces, summer camp, college education or many other variables.

I’ve been trying to get across to you that one divorce case or even the standards of the law in one state does not apply to the entire nation’s court cases. While you may have a point that some courts make an assumption that the woman will be the primary custodian, not all courts nor all judges do this. And no state can bar any father or mother from suing for custody or for an alteration in custody orders as long as the child is a minor. Even O J Simpson got custody after his imprisonment for a civil finding (sued by the Goldman famlly after the criminal case failed) of having murdered the mother of his children.

There are no winners in divorce when children are part of the marriage. Everyone — man, woman, child and extended family, even the neighbors, church, schoolmates and community tax base — loses something vital. Claiming that women have ruined the system is like anti-war protestors blaming the soldiers for a war. The legislatures and bar associations bear most of the blame. Virtually no individual goes into court with his or her personal divorce tragedy in order to run a test case to establish revolutionary precedents in American law. Lawyers might try to use cases for that reason; their motivation is also not likely to be “for the children” as much as it is for their own bottom line, lawyer lifestyles, summer homes at the beach and their own divorce battles.

Obviously you have an axe to grind, and while I have been posting in general terms about the overall trends and the exceptions thereof, you have been railing in absolute, black&white polemics, leveling personal insults and trying to make your posts believable because you firmly believe them. It’s not working.