Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?

Pajama Media ^ | December 19, 2007 | Helen Smith

[Rb ver. 2.0]

Sexual gender has nothing to do with bad parenting.

[nickcarraway]

Which is stupid, and why we should do away with no-fault divorce. If a man has been married to a woman for a length of time, of course he should have to pay alimony, but if either party commits adultery or something comparable, they shouldn’t be rewarded for it.

[Ouderkirk]

I read somewhere ( can’t name tha article as it has been many years) but a man had a rental property that he allowed his mother-in-law to inhabit rent free for many years. He an the wife divorced and he wanted to have the mother-in-law and the ex-wide evicted from his property and they used the squatter’s rights to beat him out of his property.

[kjhm]

Are you familiar with the article from Stephen Baskervill "From Welfare State to Police State"? It can be found at www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_03_03_baskerville.pdf below is just one of the things he says: Perhaps the most striking aspect of this mobilization is that the initiative came entirely from government officials. No public outcry ever preceded these measures, nor did any public perception of such a problem even exist until officials began to say that it does. The public never demanded that government take action, nor was any public discussion of this alleged problem ever conducted in the national or local media. No government or academic study ever documented a nonpayment problem. A media blitz about alleged nonpayment did appear during the 1990s—including “a million stories at the networks on deadbeat dads” (Goldberg 2001, 136)—but it began after, not before, the government campaign, which few journalists questioned. Government officials and government-supported interest groups have taken the initiative at every point. Although child support was presented as a noncontroversial alternative to taxation for raising public revenue, no public discussion has ever been held of such basic questions as what precisely child support is for, who can be forced to pay it, under what circumstances an order can be entered against a citizen, how much a citizen can be required to pay, who decides how much must be paid, who can receive the money, what the money can be used for, what accountability should be required of recipients, or what methods are legal and proper to collect it. Perhaps the most fundamental disconnect between public perceptions and present reality is that whereas child support is invariably presented as a method for requiring men to take responsibility for offspring they have sired and then abandoned, it now functions primarily as a means by which “a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children” (Abraham 1999, 151). Needless to say, the voices of pursued parents themselves were seldom heard amid the chorus of condemnation. Yet cracks have begun to appear in the monolith in recent years. Economist William Comanor writes, “Child support obligations,” the FROM WELFARE STATE TO POLICE STATE ✦ 405 VOLUME XII, NUMBER 3, WINTER 2008 only form of “obligation” or “debt” that most of the debtors have done nothing to incur, “are now treated far more harshly than any other form of debt” (2004, 3). Attorney Ronald Henry more harshly characterizes government claims of widespread nonpayment as “an obvious sham,” a “disaster,” and “the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States” (2004, 135). “The overwhelming majority

[najida]

Ahhh,
Wow!

Just amazing. /sarc

[heartwood]

Indeed. One reason so many people in prison are the children of single mothers is because their fathers didn’t stick around. Sure the mothers did a bad job but the fathers didn’t do the job at all.

[najida]

Like othes have pointed out,
the happy one doesn’t want to leave the marriage usually——

So the one who’s being mistreated (either gender) should be punished?

[SwankyC]

ESPECIALLY in common property states where he/she is entitled to half the assets.

[najida]

See the
enter
key.

Hit it a few times.

It’s fun!

[picard]

‘Shacking up’ is no safe haven. The Libs got that covered too.

You should check in your State how many years of ‘shacking up’ constitutes ‘marriage’. I am very serious here.

If she can declare a ‘common law’ marriage, she gets half your stuff.

There is no safe way anymore, thanks to our wonderful courts, to cohabitate with anyone without liability.

Hell, even a stranger roommate could wind up suing you for mental or emotional abuse.

No, all of society is under the constant and watchful eyes of the court. And any perceived or alleged agreivence must be made right by them.

Like a wrinkle in a shirt, they will iron out the inequities of society, ham-handedly, using weight and heat and force.

[najida]

I don’t think we should totally do away with no-fault-— I’ve seen couples divorce because they didn’t want to be around each other anymore (no kids in one case, grown in another). There should be that option for “ya know, lets just call it a day.”

However, there also needs to be the “They violated the contract” law in divorce that can go against either spouse-— infidelity, abuse, substance abuse, insanity etc.

[ken5050]

A few points...

FYI..in most no-fault divorces states, the term of art now is "maintenance"..and NOT alimony...Maintenance is payment for a set number of years..usually 5..to allow the spouse..in most cases the wife..to transition to her new life. Also, maintenance is NOT tax deductible to the payor, whereas alimony is, ( and also thus taxable as income to the recipient ) In reality, in many states with a high tax rate...where the spouse hadn't worked, and the top combined tax rate was around 50%+..the governemtn in effect subsidized half of the alimony payments.... Most studies of divorce, where there are young children who remain with the mother, have shown that the male (wage-earner's) lifestyle INCREASES after the divorce, whereas the wife and kids decrease greatly...

[nickcarraway]

Yes, if it’s going to bother being a contract, it should be enforced.

[grjr21]

 

You are okay with men  women marrying women men, using them financially, then making it impossible for them to safely or sanely stay married and stripping them of everything they worked for?

 

Fixed it for you 

[Bon mots]

I think his comments may have been tongue-in-cheek, but he (or she) will have to clarify it for us.

Partly, of course.

On the other hand, the courts' habit of almost always giving custody of children to mothers is wrong.

Some women raise fine children without a man around. Many more do not.

I know of men who are stuck paying alimony, and have had their home destroyed and ripped apart by a cheating spouse - who got custody of the children.

In the workplace, men are scolded (or reprimanded, fired, sued...) for not treating women as equals - even though they are not. Look at policewomen... they clearly are not up to the job. The same goes for firewomen. A true waste of manpower.

Yet, put one of these same women in divorce court and watch who will cry to get the kids and child support.

So are we equal or not.

[najida]

If it’s gonna be all legal and everything, it should be treated as such.

[najida]

I heard the same thing.

[Bon mots]

Like a wrinkle in a shirt, they will iron out the inequities of society, ham-handedly, using weight and heat and force.

That's good! Did you just make that up?

[Ouderkirk]

Nothing is universal. However there is a significant, pattern of this sort of thing:

Bob was an average Aussie bloke. He was proud of his wife and children, and generally happy with his life. Then, one day, Bob went to work and...

Unknown to Bob, Mary decided to end the marriage and sought help from the local women’s centre (typically feminist and funded by the government with taxpayers money). She received free advice about how to end her leave and end her marriage, in particular about financial matters, emotional counselling, court support, free legal advice, the availability of emergency housing for women, and what Social Security and Centrelink benefits were available.

After advice, Mary went to the local Magistrate’s Court and got an on-the-spot (ex parte) interim Intervention (Domestic Violence) Order. She had alleged that Bob had threatened her and the order was issued automatically. This Order prevented Bob from entering his own home, collecting his own personal property, and from talking to or being anywhere near Mary. Mary then went to the bank and removed all the funds from their joint account.

A policeman went to Bob’s work and served him with the Intervention Order. Bob thought the policeman must have made a mistake. How could he have been found guilty of being violent when he had never been violent in his life? He hadn’t been arrested, hadn’t been to court, and didn’t know anything about it. But the policeman explained that Bob couldn’t go home and couldn’t see or speak to his children or his wife, or he would go to jail. He had to go to court about it in a few days.

Bob hurried to the bank before closing time to withdraw some money for food and a place to stay, only to find there was no money in the account. What was going on? Had the world turned upside down? Bob needed help but where could he go? There is no Men’s Centre. No free legal advice. No counselling. No emotional support. No emergency housing. Bob couldn’t even get fresh clothes because he couldn’t go home.

A few days later Bob went to court thinking he could sort all this out. After all, he had never been violent, it just wasn’t in him. The magistrate would fix up the mistake. But when he arrived, he found he was facing the police prosecutor, not Mary. Bob, unaware of court protocols and judicial bias, was told by the magistrate to sit down and be quiet, whenever he stood up to say anything. The magistrate satisfied himself that Bob was guilty based solely on Mary’s allegations and on what the police prosecutor said, and granted the Intervention Order for a two year period. No evidence was presented or proven that Bob was violent and that Mary needed the order. When Bob left the court he was shocked and stunned, wondering what had happened to justice.

Weeks later, unable to afford a solicitor, Bob, still unaware of judicial bias, appeared alone before the Family Court. Figuring he had always been a good husband and father, always supported his family, and he and his children loved each other, Bob looked forward to being granted shared custody and a fair share of the property the family owned. What he found was that Mary was present with a $2,000 a day barrister, a solicitor, a legal assistant and emotional support from the Women’s Centre, all of which she got for free, via government-provided, taxpayer-funded legal aid. Bob was not eligible for legal aid and felt intimidated, vulnerable and alone. He now realized one purpose of the Domestic Violence Order was to prevent him from having any hope of shared custody or substantial contact with his children. What he got was supervised access for 2 hours per fortnight.

The next week, Bob excitedly attended the arranged supervised meeting, with the supervisor, to see his children for the first time in many months, but Mary didn’t show up with the children. Bob went back to the Family Court to seek justice, but the first available hearing was in 8 months time.

Then, one day when Bob collected his weekly pay he found $160 missing. The paymaster explained to him that the Child Support Agency had deducted his weekly child support and the first installment for back support of $1,400. After paying for rent, utilities, food and clothing Bob was sliding into poverty. He certainly could not afford to ever remarry.

Mary now receives the sole parent pension, child support, parenting payment, rent assistance, a concession card and other benefits, and she finds she has much more money coming into the house without a husband than she ever did with one.

Eventually, not having been able to see or talk to his children for nearly a year, Bob attends the Family Court alone. Still unaware of judicial bias, he believes the court will enforce justice and the access order to see his kids. The Court doesn’t, because the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson, has instructed Family Court judges not to jail or fine mothers even when they flout Court orders. There is nothing that can be done. If Mary won’t allow it, Bob cannot see his children again, and if he tries to, he will be jailed and have a criminal record.

In later dealings with the Family Court, Mary was given their house and most of what other assets remained, including a cut of Bob’s superannuation, which he had to pay then and there, with what little the court had given him, plus a bank loan.

As a result, Bob is absolutely devastated and shattered and in such a state of depression that he loses his job. He finds he has no children, no assets, a reduced motivation and capacity to earn and no income, and he sees no future. Bob also sees the grief in his children’s grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins, who have been cut off from the children they’ve grown to love.

[najida]

I’ve seen that scenario too....
And I was also Bob (’cept I stayed married).

So I’m more a “dont’ get married and bury your money in the back yard.’ kinda girl.