babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Alimony: How much is too much?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Alimony: How much is too much?
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 09 January 2002 11:43 PM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Michael Jordan is getting a divorce. This guy is so loaded it's ridiculous. I don't know if his wife works or not. Assuming she doesn't, after the estate is divied up, I would expect MJ should pay alimony until she can re-enter the workforce. But does the present system allow for too much abuse?

I don't think the current system, which bases alimony on a pay-scale, should remain in place much longer. To me, it reinforces old-school thinking that women must rely on men. And what about huge payments made by wealthy ex-husbands in order to maintain their ex-wives "standard of living". The issues of male exploitation aside, this factor actually exploits women with real support needs, by using their predicament to justify massive support payments to women who don't need it, and certainly not in the quantity provided.


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 10 January 2002 01:22 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't get excited about Michael Jordan.

The question of alimony is a lot more complicated than just How much is too much?
Every marriage ia a different situation.
How long was it? What has been shared?

What were the respective non-visible contributions? For example: Has the financially dependent spouse performed services - advice, ideas, emotional support, child-care, elder-care - without which the other spouse could not have achieved such a level of success? Has s/he made sacrifices early in the marriagee that enabled the other partner to get a degree, make smart career moves, etc? Has s/he been instrumental in the couple's ability to save, conserve, invest?

Next, one must consider other factors. If the financially dependent spouse does not have a career, why not? Does s/he now need (re)training in order to become employable? Has s/he suffered physical or emotional damage during the marriage which makes employment more difficult? Is s/he expected to care for children? (Child-support is not enough; the custodial adult is putting in a lot of time, which interferes with finding and keeping a job.) And so on.

Lastly, outward circumstances. Has technology changed the employment outlook? Are jobs in the financially dependent partner's field still available - are any kinds of job as readily available as when that person opted for marriage? Is age a handicap? Has the person been able to maintain contact with colleagues?

It's not just the the dollar figure one should consider, but the ecology of the failed marriage.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 10 January 2002 01:23 AM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alimony (spousal support)is an outdated concept, that assumes that women are not perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. We are moving towards a world in which men will need to be careful that their potential spouses already have an education (and career) before they tie the knot -- otherwise, in the case of a divorce, they run the real danger of becoming a new breed of indentured worker.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Twilight-Cedar ]


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 10 January 2002 08:43 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Daddy, daddy tell me a story!

Ok but this is a scary one!

That's ok tell me anyway!

Well once upon a time men were treated like slaves.
*gasp*
Yes it's true. If you married someone who hadn't been through the current forced education for women process, and she didn't have a job during the time you were married to her you were forced to pay *whispered* alimony.

ALIMONY I thought that was a dirty word daddy?

Yes dear it is, but there was a time when men were like indentured servants and expected to take some responsibility towards the family even after a divorce.

But what did the uneducated *spits on floor* women do.

Oh the did the things we now employ the uneducated do to; like clean house, raise children, sort of everyones schedules, arrange doctors appointments, drive the children where they need to go, take care of teacher appointments, take care of the sick and elderly, cook, plan nutritious menus......

stop daddy stop wait a minute, we have about 5 uneducated employed to do all that work so you and mommy can go to meanful jobs that help the capitalist system run * see how well I'm doing in forced education daddy? * are you saying that one uneducated woman used to do that all by herself?

Yes dear that is true, but then in case of a divorce she had no or few jobs skills and couldn't become a self supporting unit with the children freeing the man up to create another family unit.

But daddy didnt the work she did help him to have his meanful job which supported the capitalist system?

Yes it did, still why should she expect any return on her investment after all it was unpaid work, and she was uneducated and therefore of little real importance.

Your right daddy that was a really scary story, could you send mommy...I mean our uneducated child care provider in now please? I think I need a hug.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 10 January 2002 12:32 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nice story Earthmother -- heheheheheh!!!

Twilight-Cedar, I don't think we can write off alimony as an outdated concept just yet. Education is only one aspect of the earning inequities that spouses may have. For instance, I may be better educated than my spouse, but have chosen to take off between 5 or 10 years to be at home with the children we share -- that makes a serious impact on a career path, which affects earning capacity, and is something that many women's careers never completely rebound from.

And you know, if that arrangement is what a couple decides is in the best interest of the marriage and the kids at the time, it shouldn't give the other spouse carte blanche to say "Too bad, so sad, you wanted to stay at home, so you live with the consequences, you pay the price." It's an arrangement between them both.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 10 January 2002 01:45 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Parents have an absolute responsbility to provide for their children, married or divorced -- no question. Parents should encourage all their children, male and female, to become educated so that they can become self-supporting in any circumstance (or change of circumstance). Spousal support should not become some sort of private enterprise welfare -- it should be a very temporary measure that enables females (or males) to become once again independent and strong, through education and training, if needed. Who wants to be forever dependent on an ex? Some of the spousal support arrangements I've heard about, read about, seem extraordinarily long, thus creating a sickly dependency.
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 10 January 2002 06:01 PM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But back to the point: should there be a cap on (p)alimony payments, regardless of how long the (wo)man stayed home? Those factors are, after all, taken into consideration during the divorce, and that's the reason the spouse (usually) deserves roughly 50% of divisible assets.

But with regards to (p)alimony, I feel there should probably be a set maximum that almost anyone could live comfortably off of for a temporary period of time. None of this "(S)he makes 20million/yr, give me 5" stuff. Personally, I think it is exploitative of both genders and certainly works against the feminist movement. (Just gives those exes another fact to bitch about).


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 10 January 2002 06:27 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why bother?
For somebody who already has too much, to give more than the other person who already has too much needs is merely a question of ego.

For the rest of us, it's merely laughable.

Why should the judiciary, which has to deal with the daily and hourly needs of regular people, go through a time and effort consuming change, just to make a few rich idiots look less ridiculous?


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 10 January 2002 08:11 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, Alimony is a situational thing. I'm not against it-- except if it's me who is paying.

The only time it shouldn't be considered is if it's a substitute for the recipients willingness to assume responsibilities.

I edited this, it was quite insane originally.

Right in the middle of this post, my ex called to tell me she gave up a job. She didn't get along with her boss.

I've had twenty years of putting up with, yes, mostly good bosses. And a few psychotic ones. And one right now who is driving me NUTS.

She doesn't get it. Never will.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 10 January 2002 08:40 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tommy_Paine: your situation certainly sounds unfair (do you have to restart alimony payments once your ex. quits a job? Amazing!). Isn't there some legal way you can stop this behavior? If someone has an indefinite safety net, they'll make use it and never become independent. Sorry to hear of your troubles.

And to Earthmother: enjoyed your satirical piece very much, and you do make a serious point about all the difficult work women do around a home. But there are men who a) work outside the home, and b) do their fair share inside the home. And occasionally, these men DO get the royal shaft re. spousal payments, after a split.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Twilight-Cedar ]


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 10 January 2002 09:03 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, my ex has made no claim on me for spousal support, although she uses that as a debating chip, so I guess she's looking for a quid pro quo on it.

But, you know I didn't cut her off my benefits at work, and they are substantial and important. I did change the beneficiary on my life insurance portion to my daughters, but I think that is appropriate.

I've not contested the fact that while the girls reside with me, my ex gets the "baby bonus"-- whatever it's called these days. (Family allowance?) And, I still contribute a modest amount to an RRSP for her.

Mostly, I'm wound up about the fact that I will have to make good on the things she is entitled too, the equity in the house, and my pension. Yet, entitlements that should be going my daughter's way, child support..... well, she doesn't earn enough to pay.

And, you know, I don't expect her to be able to jump right into the job market and get a $25.00 ph job. But at the same time, my observations from before, when she didn't complete a college degree we borrowed money for (and I paid off with overtime--lots and lots of overtime, no longer available to me) and the fact that I encouraged her to get into the job market when my youngest started school full time six years ago... well, I get the sense, that she takes the easy way out because I'm here, ultimately allowing her to be able to take that attitude.

Right or wrong, I feel used, and I'm turning into a bitter person I don't like, and others don't like either. At home. At work. On line.

I mean. I'm willing to shoulder the lion's share of the financial end of raising the girls and putting them through college. I want my ex to move on and be happy and independant in the full sense of the word. I'm willing to assist her with that in as much as it doesn't compromise our responsibilities to my girls as mentioned previous.

I don't think I can do that, if she insists on all the law entitles her to, and particularly if she doesn't understand that at this juncture, you do what it takes to get along with your boss, take the shit with a smile, and think of your kids.

Like I did.

For twenty years.

And counting.

-----

And, I suppose there is a legal way to stop her, but I wouldn't do that to a person. People have to be free to quit a job, change jobs. I'd not stand to have a court order put on me of that nature, and I certainly wouldn't do it to someone else.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 10 January 2002 09:18 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Your treatment of your ex sounds extremely thoughtful -- even kind. What bothers me, as a woman, is the sense of what I call "hostile entitlement" that some divorced women exhibit. They squeeze out what they can, monetarily, from the ex-partner, perhaps practise a little P.A.S. on the kids, get more than a little angry at the world, and wonder why they aren't happy. Putting a little energy into positive pursuits would go a long way to changing this picture.

I knew a man who suffered under such a regime, and I marvelled that he didn't lose his sense of humour. It sounds like you haven't either -- good for you.


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 10 January 2002 09:26 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have this week. I'm not myself, I have an appointment with my lawyer tomorrow. And night shift probably doesn't help much.

I have to get this done and over with.

My ex isn't a schemer, or Machievellian. She's a very nice lady, and she does do what she considers her best. I think she has a fear of failure thing, where she stops herself from completing things. She also has a kind of inability to forcast the consequences of her actions. Her sister says she's selfish to, and I agree, although not to the extent her sister holds the opinion.

None of it is inspired by meaness on her part.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 10 January 2002 10:01 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Parents should encourage all their children, male and female, to become educated so that they can become self-supporting in any circumstance (or change of circumstance).

To a large extent, I agree with you, Twilight Cedar.

But I also think that it would be a wonderful thing if it were that simple.

Here's the deal: Two professionals of the same educational level get married, and decide to have children. They decide that one should stay home until the kids are in school full time. That means 7 years out of the work force.

Later on, they decide that the marriage isn't working and separate. The spouse who has maintained their career has a level of earnings that is higher than the spouse who stayed home for a period of time, because the time spent at home tending the children interrupted the career track.

It is reasonable that, as the interruption in the spouses career was a mutual decision, that the other spouse help defray the long-term cost of that decision. It's equal. More than that -- it's fair.

Not that I don't feel we should stand on our own feet -- I once left a marriage with two suitcases and a questionable VW Beetle.... And at the time, I also thought that alimony was unnecessary. But I was in my 20s and wasn't supporting any children. Having kids changes the way you look at such things.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 11 January 2002 12:20 AM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should the judiciary, which has to deal with the daily and hourly needs of regular people, go through a time and effort consuming change, just to make a few rich idiots look less ridiculous?

Well nonesuch, I agree to a certain extent. I guess I don't really care too much because I'll never be that rich, nor will anyone I know. But it does seem irresponsible for someone to be legally ENTITLED to a large sum of money when they are neither deserving nor in need of it. And it seems irresponsible also to have an unjust law remain the same simply because it doesn't affect very many people.

Additionally, because women do tend to be the recipients of these endowments, I know for a fact that it creates a feeling of contempt and mistrust in many men with whom I've spoken (is she marrying me so she can divorce me?). I actually think it would work in favor of feminist rights to have a cap on this, because it would make it hard for people to make generalizations about "gold-diggers".


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 11 January 2002 12:39 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't that what prenuptial agreements are for? People who have stuff at the start of a marriage generally lay it out beforehand. You can even make a post-nup agreement if you feel it necessary.

And those who don't are fools.

So there is, actually, room within the legal system for rich people to manoeuver....


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 11 January 2002 01:05 AM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh absolutely. There is plenty of room within the legal system...but that involves a HUGE amount of bickering and stress that most ppl are willing to pay to avoid. Which is coercive.

Also, many ppl are hesitant to engage in prenupts because they feel it demonstrates mistrust. "You don't think we're forever, honey?"

But I agree it is stupid not to.


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 11 January 2002 09:37 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Additionally, because women do tend to be the recipients of these endowments, I know for a fact that it creates a feeling of contempt and mistrust in many men with whom I've spoken (is she marrying me so she can divorce me?). I actually think it would work in favor of feminist rights to have a cap on this, because it would make it hard for people to make generalizations about "gold-diggers

If most of the reciepents are women,wouldn't that by implication mean that most people with large sums of money are men?

Geez I wonder if that causes any feelings of negativity on the part of women?

Further, seeing that we are in a capitalist society and any way of making money as long as it is on your own initiative aren't gold-diggers just doing what the system says they should.

Lets face it, in order ot qualify they generally have to be below a certain age, above a certain cup size and be able to make her mate appear even more important than he is.

As compensation for this short lived career she is awarded major amounts of money upon dissolution of said arrangement. Rather like the terms under which pro athletes play.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 11 January 2002 11:58 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As compensation for this short lived career she is awarded major amounts of money upon dissolution of said arrangement. Rather like the terms under which pro athletes play.

That's good, very good!


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 11 January 2002 01:07 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Trouble is, this scenario (gold digging woman after NBA star, CEO etc.) represents only a tiny fraction of alimony/spousal support cases. More common is the case of a regular working guy, like the man up in Prince George who killed himself after being unable to keep up with exorbitant payments (I think his name was Daryl or Darren White -- happened about a couple of years ago).
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 11 January 2002 01:49 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I remeber that case, and you know, there are real problems with the idea that it was because of the support payments. For one thing, Maintenance Enforcement is not allowed to garnishee above a certain percentage of income, and if he was out of work, all he had to do was inform the court of the situation to have his payments changed, at least for the time being (I understood he was on temporary disability at the time).

There's way too much information that we don't have in order to blame it on alimony.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 January 2002 02:48 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should the judiciary, which has to deal with the daily and hourly needs of regular people, go through a time and effort consuming change, just to make a few rich idiots look less ridiculous?

Very good (and succinct) way to sum up the "issue" of huge alimony payments, nonesuch. And very well said, earthmother and Zoot Capri. (Relyc's rule rules!)


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 11 January 2002 03:13 PM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Trouble is, this scenario (gold digging woman after NBA star, CEO etc.) represents only a tiny fraction of alimony/spousal support cases

Thank you TC. That is exactly my point. These cases represent only a tiny fraction. But they often receive copious amounts of media coverage. Which is why I think there should be a cap. Make them less interesting. I think it would be of great benefit to the feminist movement.


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 11 January 2002 05:25 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. For a bizarre bit of reading, check out the Bev. Bailey case in Elm Street (about a year ago). Or more recently, the Eric Miglin case. These aren't NBA stars etc. And there is a "trickle-down" effect on the media, public opinion, and most importantly ... legal precedent.

Michelle Landsberg defended the Miglin decision in one of her columns.


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 11 January 2002 05:34 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Really for every case of poor guy look at what happened there are at least and likely more cases where women are getting the short end of stick.

It is a womans standard of living not a mans that severely declines after divorce. Must mean something.

Statistics have also shown that married men are happiest and live longest whereas single women are happiest and live longest.

Men will remarry more quickly than women will and are less likely to question what went wrong in the relationship.

So I hardly think that it can be shown that court judgements are creating any aversion ot marital relationships on the part of men.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 11 January 2002 06:57 PM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am very mistrustful of statistics...hmm...

But, EM, what about the cap? do you think a cap would serve the feminist movement (as I do)? If not, I remain objective in the reception of challenges to my opinions.

In fact, I enjoy it when my opinion is legitimately challenged by that of another. That is how all of us learn and better ourselves.


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 11 January 2002 07:36 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
LiMpy -- a cap (max limit) on alimony sounds like a very logical and fair idea. Getting divorced shouldn't be a bonanza -- after a finite settlement that allows one to live reasonably, all the the rest is gravy. Some people are getting a lot of gravy. Otherwise, people are riding on the coattails of someone else. Plus, it would make the judiciary's job easier.
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 13 January 2002 01:02 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wanted to get back to this because I found out something at my lawyer's Friday that I didn't know before in regards to spousal support.

But first,

quote:
Really for every case of poor guy look at what happened there are at least and likely more cases where women are getting the short end of stick.

Earthmom speaks the truth of my experience. I've seen more women screwed through the family court system than men, I hope we all keep that in mind.

I had previously thought that spousal support, in my case, (assuming no children) would amount to at most maybe a paycheck a month, and couldn't presist for more than five years or so.

This is not the case. Where previously I kind of snuffed at my wife's surrendering of spousal support claims as being hardly substantive, it is, according to my lawyer, "worth gold". He explained spousal support can continue for life, and that it could be a lot more than what I thought it was limited to. The worst is that I could get back on my feet financially, only to have this claim come at me ten years from now.

He also said there's cases like mine (very rare cases) where spousal support has been awarded to the spouse, even though the payer has the children and is not receiving child support.

I'm not against spousal support. I think it should be there, in law, to protect partners who need it. But, I don't think it should be something written in stone that any and every spouse is entitled to it.

So, it looks like spousal support will be traded off in return for me not getting child support.

Now, we have to figure out how I can make good on my pension, the equity in the house, and look after the financial needs of three girls up to and including helping them with post secondary education.

Of course, I'll have to spend $500.00 to valuate our pension.

Welcome to the family court Veldt, my friends. Meet the vultures, the hyenas and the dung beetles, where what is "fair" is what is defined as what you can rip off the carcass of your marriage and scurry off to the rocks to wolf down, where your kids come last at the feast of scavengers.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 January 2002 01:10 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The worst is that I could get back on my feet financially, only to have this claim come at me ten years from now.

Do you mean that ten years hence after having neither recieved nor asked for support your ex could change her mind and try and claim it?


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 13 January 2002 01:21 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't you remember Mad Mel's paternity suit?

There's no statute of limitations in family law, and an agreement isn't an agreement in this venue.

Certainly, if you don't lock it up properly in your original agreement. And even then, I think it could be swept aside by a judge.

I have a friend at work whose ex constantly re-opened his agreement. He told me at one point he was afraid--honestly afraid-- to look in his mail box.

He ended up having a stroke and was off work for some time, and when he came back it was another six months before he became his old quick witted self.

It's my experience men will pay more up front, regardless of whether they think its "fair" or not, just for the peace of mind that it's final.

But, it never is.

It's a nightmare, Earthmom.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 January 2002 01:34 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well Mel screwed over both families. I think the families should divy up the money and take him out with the trash.

However,if it can be proven that monies or future monies where hidden or improperly reported at the time of the agreement that would be a definite reason to reopen.

On the other hand if you have managed on your own for ten years, I see no reason to reopen old wounds.

For myself I know I would have great difficulty getting any but the most horrendous of jobs ( I say that because it would likely be retail jobs and I hate dealing with the public ) unless I could somehow get a couple of my business plans off the ground, that said, there is no way in hell I would go after my ex for money years after the fact my pride alone wouldn't allow it.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 13 January 2002 01:58 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure about Mad Mel's case. The money he paid at the time wasn't as small then as it sounds today. And, as far as I know, there was no underhandedness in resolving it at that time.

In all other areas of law, it's assumed that when you put your signature to an agreement, you've read it, you understand it and if you don't you shouldn't sign it.


You bring up a good point about yourself. In your case I think spousal support is valid. I think if there were no kids in my wife's case, perhaps a limited amount is valid there, too.

Here is where it gets sticky. In the old days the courts used to concern itself in all the gory details of the marriage. Was there infedelity, for example? A lot of this kind of thing were basically loop holes to trip up women, so men could abrogate their responsibilities.

We all know that this was wrong, and I think the courts were wise in throwing this kind of thing out.

But, shouldn't the fact that we borrowed money to send my wife to college, and that she's had six years to get herself into the full time job market have some kind of impact on spousal support? and on my pension?

I could tell a judge that, and he or she would just say, "Good for you Mr. Sucker, now on to the relevant business at hand...."


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 January 2002 02:05 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's her information so maybe you'd rather not share, but I'll ask anyway was there any reason why she chose not to work?
Like a problem with agoraphobia or whatever?

I suppose once my kids are bigger if I have the chance I'd like to do something whether that involves starting a business or getting a job.

I don't think that women are any less willing ot work for a living than men are ( and I know you have'nt said that) but I guess in some instances it is somewhat easier for that to occur


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 13 January 2002 02:22 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The problem with Canada's unreformed Divorce Act (and spousal support in general) is that it has become a form of social engineering rather than a tool to get men and women back on their feet, economically speaking. This doesn't mean they are entitled to keep going back to school until they get exactly the same amount of pay their partner got. People are different, with different abilities and different amounts of energy and initiative. And continuously re-opening agreements seems like madness.
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 13 January 2002 02:22 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My best guess is that when my ex did have a few short lived full time jobs, she felt less than the ideal mother, in the traditional sense.

And, I didn't question it if she took the easy way out. I thought it's what you do for the person you love. But, in retrospect, I think I should have been "tougher" on her somehow.

I started doing that, btw. My ex wanted to have us borrow money so she could start up a business. But, knowing how tough it is for anyone to start a business, I got kind of cagey and told her that it would be better if she worked and saved the money for herself.

I was afraid it wouldn't work out, like going back to school didn't, and if I had to work more overtime to pay off yet another loan... I was afraid I'd end up resenting her, and I was afraid I'd end up resenting myself.

You know, that is when things started to change between us, when I started saying "no". I thought I was being supportive by encouraging a little independance. She interpreted it as me being unsupportive.

That's a big scar, actually. I don't often let myself think of the emotional aspects of the separation. I think I let the legal stuff and the day to day busyness of being a single dad push that out of my mind.

But, it occurred to me some time ago that I started life with my wife unable to say "no" to her, because I have a deep seated insecurity with women; as if I have to "give in" to every whim because, surely, it isn't me she or any woman could possibly be interested in-- it must be the material things, the freedom I allow them at sacrifice to my own.

So, it came as quite a blow later in life when I finally shed that feeling, that I didn't have to be a door mat for women to like me.

And, when I stopped being one, she left.

I have a friend now. She's great. I've been wary of her...of women... but I get the sense from her that she doesn't need nor want a door mat. That she, for reasons that frankly baffle me, wants me for my self.

I'm still kind of unable to deal with that.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 13 January 2002 02:30 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tommy, your experience is not an isolated one, unfortunately. I know of a local fellow who supported his wife through a bachelor's degree, and supported her through a business that failed. Then they split, and he was forced to support her through an ongoing Master's Degree. Go figure!
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 January 2002 02:37 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So Twilight-Cedar...are you the only wonderful woman you know?

And what exactly is your secret...perhaps we could all learn?


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 13 January 2002 04:21 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess you're attempting some sarcasm here, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. If you have time, explain.
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 January 2002 05:55 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well yes sure I'll explain. It seems you've never meet a man who hasn't been screwed over,nor a woman you have anything good to say about.

This must surely be either a result of trying hard to see only one side of an issue or you're running with a bad crowd.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 13 January 2002 06:03 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, you're right -- there's always another side to an issue (at least). It would be interesting to hear stories about women who have been forced to pay exorbitant amounts of support/alimony. I'm sure they exist. It's not a gender thing -- it's a fairness issue.
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 13 January 2002 10:03 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What would be interesting would be a documentary that included a lot of annecdotes from all sides, spouses and kids, and their horror stories, with splices from lawyers explaining the law.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 15 January 2002 03:39 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How much is too much? Probably this...


http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20020115/1134693.html


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 15 January 2002 03:59 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which "system" are we discussing here? Canada has different family/divorce law than the US. Indeed, each US state and Canadian province has its own family/divorce law.

When making judgements on whether the "system" is fair or not, I think we should look at the actual legislation instead of the anecdotal examples of divorce settlements of the extremely wealthy.

Unless we're familar with family/divorce law in California, how can we really judge how fair it is?

I have problems with Ontario's Family Law Act, but they are very specific and easily amended.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 15 January 2002 11:01 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alimony just serves to set the feminist quest to be perceived as equals back a few years.

For every woman who dons man-tailored suits and sits in the boardrooms of this country, there are 1000 women taking their exes to court because they are "unable to sustain the standard of living to which they have become accustomed to" without the ex paying for it.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 15 January 2002 11:02 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why do people feel they have an entitlement to "live in the style they've become accustomed to?" Seems a tad presumptuous.
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 15 January 2002 11:04 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's feminist code language for "got the bastard, thanks your honour."
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 15 January 2002 11:08 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gerbil: try this link to hear a real horror story:

http://tsw.odyssey.on.ca/~balancebeam/courts/never_done.htm


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 15 January 2002 11:25 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Read it. Thanks.

Feminism is a worthy cause. But stories like that really show how far men have to go before the courts recognize gender equality.

Women apparently should be held accountable for their own lives only when there is no man that can be held accountable instead.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
feminista
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 532

posted 12 February 2002 11:36 PM      Profile for feminista        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This has little to do with feminism. It is based on income and the history of the relationship at hand. Men receive spousal support and child support too. Men get sole custody as well. Spousal support is usually not given and when it is in Ontario it is generally very short term until the financially disadvantaged spouse (male or female) is able to make themselves more self sufficiant. If they waste thier year or so to do this, spousal support is usually cut off anyway.
From: GTA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 13 February 2002 11:17 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's not the opinion of my lawyer. Currently, the unofficial offer from my wife's lawyer is to waive spousal support for my waiving child support. My lawyer suggests this is "gold" for me.

I'm not sure. Perhaps I should look this up on my own.

I'm very suspicious of myself on the subject of spousal support. I do see a need for it in many cases. There's a narrow bracket where I think it isn't warranted, and lo and behold, I happen to be in that bracket.

I'm rather sceptical about things I want to believe, so I'm less resolute on this at the moment.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skadie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2072

posted 13 February 2002 11:46 PM      Profile for skadie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What happened to the idea that marriage is a partnership, and that support is more than financial? If a wife or husband work for twenty years while their partner stays at home, aren't they equals in the long run? Don't they both deserve to take credit for the home and the career that they have built together? No man is an island and all that.

I tell ya, after a day at my job I wish I had someone to make dinner and wash my work clothes. It would make my working life a lot easier and more successful in the long run.


From: near the ocean | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skadie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2072

posted 13 February 2002 11:51 PM      Profile for skadie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What happened to the idea that marriage is a partnership, and that support is more than financial? If a wife or husband work for twenty years while their partner stays at home, aren't they equals in the long run? Don't they both deserve to take credit for the home and the career that they have built together? No man is an island and all that.

I tell ya, after a day at my job I wish I had someone to make dinner and wash my work clothes. It would make my working life a lot easier and more successful in the long run.


From: near the ocean | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 14 February 2002 11:20 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's all particular to each circumstance.

To blow my own horn, I worked, and worked hard. My earnings went into a joint account, and I always thought of it as "our" money. My ex stayed home, as we agreed, until my youngest was in school full time.

If we had of split at that time, or before, then certainly, spousal support is due so that she could go to school, get on her feet, all that stuff.

But, in the six years between my youngest starting school full time, and our marriage breaking up, we borrowed money for her to pursue a degree. She gave up on it, leaving us nothing to show for the investment.

Although my ex contributed with part time work, things would have been better and easier if she had pursued, as she was free to, full time work.

She chose not to. Not we. She.

Then, she chose to leave.

I'm not sure, in my mind, that she should qualify for spousal support-- she had all the support she needed in the past six years, and over a year alone to choose to get on her feet, yet hasn't.

And to be honest, I did a good bit of the housework too, even when I worked seven days a week.

Since separating, I have not used the letter of the law to be petulant. She remains, and will remain on my benifits at work-- save my life insurance, which is now signed over to my girls. I maintain her on the car insurance, so that if she ever gets a car of her own, she won't start over as a "new driver". Sure, that's no cost to me, but on the other hand, I don't have to do it, either. She continues to recieve what used to be called the "baby bonus" (child tax benifit? I dunno) even though the children live with me. I continue to contribute to a modest RRSP for her. I continue to pay her life insurance premiums.

Seems to me, even bringing up the issue of spousal support is a bit gauling.

But, I keep my relationship with my ex, and my relationship to the legal wranglings separate.

It's better for the girls, that way.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca