Man must pay alimony to wife despite her domestic partnership

[dalegg 143]

Alimony is inherently unfair.

I live in California. 5 years ago my ex wife decided instead of being a part time mom and wife she wanted to become a full time flight attendant and a zero time mother. We separated nicely but when the subject of child support came up, she informed me (as an ex legal assistant) that due to our income disparities she would not be paying me at all.

I didn't think this sounded quite fair, so I contacted a couple of attornies who advised me that it would not be worth pursuing the matter because not only was she probably correct in her assumption, even if the formula worked slightly in my favor, she could legally sue for alimony- EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BOTH KIDS- and be awarded it. This would have prevented me from keeping the house my children and me live in in O.C. I decided not to pursue the matter and we settled out of court with niether of us paying anything. However, 2 years later when she settled in with her new Pilot fiance in her new house, one of my children decided to move with here, and 1 week later there she was "when are you going to start giving me child support?" Yup. I am responsilble to my kids so I paid it.

So basically, if someone decides they are tired of being a responsible spouse and parent, not only do they get to walk away and travel the world, they also get a parting gift!

Fair?

P.S. My son finally realized what a putz his mother is and moved back in with us.

Edited July 24, 2007 by dalegg

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Alimony is inherently unfair.

I live in California. 5 years ago my ex wife decided instead of being a part time mom and wife she wanted to become a full time flight attendant and a zero time mother. We separated nicely but when the subject of child support came up, she informed me (as an ex legal assistant) that due to our income disparities she would not be paying me at all.

I didn't think this sounded quite fair, so I contacted a couple of attornies who advised me that it would not be worth pursuing the matter because not only was she probably correct in her assumption, even if the formula worked slightly in my favor, she could legally sue for alimony- EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BOTH KIDS- and be awarded it. This would have prevented me from keeping the house my children and me live in in O.C. I decided not to pursue the matter and we settled out of court with niether of us paying anything. However, 2 years later when she settled in with her new Pilot fiance in her new house, one of my children decided to move with here, and 1 week later there she was "when are you going to start giving me child support?" Yup. I am responsilble to my kids so I paid it.

So basically, if someone decides they are tired of being a responsible spouse and parent, not only do they get to walk away and travel the world, they also get a parting gift!

Fair?

P.S. My son finally realized what a putz his mother is and moved back in with us.

You and I probably share a lot of similar circumstances, although, initially I was paying about a grand a month for child support and alimony, mainly because of the income disparity, even though we shared joint custody. It wasn't until my kids came to live with me full time that at that point, I assured my ex that I wouldn't seek out child support from her, because I knew it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Alimony is inherently unfair.

...Fair?

I think you need to look up the definition of "inherently." "Inherently" means "always, in every case, by its very nature, there can be no exceptions."

I didn't say it was always fair. I said it was not inherently unfair. That is, I said it is not always, in every case, by its very nature, unfair with no exceptions.

Are you honestly saying that if you, as a high-powered, high-earning surgeon, married a 20-year-old, for 50 years gave her an allowance and emphatically discouraged her from working outside the house and assured her that she didn't need to because you would always give her everything she needed, then after 50 years dumped her on the street and claimed everything she owned was actually yours and you owed her nothing after she cooked and cleaned and kept your clothes neat and made you look good to your colleagues for five decades, despite the fact that the fact that she had no way to support herself was because of your pressuring her and promising her things you didn't live up to, then it would be unfair for her to want any money, even enough to live on for two years so she could get a paralegal certificate or something and learn to support herself despite the fact that she was in her 70s?

If you think it would be unfair for that woman to get any money, then you're a jerk, but at least you're internally consistent.

If you think it would be fair for her to get something, then you believe alimony is not inherently unfair.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Alimony is inherently unfair.

...Fair?

I think you need to look up the definition of "inherently." "Inherently" means "always, in every case, by its very nature, there can be no exceptions."

I didn't say it was always fair. I said it was not inherently unfair. That is, I said it is not always, in every case, by its very nature, unfair with no exceptions.

Are you honestly saying that if you, as a high-powered, high-earning surgeon, married a 20-year-old, for 50 years gave her an allowance and emphatically discouraged her from working outside the house and assured her that she didn't need to because you would always give her everything she needed, then after 50 years dumped her on the street and claimed everything she owned was actually yours and you owed her nothing after she cooked and cleaned and kept your clothes neat and made you look good to your colleagues for five decades, despite the fact that the fact that she had no way to support herself was because of your pressuring her and promising her things you didn't live up to, then it would be unfair for her to want any money, even enough to live on for two years so she could get a paralegal certificate or something and learn to support herself despite the fact that she was in her 70s?

If you think it would be unfair for that woman to get any money, then you're a jerk, but at least you're internally consistent.

If you think it would be fair for her to get something, then you believe alimony is not inherently unfair.

given that one isn't a "high-powered, high-earning surgeon" until probably at best their late 20's, if not more around mid to late 30's, i'd say that the surgeon in question in the above case would be in his 90's and probably have alzheimer's....and he'd not care

[dalegg 143]

Alimony is inherently unfair.

...Fair?

I think you need to look up the definition of "inherently." "Inherently" means "always, in every case, by its very nature, there can be no exceptions."

I didn't say it was always fair. I said it was not inherently unfair. That is, I said it is not always, in every case, by its very nature, unfair with no exceptions.

I think I'm using it right, because as a black and white rule- one party in a divorce is usually entitled to alimony, without regards to circumsances or the affects placed on the children. That is inherently unfair. By chance in many circumstances it may turn out to appear to be fair, but indiscriminate compensation is unfair.

Are you honestly saying that if you, as a high-powered, high-earning surgeon, married a 20-year-old, for 50 years gave her an allowance and emphatically discouraged her from working outside the house and assured her that she didn't need to because you would always give her everything she needed, then after 50 years dumped her on the street and claimed everything she owned was actually yours and you owed her nothing after she cooked and cleaned and kept your clothes neat and made you look good to your colleagues for five decades, despite the fact that the fact that she had no way to support herself was because of your pressuring her and promising her things you didn't live up to, then it would be unfair for her to want any money, even enough to live on for two years so she could get a paralegal certificate or something and learn to support herself despite the fact that she was in her 70s?

No, I am not. Reread my circumstance- I did not discourage my ex at all from working. In fact I encouraged it. This is what is unfair about alimony- the results are the same legally despite the circumstances- whether or not she deserves it.

If you think it would be unfair for that woman to get any money, then you're a jerk, but at least you're internally consistent.

I hope that wasn't some sort of dig at me, because it would only show that you ignored my circumstance completely.

Edited July 24, 2007 by dalegg

[Scott & Lai 12]

AFAIC, alimony is an antiquated (as well as unfair and sexist in most applications) concept that needs to go the way of keeping women barefoot and pregnant. When a marriage ends, so should all the perks. Child support is a different matter. But that also is often grossly abused; there are even many stories of men who are forced to provide child support even when it has been proven that they are not the biological father. Any child support given should be strictly accounted for, to ensure that every dime of it is exclusively for the support of the child.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Scott & Lai

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

AFAIC, alimony is an antiquated (as well as unfair and sexist in most applications) concept that needs to go the way of keeping women barefoot and pregnant. When a marriage ends, so should all the perks. Child support is a different matter. But that also is often grossly abused; there are even many stories of men who are forced to provide child support even when it has been proven that they are not the biological father. Any child support given should be strictly accounted for, to ensure that every dime of it is exclusively for the support of the child.

in regards to that about providing support even though not the biological father, my dad told me about a guy in the navy who could not have kids - yet his wife came up pregnant. he still had to pay child support. it was in california, surprised?

[JoeMama 0]

Funny thing about my divorce, my ex wanted $2600 a month from me. $1300 spousal support and $1300 child support. By law, she was entitled to receive alimony for 5.5 years which is half of the amount of time we were married. She was a housewife for the 11 years. When we were divorcing, she said that she shouldn't have to work for the next 10 years. I sure as hell did not sit by and let her get her way. I fought like hell for 2 years and everything worked out in my favor. I don't have to pay her a dime. My girls are with me more than 1/2 the time and I don't have to put up with her starting any shitt with me. Sure, her attitude was completely arrogant during the divorce because she thought she would be entitled to getting $2600 a month from me. What money she received from me during the divorce, she used to fly her boyfriend from Washington state to California every other weekend. She would send my girls over with clothes and shoes too small, etc. She told my girls the money she got from me, was for HER. Now you know why I fought that bullshitt. The final outcome, thanks to being self-employed, my income turned out to be lower than her income and my girls are with me more. By law, I can pursue child support for my girls. But I do fine. I actually used the situation against her and her arrogant attitude is now gone. I made it very clear that she is not to bother me, not start shitt with me in front of my girls, nor talk to me in a degrading manner as she was accustomed to before. I told her I don't have a problem going to the district attorney's office and filing for support from her through their office. She knows she'll have to hire an attorney and there's no way for her to get around having to pay me at that point. They'll take it directly right out of her paycheck. She ought to be glad I don't go after support in the same vengeful manner as she did.

[NavarreMan 10]

I believe the idea of alimony is to allow the lower earning spouse to maintain the lifestyle to which they became accustomed during the marriage.

All evidence indicates she does not want to continue the lifestyle she got accustomed to during the marriage. LOL.

(that would be the ex-husband in the middle)

Edited July 24, 2007 by NavarreMan

[Scott & Lai 12]

I believe the idea of alimony is to allow the lower earning spouse to maintain the lifestyle to which they became accustomed during the marriage.

All evidence indicates she does not want to continue the lifestyle she got accustomed to during the marriage. LOL.

(that would be the ex-husband in the middle)

No kidding; the only way to maintain the lifestyle gained in a marriage is to stay married...by definition, no longer being married is a different lifestyle. And if a woman is entitled to her ex's wallet, why isn't he entitled to keep sleeping with her? If she gets marriage perks after marriage, why shouldn't he?

[Nancy2015 2]

Alimony is inherently unfair.

...Fair?

I think you need to look up the definition of "inherently." "Inherently" means "always, in every case, by its very nature, there can be no exceptions."

I didn't say it was always fair. I said it was not inherently unfair. That is, I said it is not always, in every case, by its very nature, unfair with no exceptions.

Are you honestly saying that if you, as a high-powered, high-earning surgeon, married a 20-year-old, for 50 years gave her an allowance and emphatically discouraged her from working outside the house and assured her that she didn't need to because you would always give her everything she needed, then after 50 years dumped her on the street and claimed everything she owned was actually yours and you owed her nothing after she cooked and cleaned and kept your clothes neat and made you look good to your colleagues for five decades, despite the fact that the fact that she had no way to support herself was because of your pressuring her and promising her things you didn't live up to, then it would be unfair for her to want any money, even enough to live on for two years so she could get a paralegal certificate or something and learn to support herself despite the fact that she was in her 70s?

If you think it would be unfair for that woman to get any money, then you're a jerk, but at least you're internally consistent.

If you think it would be fair for her to get something, then you believe alimony is not inherently unfair.

Given that fact that the younger spouse in this scenario is at least 70 years old, I think it's time for them both to plan their funerals, not sue each other for alimony

In this particular case with divorce and subsequent domestic partnership, I'm more concerned with what the courts think about the legal status of domestic partnership, not whether alimony is fair or not.

[smoke20 0]

I believe the idea of alimony is to allow the lower earning spouse to maintain the lifestyle to which they became accustomed during the marriage.

All evidence indicates she does not want to continue the lifestyle she got accustomed to during the marriage. LOL.

(that would be the ex-husband in the middle)

No kidding; the only way to maintain the lifestyle gained in a marriage is to stay married...by definition, no longer being married is a different lifestyle. And if a woman is entitled to her ex's wallet, why isn't he entitled to keep sleeping with her? If she gets marriage perks after marriage, why shouldn't he?

wow talk about putting the chum in the water.....oh you're gonna get it

[mawilson 2,133]

No kidding; the only way to maintain the lifestyle gained in a marriage is to stay married...by definition, no longer being married is a different lifestyle. And if a woman is entitled to her ex's wallet, why isn't he entitled to keep sleeping with her? If she gets marriage perks after marriage, why shouldn't he?

You da man, Scott & Lai!

[Marc and Olga 0]

In this particular case with divorce and subsequent domestic partnership, I'm more concerned with what the courts think about the legal status of domestic partnership, not whether alimony is fair or not.

what boggles me is the article states that marriage will end the alimony but the domestic partnership won't. Shesh Californians....

[Caladan 19]

No kidding; the only way to maintain the lifestyle gained in a marriage is to stay married...by definition, no longer being married is a different lifestyle. And if a woman is entitled to her ex's wallet, why isn't he entitled to keep sleeping with her? If she gets marriage perks after marriage, why shouldn't he?

You da man, Scott & Lai!

Alimony's meant to protect someone who gave up her career and financial independence for the marriage, usually. Chances are the man's career benefited from her staying at home and keeping the household for him; he would have had to pay someone to do that otherwise.

And if you give up a career for years and years, it's not easy to go and get a job. My parents have been married for 29 years; if they divorced, my mother's last full-time working experience was 1979 because she's been busy raising four kids since then. You don't have to be a seventy-year-old surgeon to have benefited from having a wife whose job was running the household while you were out advancing your career.

To want a stay-at-home wife but not be willing to acknowledge that you owe her some of your financial success seems the worst of both worlds.