|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a man complains of unjust child support, or alimony, he is told to quit whining, and be responsible, but when a woman is affected by the same mistreatment, perhaps someone will listen. Screwed up society that we live in, eh, what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 21, @11:41PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. When people call crying for justice "whining," they're just showing that they're another brick in the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 21, @04:55PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee it would be nice to have a link or some more information lik how long does the rehabilitative alimony have to be paid, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it is unjust and sexist in nature who cares how long it lasts? Wrong is wrong, no matter the duration. If it were a woman that was being abused, would you question the duration, or why it was being allowed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The parameters do matter. Anyway, what is wrong with having all the information before forming an opinion on what is "just" or "sexist" or if anyonw is being "abused".
I'd like to know the following:
Was she a stay at home parent during the marriage?
Does she have any marketable skills or education?
How young are the children?
What were the assumptions when they married? For example was it accepted that she would be at home caring for the kids full time?
I've since learned from Lee that the duration is 5 years, but no other infomation. Five years seems long to me. It would seem that law needs to be changed to lessen the duration. However, the laws were in place with they married. I wonder how many men are aware of the alimony laws when they marry? An education campaign might be in order when they go for a marriage licensce.
If for example, there were no alimony in TN when they married, I suspect many people wouldn't agree to be stay at home parents foregoing education and job experience to take care of the kids. Education would be in order in non-alimony states as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the information that you desired. No, the ex-wife was not a stay at home mom, not until he told her he was filing for divorce, then she quit her job where she had a higher income than he. She had no problem telling him that she quit to ensure she would have the weapons to make his life miserable, that she would never be without. They were married 10 years when the divorce became final, and only the last 3 months of them sharing the same home was she a stay at home mom. Even then, she also had a home business, a beauty shop that he had built for her in their basement, and she continued to work at that. Skills and marketable education: she has an EMT, as well as EMT-IV license, a beautician license, and is a licensed security guard, and already had all these before they married. The children were 7 and 10 when the divorce began. Yes, five years is a long time, but my husband, at the time of their divorce, had no idea what the standards were, only that he was not coming out on top. He lost it all, his home that he not only helped pay for, but built with his own hands, she even got the tractor, which is just sick. Yes parameters make a difference in how property is settled, divided among the two, but does it really give a judge the right to allow a female to legally steal from a man, I don't believe it does. The alimony doesn't even stop when she now has a new husband. That's not right. Yes, men need to be better educated regarding alimony, but what they really need to be educated in are the realities that there are people called judges, that regardless of the laws pertaining to their particular state, can make decisions that can financially destroy the rest of their lives over mistaking one evil bitch for a good person. If I were a man, would I get married knowing that, if, the course chosen did not work out, I may be "buying the milk the rest of my life, even though the cow is long gone", no way, I don't think so. Alimony really isn't a way to protect these poor pathetic women, but a way to make others choose alternative living arrangements instead of marriage, alimony does not promote family life. Adam's article on alimony is awesome, and pretty much sums it all up, give it a read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, men need to be better educated regarding alimony, but what they really need to be educated in are the realities that there are people called judges, that regardless of the laws pertaining to their particular state, can make decisions that can financially destroy the rest of their lives over mistaking one evil bitch for a good person.
Actually few lawyers (and even fewer non-lawyers) are familiar with a term called "abuse of discretion," defined as "a judicial decision so based on whim or caprice, or against logic, that it amounts to a denial of justice." This is grounds for automatic appeal, however, most lawyers don't care a whit about justice once the cash-cow's been milked.
Another term lawyers don't like is "malicious prosecution," which is grounds for automatic countersuit; however lawyers avoid this like the plague since malicious prosecution and abuse of discretion are the meal-ticket for most of them.
One final piece of information which lawyers hide is called a "writ of mandamus" which prevents a judge from "sitting" on a case out of malice or apathy; lawyers avoid this because their ass is grass in that judge's court from that day forward if they ever issue it, but the litigant can issue it independently.
I don't know the actual laws in this case, but the notion that a "judge's ruling is final" simply isn't accurate beneath the level of the US Supreme court (however financial and other realities may make it so in our corrupt plutocratic legal system).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 23, @11:05AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Lee in Tennessee again; the rehabilitative alimony has been ordered to be paid for five years, in monthly payments of $400/month. This, along with $229/week in child support, is what my husband is responsible for, plus 1/2 of all medical, dental, eye, and prescription bills, and he is also ordered to carry both children on his insurance, costing $80/week, and can't even claim one of the children on his income taxes even though she doesn't work. Hope this helps in answering your questions. My e-mail address is wizzard@usit.net if you have any more. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure that your husband appreciates your efforts in his behalf, he should. Not all women have the guts to stick by their partner in situations like this. Not only should your husband be grateful, but the rest of us as well. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. Also how young are the children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So much for the "liberated and independent woman" who "doesn't need a man in her life."
Ooops. Until the bills come in the mail.
We forever hear the same tired old whining from the pheminuts about "sacrificing for a man's career" and then "being left out in the cold for a trophy wife." Balderdash. Poppycock.
Here's a clue. You're not being divorced for a statuesque blond with huge gazoombas. You're being divorced for being a nagging, shrewish, witch who doesn't appreciate your husband and takes everything as an entitlement.
It's amazing to me - if I were to marry some rich sugar-momma, live off her wealth, not work, putter about, let myself get fat and lazy, and just be a parasite in general; if I were to get a bad attitude and then she divorced me and I asked for "maintainence" I'd be laughed at. I'd be told to get a job, because the party is over. If I claimed to have no marketable skills, I'd be told that my lack of foresight didn't obligate her in the least.
And they'd be right.
So - how is it that it's different if you're sporting a pair of boobs? Hmmm? How? Of, because it's different for a woman? Well, if that isn't sexist as hell. How is it different? Women are discriminated against?
Heeeheehahahawhaw-*cough* - there's a good one. Only laws I know that address gender are the doctrine of tender years and the draft - both of which favor women. Oh, and also affirmative action for lesbian - er, female atheletes.
It's men's attitudes they will say, that foster "unofficial, non-institutional" sexism.
Umhm. Yeahsureyabetcha. Might think there's a reason for it? If you're going to be some parasitic leech off our money because you can't work - well, we'll consider you useless. Don't want to be drafted and told to go die - well, we'll consider you fragile things that need to be sheltered. Want that affirmative action? Well, it must be because you aren't capable of getting that job or whatever on your own merits.
Get off the tit, and take the equal responsibility and then you'll earn the equal respect, girls. Until then, p!ss off.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can courts and judges allow women to continually destroy men financially, even after they remarry, without some protection for the man?
That's how the courts, judges and bureaucrats justify their salaries - by establishing, maintaining and enforcing a cashflow between separated couples. Child support, alimony, whatever you call it, it's the reason they have jobs. They are out to protect their livelihoods, not the men who appear before them.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
