quote:

---

Can a divorce from a cheating spouse be so debilitating that it renders a person unable to work, even years after the infidelity?

The Supreme Court of Canada is set to rule Wednesday in a spousal-support case that could reintroduce the concept of fault into the federal Divorce Act.

---

[URL edited out by moderator to reduce sidescroll.]

I've posted this under "feminism" because it seems almost a classic feminist case to me -- all about a woman who made the sacrifices to help her younger husband get ahead, then gets dumped for another women, then gets threatened with having her spousal support withdrawn.

I'm for Sherry -- although I can also see that legal twist around no-fault divorce.

(I found the headline charmingly ambivalent: Supreme Court to rule on whether cheating on your spouse is debilitating -- or whether the fact that your spouse is cheating is debilitating.)

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

I've posted this under "feminism" because it seems almost a classic feminist case to me -- all about a woman who made the sacrifices to help her younger husband get ahead, then gets dumped for another women, then gets threatened with having her spousal support withdrawn.

---

It seems that the general implication will be completely gender-neutral, as women are about as likely to committ adultery as men. Personally I'm very wary of divorce lawyers and I presume a ruling in favour of Shelley would be taken advantage of. Also, if adultery is debilitating, what else? Not enough emotional support? Not enough sex? Does the state have a place in the bedroom?

quote:

---

When the divorce was granted in 1999, she received $2,250 a month in support and half the family assets.

---

quote:

---

It seems that the general implication will be completely gender-neutral, as women are about as likely to committ adultery as men. Personally I'm very wary of divorce lawyers and I presume a ruling in favour of Shelley would be taken advantage of. Also, if adultery is debilitating, what else? Not enough emotional support? Not enough sex? Does the state have a place in the bedroom?

---

Exactly. Considering that infidelity is often a symptom of a marriage going bad rather than the root cause, I wonder how many things he could come up with that she did that supposedly "debilitated" him to the point where, gosh, he just has to give up his job and he can never work again - so sorry about all that spousal support.

What a crock. Relationships end. It sucks, and a broken heart hurts like hell - I know all about it. But it sure as hell doesn't strike me as "feminist" in the least to claim that a man has debilitated you forever and ever by leaving you so that you can never ever work again. Grow a freakin' spine already.

If this affects no fault divorce, that's going to be a terrible thing.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Relationships end. It sucks, and a broken heart hurts like hell - I know all about it. But it sure as hell doesn't strike me as "feminist" in the least to claim that a man has debilitated you forever and ever by leaving you so that you can never ever work again. Grow a freakin' spine already.

---

My goodness, Michelle. This seems unduly harsh. When I read the facts of the case, I thought immediately of Irene Murdock, the Alberta woman who worked side by side on the farm with her husband for 25 years and when he divorced her, she was entitled to absolutely nothing.

Sherry spent part of her marriage supporting her husband so he could upgrade his education and skills -- and she's 59 now. It's not easy to go out and get a job at 59, whether you're bitter or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
... women are about as likely to committ adultery as men...

---

Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to continue support, but it made references to all kinds of other factors in this woman's life, which had nothing to do with the adultery.

Parliament amended the Divorce Act in 1985. Prior to 1985 the Divorce Act directed the court to have "regard to the conduct of the parties and the condition, means and other circumstances of each of them" in exercising its discretion in making an award of spousal support. The 1985 Act sought to eliminate misconduct, as such, as a relevant consideration. The Divorce Act now provides that in making an order for spousal support, "the court shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage".

However, in Ontario the Family Law Act, which applies to common-law spouses as well as to separated but not divorced legal spouses, still has the compromise provision first enacted in 1978, repeated in the 1986 Family Law Act:

"The obligation to provide support for a spouse exists without regard to the conduct of either spouse, but the court may in determining the amount of support have regard to a course of conduct that is so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharon:
You seem quite annoyed about it...

---

quote:

---

I thought immediately of Irene Murdock, the Alberta woman who worked side by side on the farm with her husband for 25 years and when he divorced her, she was entitled to absolutely nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Yabut this case isn't like that. This woman got half the family assets and support payments of over 2 grand a month.

---

Unfortunately, the ruling does bring at fault divorce in through the back door. I listened to family lawyers say on CBC radio how judges are already imune to parties that "hype" suffering etc.

And, by the tone of voice, they actually said that with a straight face.

The beside the point details of the case shows what I have been seeing at work with people getting divorced. A financial race to the bottom, where each party tries to make themselves appear as poor and helpless as possible. Niether party in this case are people I would want to use as a poster person for victims of family law.

I think they deserve each other. Maybe justice was done after all?

But you wait. In separations and divorces to come, the first person a husband or wife will call will now be a psychologist instead of a lawyer.

The ruling also incentivizes wallowing and malingering.

Bad decision.

(Sorry about the parallel thread, Michelle. I should have thought to look in here, although I believe this is not a gender issue in that the new ruling is equally applicable to same gender marriages and unions).

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

It stands to reason that the family assets increased in value after he was able to realize substantially higher financial compensation from work, thus allowing the family assets to acrue (both in value, quantity and substance).

My ex tried this tactic, claiming she "sacrificed" while I went to trade school and bettered my ability to earn a decent income.

What she FAILED to point out, but I did, was that I got a TRAINING ALLOWANCE from U.I. (as it was called back then) that paid me a wage AND PAID FOR DAYCARE (she worked at the time and realized a cost advantage from no longer having to contribute to daycare costs, as I paid the WHOLE SHOT of OVER $400.00/wk while in school).

The judge didn't buy her argument, on many levels, not the least of which being I paid her bills WHILE SHE WENT TO UNIVERSITY part time AFTER I graduated from trade school.

At the time, I had a grade 10 education. She has a grade 13 AND two years of university.

Her qualifications were FAR better than mine with respect to potential earnings visa vis education and job qualifications.

In the end, the judge DIDN'T buy her argument and NO spousal support was awarded (in my case it would have been "palimony"), although (rightly) child support was assessed.

Psychological trauma. Hmmmm.

What about the psychological trauma men suffer when women change themselves through the course of the relationship into something not even remotely resembling who the man fell in love with initially?

Is there any trauma compensation for the man now, if a woman doesn't stay EXACTLY the same as when they married?

Why did the man "fall in love" with another woman. Who was to blame for allowing the circumstances to develop allowing this radical change? The wife or the ex husband or both?

Was she this unstable DURING the relationship or when they first met, or was this instability something that manifested itself over the course of their 20 year relationship?

I am curious as to the "stories" the man could tell about the ex wife and what precipitated his "change of mind".

they were absolutely blindsided when these husbands [with whom they thought they had wonderful relationships] got antsy in their middle age and found younger, more exiting women.

it's a horrible cartoon of a story and i've seen it far too often.

i'm glad that most younger women don't open their hearts so completely and trust so much.

in every case these devastated women were virtual zombies and didn't even think to fight with their men for anything-they just didn't have the heart for it. so while their mates bounced off to a new sex life and few responsibilities these innocent, trusting women aged overnight and ended up living in newfound poverty.
they've all gamely plugged on and they don't complain but even an educated middle aged woman is not a desirable commodity in our society.

do i think that the law should include fault? no
it's too open to abuse.

oh yes, i know --some men get their hearts broken too-- funny i never see them end up living like these beautiful, abandoned women-- alone, unwanted and poor.

perhaps my generation is the last that will experience this situation---the younger women that i know are much more sceptical and will hopefully protect themselves better in middle age.
they won't perhaps be so invisible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by morningstar:
. . . oh yes, i know --some men get their hearts broken too-- funny i never see them end up living like these beautiful, abandoned women-- alone, unwanted and poor. . . .

---

I've known lots of older women who bounce back from divorces just as well as lots of older men do - although I do agree that women tend to be poorer after divorce than men are. I saw it all the time when my parents divorced, and my father got involved in single parents' organizations filled with women who were perhaps going through messy divorces but still getting on with their lives. You know, it's not a requirement that when your man leaves you in your 40's that you just shrivel up and die of a broken heart, unable to do anything for yourself ever, ever again because he just hurt you so badly and you're just too weak and helpless to do anything about it. Good grief.

We're not talking about a case here where a woman was left with nothing. She got a fair division of the assets upon the divorce, and her husband was paying her more in spousal support each month for almost a decade than most working class women earn in take-home pay. (By the way, is spousal support like child support, where you don't have to pay any taxes on the income? I'm not sure.) She couldn't have done something during her 40's (which is how old she was when her husband left her, I think) to get some independence? She had a job for years in a bank, and yet she's this poor, helpless little thing who just couldn't be expected to, you know, actually try to support herself after her marriage ended? Come on.

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Most men I know (10 in the past 20 years or so) have also gotten the "wrong end of the stick" from a system predisposed to awarding custody to mothers, NO MATTER WHAT.

These men were "done over" TWICE, first by their ex's cheating and leaving them, next by the courts who award custody/spousal and child support to the WOMAN (in all cases with respect to the men I know).

Most of these men even lost access to their kids, based on falsified "threats" their ex's invented.

Talk about "having your cake and eating it too". Women "win" if they cheat and women "win" if their hubbies cheat?

perhaps my perspective is more rural.

i certainly can't pretend to have a clinically objective point of view---not after what i've been witness to between women and men.

everthing looks very lopsided to me still, in favour of men, and i feel that many younger women and men are running like rabbits to deny this.

I'm not going to say that family court is wonderful, but to claim that women are making off like bandits and that men are victims of rampant reverse sexism is not only anti-feminist (in the feminism forum - remember where you are, please), but just not correct. A hell of a lot of women are left pretty poor after divorce, and considering that women still statistically tend to do most of the child-rearing and domestic work, even in households where both spouses work, it's not surprising that women tend to get custody of the children more than men.

Just because this case sucks doesn't give you a license to go off on anti-feminist rants in the feminism forum, cdnviking.

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

That is why there are so many jokes based on the fairness of divorce laws with respect to men and women and women doing "poorly".

Q. Was your wife a good housekeeper?
A. She sure was. We got divorced and she KEPT THE HOUSE.

There are HUNDREDS of jokes like this, all centred on the actual reality of divorce in Canada and elsewhere in the G-8.

If women did so poorly, one would expect a plethora of jokes centred on the male being the successful participant in divorce, NOT women.

Humour, generally, reflects societal norms and observations of how society works.

quote:

---

. . . by women are much less wealthy than those headed by men. . . .

---

For those interested

Here are some stats on this for Hamilton County, Ontario (22% female poverty versus 18% male):

http://www.sprc.hamilton.on.ca/Reports/pdf/SPRCWomen&PovertyReport.pdf

Here are some for US cities (approx 5 females in poverty for every 4 males in poverty if I am reading the fancy schmancy stats correctly):

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_2_32/ai_n14711313/pg_17

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Whoa there, cdnviking. I wouldn't go that far. I've known lots of women who got "screwed over" too. This court decision can be just as detrimental to a woman as to a man if the positions were reversed, and I know enough women who have supported men, especially in my age group, to know that this could especially be the case as my generation gets older.

I'm not going to say that family court is wonderful, but to claim that women are making off like bandits and that men are victims of rampant reverse sexism is not only anti-feminist (in the feminism forum - remember where you are, please), but just not correct. A hell of a lot of women are left pretty poor after divorce, and considering that women still statistically tend to do most of the child-rearing and domestic work, even in households where both spouses work, it's not surprising that women tend to get custody of the children more than men.

Just because this case sucks doesn't give you a license to go off on anti-feminist rants in the feminism forum, cdnviking.

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

I am not anti-feminist at all. I have been involved (discreetly and when allowed) in feminist issues like equal pay issues in construction, the pro-choice movement, etc. Still am. I supported the 1985 Divorce Act revisions and the Family Law Act reforms as well.

My comments are NOT anti-feminist. I am only making observations based on my own case and many I have researched and witnessed over 15 years or so.

On the other hand, I have felt the discrimination of judges personally (a judge denied me a restraining order, even though I could prove "stalking" at my place of work) and harrassment at work and during my leisure hours. The judge actually said words to the effect that I was a "big strong man", I didn't need a restraining order.

I was the custodial parent for a while.

It took me FOUR YEARS to get custody of my children, even after my ex's boyfriend (a convicted pedophile it turned out, imagine that! She KNEW ABOUT IT TOO AND LET HIM NEAR THE KIDS) was CHARGED WITH MOLESTING MY ELDEST DAUGHTER.

He wasn't convicted, primarily (according to the Crown Attorney) because the mother TOOK HER BOYFRIEND'S SIDE and CRUXIFIED our eldest (both in her testimony and actions during my daughter's time on the stand, intimidation tactics to be precise). The judge (the pedophile elected a trial by judge only) "bought into" the mother's version of events, primarily because "a mother knows her daughter best".

It DIDN'T MATTER that the child, by the time trial came around, had lived with ME day to day for ALMOST A YEAR and I had the MOST RECENT EXPERIENCE with her manner, behaviours and disposition.

It took TWO years to convince a judge, even with C.A.S. involvement, to "rescue" my youngest who was STILL LIVING WITH THE MOTHER AND THE CONVICTED PEDOPHILE (in CONTEMPT of a court order I might add).

The various judges allowed MILES of latitude for my ex to 'act in the best interests of her children", which she FAILED consistantly to do. She LET the boyfriend STAY at the residence, in violation of a court order. Did she get sanctioned or jailed? NO.

If I had done something comparable to that, something simple like CEASING SUPPORT PAYMENTS, I would be jailed for 180 DAYS AUTOMATICALLY.

I observed a marked reluctance from agents of the F.R.O. when it came to enforcing MY court order, as a custodial parent.

Even the Ombudsman's Office and the Human Right's Tribunal have indicated to me that the system is "sexist", but proof is sadly hard to come by. My MPP has even agreed with this opinion of mine, formed through HARD PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with the system

In MY personal experience, a custodial male has ONE heck of a job getting the system to respond to a man's concerns over enforcement of court orders or anything else related to Family Law.

Men are labelled with "deadbeat dad" instantly and shaking this label in court is NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE, even if you pay ontime RELIGIOUSLY.

The F.R.O. exercises it's "discretion" quite liberaly when it comes to support recipients, but NOT AT ALL (again, case law studies of the F.R.O.'s performance when it comes to payers) in the case of payers. I know this from personal experience. My order even directed the F.R.O. to CEASE collecting support if the child stopped attending school fulltime.

The F.R.O. DEMANDED I go back to court AND REFUSED to enforce that provision of MY order.

During my experience getting my kids away from a pedophile, my ex tried "every trick in the book" to paint me being as big a monster as her boyfriend ACTUALLY WAS. She falsely accused me of some very NASTY stuff related to my daughters and I had to voluntarily ALLOW C.A.S. into my everyday life in order to PROVE the falsehood of the allegations. This went on for nearly FOUR YEARS.

I KNOW how bitter ex's can be, and I DIDN'T EVEN CHEAT. SHE DID.

Maybe I should utilize this ruling, to get compensation for all the years I had to protect the kids FROM HER RECKLESSNESS.

I don't agree that ANYONE should be treated this way, MALE OR FEMALE.

Perhaps I am not the "norm", but I have experienced some very disturbing attitudes from the judicial system (in my own case alone) that lead me to view these attitudes as clearly SEXIST from judges, F.R.O., etc.

It has taken me YEARS to recover from the trauma of all of this (I can't imagine what my eldest has been through, having been all but abandoned by her mother).

For YEARS, during all of this, I was uncomfortable HUGGING MY OWN DAUGHTERS, for fear of being charged with a "sex crime" by my ex.

It affected my ability to interact with women, and trust them as well.

Thankfully, this epic (for me at least) has a bit of a happy ending. I have found the most wonderful woman in the world (for me at least) and have been able to "move on".

I can even hug my kids, without feeling like some kind of sex criminal.

During all of this, I NEVER failed in my support for "feminist issues", like abortion and equal rights/pay equity.

Hopefully this clears up the anti-feminist perception my comments may have elicited.

I am sorry for the long post.

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: cdnviking ]