Man must pay alimony to wife despite her domestic partnership

[StillThePrettiest 3]

yes, but someone moving on to a new partnership and then using the legal status of that to keep holding her hand out fo cash is pretty bad as well :?

[Caladan 19]

I think the person who's moved on in the article is pretty awful, but the law doesn't recognize domestic partnerships as terminating alimony like a marriage would. My main point is that not all alimony is bad.

[Marc and Olga 0]

yes, but someone moving on to a new partnership and then using the legal status of that to keep holding her hand out fo cash is pretty bad as well :?

And that is exact what the ex-wife has done...moved on AND expect the ex to pay!

[StillThePrettiest 3]

yes, that was my point

perhaps she'll end up furthering the cause of same-sex relationships in the end though... which may not be her aim, but if it happens anyway, then there'll be some point to the whole wretched situation :s

[homesick_american 1]

She's abusing the system and her ex.

I agree, but the system should have denied alimony. Maybe they have an agenda....?

[Mephys 2]

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.

That I totally agree to that. My husband's ex wife is totally abusing her privileges. She is living with her parents since her divorce ( shes 31) and always had a job. No rent to pay, no bills other than her car ( she had a Van almost paid off, but when my husband changed a 2 seats car for a Mazda 5 to be able to fit the 3 kids in it, she got jealous and changed her as well....so more bills) Last time we heard it was her parents paying for the kids clothes and food. So where all her money goes? Last time he checked her bank account before she changed the password she was spending every month 230$ in Mcdonalds, 90$ at Wendy's, and about 70$ at Blockbusters. She deliberatly choose an expensive daycare for the 2 youngest and she could have avoid a lot of the fees she claims she's paying for it.

Last week-end the oldest came here with a pair of shoes size 13 1/2. I noticed he was walking like he needed to go to the bathroom and touched his feet and saw his shoes were way too small. He called his ex wife to go pick up another pair of shoes that he had bought for him few months ago that were fitting properly and she said she wasnt home, she was at the hair salon getting a hairstyle ( which she does about 1/month) Then he said he would go buy another pair so he could walk and run this week-end and that she could cut a check off for it, and she replied she had no money...???? Yeah so her hair are obviously more important that her kids feet. She said she was spending the total of the child support on the daycare so she couldnt afford anything else. So SHE choose an expensive one, and they pay for it wearing small shoes. But she still treat herself with haircut, nailsalon, fastfood. Anyways we went buying the shoes and found out he was a size 3, its almost 3 size bigger than what he was wearing, poor kid. And she said she didnt check cause he never complained and he liked his shoes...like whatever just looking at the way he was walking you could know something was wrong. We checked the 2 other ones and they also need new shoes soon. She is milking her parents and who knows where she is spending all of her money she gets from her paycheck and childsupport.

Childsupport should definitely be monitored. I am sick and tired of seeing parents neglecting their children just for money they are not supposed to use for themselve.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Mephys

[mawilson 2,133]

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.

Caladan,

The concept of a "stay-at-home wife who gives up her career to take care of her husband and

raise kids at home" is somewhat outdated, don't you think? It's no longer an option for the vast

majority of families.

Edited July 24, 2007 by mawilson

[SteveLaura 0]

Any child support given should be strictly accounted for, to ensure that every dime of it is exclusively for the support of the child.

I can't see how this would work, in practice. Food bills, electricity bills, gas for the car, car payments, car maintenance, rent or mortgage payments, internet bill, cell phone bill, even the odd meal out and DVD rental - all help to support the child. Trying to disprove that is gonna be nigh-on impossible.

[almaty 19]

Any child support given should be strictly accounted for, to ensure that every dime of it is exclusively for the support of the child.

I can't see how this would work, in practice. Food bills, electricity bills, gas for the car, car payments, car maintenance, rent or mortgage payments, internet bill, cell phone bill, even the odd meal out and DVD rental - all help to support the child. Trying to disprove that is gonna be nigh-on impossible.

also, i do not think any state requires a list of how the child support payment is spent./.it is assumed by the court..it is to take care of the kids...

[BJZags 17]

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.

The "problem" is when you factor child support and alimony together. In my opinion, child support is to a large extent alimony in disguise. In my state, if I had a child and divorced my wife, the statutory-formula would obligate me to pay almost $900 a month in child support. There is now way that it costs $900 a month to care for a child, so my wife would have de-facto alimony already.