New Jersey man sitting in debtor's prison for not paying alimony.

[oplawlz]

This thread makes me super happy about living in Scandinavia.
The only case in which I'd have to pay my ex money, is if we had a child together. In other words, child support (Which is pretty low too, because getting custody is already seen as having ''won''.)

In the case that my ex would be unable to support herself due to having been off the job market, like mentioned earlier; Either I'd get automatic custody of the child (if her situation made her unfit to raise a child) and my ex would recieve welfare while searching for jobs, having jobinterview-training / Learning to put together a CV or receiving jobtraining. (Which is basically working for free, just to be able to put it on the CV and/or getting a recommendation.)

Facts:

#1. This system is awesome.

#2. Alimony is ridiculous and outdated.

I swear, soon as a get this second bachelors I'm moving to denmark >.<

[Jackmoves]

That's a very lousy way to look at things. It was the better option for the couple. It was a bad choice for her, but a good one for him. She made a sacrifice for him. The idea is to compensate someone for making sacrifices that benefits the other one. It's not the husband's fault, but spousal support is not about fault, it is about an equitable outcome.

They could live separately for a time untill she found a job equal to that which she has, before she makes the move to her husband's new location. Problem fixed. If she just packs up her shit and moves along with him without preparing properly she has made a conscious decision to put herself in a worse situation as far as her individual finances goes... in order for her husband to get in a better position.

Being able to demand redicules sums of money because she prioritized her husbands career over her own is stupid, no one forced her, no one should force her ex husband to pay her for it.

[Celista]

They could live separately for a time untill she found a job equal to that which she has, before she makes the move to her husband's new location. Problem fixed. If she just packs up her shit and moves along with him without preparing properly she has made a conscious decision to put herself in a worse situation as far as her individual finances goes... in order for her husband to get in a better position.

Again, in my example their decision was a JOINT (emphasizing this because people keep missing this) one, it wasn't the wife making any unilateral decisions on her own. That changes my example entirely...I'm sure things like your example happen, but that wasn't my example.

To counter your counterexample, I could have said that the husband asked her to move out with him early (before finding a job, etc), or asked her to quit her job to stay at home with the kids while their young "because it's better for the children" or any number of reasons, but that would also change the scope of my example.

[semaphore]

They could live separately for a time untill she found a job equal to that which she has, before she makes the move to her husband's new location. Problem fixed. If she just packs up her shit and moves along with him without preparing properly she has made a conscious decision to put herself in a worse situation as far as her individual finances goes... in order for her husband to get in a better position.

You're just ignoring the part where it's an individual sacrifice for the joint welfare by blaming their decision on her, and only her.

Being able to demand redicules sums of money

You're just inserting that in a blatant appeal to emotions. No one said anything about the sum of money. Ideally it would be to compensate her actual losses incurred by the job change and relocation.

[Jackmoves]

Again, in my example their decision was a JOINT (emphasizing this because people keep missing this) one, it wasn't the wife making any unilateral decisions on her own. That changes my example entirely...I'm sure things like your example happen, but that wasn't my example.

To counter your counterexample, I could have said that the husband asked her to move out with him early (before finding a job, etc), or asked her to quit her job to stay at home with the kids while their young "because it's better for the children" or any number of reasons, but that would also change the scope of my example.

Most decisions are joint once you are merried, it doesn't remove the responsibility from the individual, she could say "no, that doesn't work for me, we need to come up with something els", they have made a decision as a couple and as individuals, if she willingly puts herself in that situation she is also responsible for that decision and how it affects her own situation. It doesn't matter if the husbands gains most from it.

If she lives with a man that refuses to compromise with her so that both are in a solid seat then I guess all I can say is... bad luck.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 04:02 PM ----------

You're just ignoring the part where it's an individual sacrifice for the joint welfare by blaming their decision on her, and only her.


You're just inserting that in a blatant appeal to emotions. No one said anything about the sum of money. Ideally it would be to compensate her actual losses incurred by the job change and relocation.

Nope, I just think she got an individual responsibility, it's an individual and joint decision. She just chooses to give up more then him.

[semaphore]

Most decisions are joint once you are merried, it doesn't remove the responsibility from the individual, she could say "no, that doesn't work for me, we need to come up with something els", they have made a decision as a couple and as individuals, if she willingly puts herself in that situation she is also responsible for that decision and how it affects her own situation. It doesn't matter if the husbands gains most from it.

God forbid people think about what's better for the family. Or ask him to take responsibilities for benefiting from his spouse's sacrifices made for his sake.

[Celista]

Most decisions are joint once you are merried, it doesn't remove the responsibility from the individual, she could say "no, that doesn't work for me, we need to come up with something els", they have made a decision as a couple and as individuals, if she willingly puts herself in that situation she is also responsible for that decision and how it affects her own situation. It doesn't matter if the husbands gains most from it.

If she lives with a man that refuses to compromise with her so that both are in a solid seat then I guess all I can say is... bad luck.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 04:02 PM ----------



Nope, I just think she got an individual responsibility, it's an individual and joint decision. She just chooses to give up more then him.

It's interesting though because you are focusing entirely on HER responsibility and not HIS. Even when I give you a counterexample where if there was any individual responsibility/blame to be had, it would be on the husband rather than the wife, yet you still place blame and responsibility on the wife.

Very interesting....

[Vokal]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I think this applies a thousand times that in the case of the picture you posted. Well said my friend, well said.

At the end of the day, this issue at its core is not about men, women, children or sexism.

It is about leeches, and the flawed legal system that protects, supports and favors them and their leeching process. This needs to be looked at and changed. The system must ensure that both parents contribute a "fair and reasonable share" to the child as a cost of having him/her.

The father should be able to check what his money is being spent on and hold his ex legally accountable if he discovers that it is being squandered on personal luxury rather than the child's present and future essentials.

Also, this also raises the question of "unwanted" kids. If the mother doesn't want the responsibilities, financial or otherwise, of raising children she has protection in the form of the option to have an abortion when she learns of the pregnancy. There needs to be a similar option of protection for men who wish the same, namely 'legal abortion'. Whereby if a man does not wish to have an unborn child or has deliberately not been made aware of the pregnancy, he has the option of legally opting out of fatherhood where he relinquishes both responsibility of the child and his rights as a father. If the mother chooses to have the child in this case she will be the one solely responsible (financially or otherwise) for him/her.

[semaphore]

It's interesting though because you are focusing entirely on HER responsibility and not HIS. Even when I give you a counterexample where if there was any individual responsibility/blame to be had, it would be on the husband rather than the wife, yet you still place blame and responsibility on the wife.

Very interesting....

Yeah, this is why I hate it when people bring up "personal responsibilities" as an argument. Though it is not inherently wrong, it seems to me like most people who resort to it tend to be myopic and applies responsibility selectively to suit their arguments.

[Revak]

Alimony and child custody is just plain ridiculous. I'm sure it works fine for some but not for a lot of people.

One of my best friends was married and has a daughter. He had a great photography job making twice as much a year as his wife (who worked in retail) but still he was only around 50k/year. He was happy. His wife cheated on him and then wanted a divorce when they stopped getting along after that.

He has never been in trouble and has always been an all around "good guy". He had a good lawyer and by the time they went to court she was already pregnant with another kid with someone elses child (whom she wasn't married to). Not only did he not get custody, he was ordered to pay half his earnings in child support. On top of that the times that she "allowed" him to have custody interfered with his work and he ended up quitting his job for a lesser job at a manufacturing plant near his home that he ended up renting when he moved out after the divorce.

Today he still works there and has very little and has remained single d/t how hard this has been on him, but does get to see his daughter regularly (which he is happy about). She is on her 3rd marriage and has 4 kids. He still pays child support. This guy went from a good family man with a good job to a single man with nothing and no money b/c his wife cheated on him, wanted a divorce, and demanded excessive child support. Then the courts gave it to her.

That's a problem with the system. One example from one person I know. I'm sure my own experiences are not unique.

[Grym]

I believe you can now sign a contract BEFORE you get married, that if you do divorce, how will that plan out.

I know my sister's friend when he got married he had to sign one of those.

I might have to consider writing one before I get married too:

"So, you two, please sign this marriage certificate, but before you do, please sign this marriage agreement first."

[Wildtree]

The article doesn't seem to tell the whole story...... For example. How the hell does he have a burden of $100.000 for the divorce?
There must be a whole lot of wealth involved that is not mentioned at all. Friend of mine went through divorce, and paid 500 bucks for everything, incl lawyer and court fees.

[Jackmoves]

God forbid people think about what's better for the family. Or ask him to take responsibilities for benefiting from his spouse's sacrifices made for his sake.

Thats why you make compromises that are good for both parts, if she ends up unemployed or in a far worse situation jobwise then really thats a result of her own choice. If she doesn't like the prospects of that then she is free to say so, and hopefully her husband will understand and they will come to a compromise that doesn't suck for her.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 04:18 PM ----------

It's interesting though because you are focusing entirely on HER responsibility and not HIS. Even when I give you a counterexample where if there was any individual responsibility/blame to be had, it would be on the husband rather than the wife, yet you still place blame and responsibility on the wife.

Very interesting....

Because it was a shitty compromise(for her as an individual) she made by her own free will.

[The Casualty]

They could live separately for a time untill she found a job equal to that which she has, before she makes the move to her husband's new location. Problem fixed. If she just packs up her shit and moves along with him without preparing properly she has made a conscious decision to put herself in a worse situation as far as her individual finances goes... in order for her husband to get in a better position.

Being able to demand redicules sums of money because she prioritized her husbands career over her own is stupid, no one forced her, no one should force her ex husband to pay her for it.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you have neither a significant other nor children. Sometimes there isn't a third option. Both I and my partner work, but we are lucky to have grandparents who live close enough to look after the children half of the week.
I can see where if a couple didn't have family support, covering child care could break the bank or put a large burden on the family unit. If it came to that, the ONLY sensible answer would be to have the partner who is making more/has more potential for earning to continue and have the other stay at home (in my case, I would continue working - I'll get back to this in a minute). Sure, both parties have to individually agree, but only a fool would argue for taking the lesser income.

Now, if I was in a situation where my partner had to stop working to care for the children and we ended up splitting up some years down the road, I would be more than happy to pay support payments (assuming I didn't have custody of the children - its my damn kids, and I want the best for them and that involves putting my money where my mouth is), but in the same line, I think if I benefited numerous promotions in those years as my career took off while my wife's withered, I would want to pay some money to help get her back into the job market. If she got a better job and in turn contributed more, my children would benefit and I should be able to contribute less to child support.

So in short, I agree with spousal support payments in certain circumstances and for a limited scope of time.

Alimony awarded carte blanche is indeed ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than thinking that an individual should suffer due to a decision made as a marital unit. Thinking and acting as if one foot should remain out of the marriage is not something that should be championed.

[Celista]

The article doesn't seem to tell the whole story...... For example. How the hell does he have a burden of $100.000 for the divorce?
There must be a whole lot of wealth involved that is not mentioned at all. Friend of mine went through divorce, and paid 500 bucks for everything, incl lawyer and court fees.

I agree that there must be more to the story, spousal support that high that is such a large percentage of income indicates to me that either he had a crappy lawyer or he was actually making significantly more on average than what was stated in the article, or the judge is a total schmuck.

What is unbelievable to me is that the guy can't amend his alimony payments based on change of circumstance, and that the bills that would allow such amendments were voted out of committee. Amazing...glad I don't live in New Jersey :P

[Rukentuts]

God forbid people think about what's better for the family. Or ask him to take responsibilities for benefiting from his spouse's sacrifices made for his sake.

Yeah, but asking her to get off her lazy ass and get a job must be sexist.

[Moadar]

For 104k you are better off paying someone to see to it that she has an "accident" and is never found.

[Jackmoves]

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you have neither a significant other nor children. Sometimes there isn't a third option. Both I and my partner work, but we are lucky to have grandparents who live close enough to look after the children half of the week.

Yes that was a thin limb, I do, and we both work. Child care here costs a nickle, it's highly subsidized, so thats not a concern whatsoever, we also got 480 days of paid parental leave, that the parents can split as they like(for the most part), with a garanteed place at work as you get back from the leave. We also have among the highest marginal tax rates in the world to pay for all this (good) shit.

I think this is simply cultural, we do not have any kind of spousal support system here. So it seems out of wack to me.

[SirRobin]

People should be held accountable for their actions. Just as they should be responsible for providing for themselves and their children. Now how much should be on the father or mother and all the circumstances that affect that weighting is a huge grey area. Obviously its out of whack in this instance but finding the wisest middle ground is an ongoing process.

[semaphore]

I agree that there must be more to the story, spousal support that high that is such a large percentage of income indicates to me that either he had a crappy lawyer or he was actually making significantly more on average than what was stated in the article, or the judge is a total schmuck.

This. I would say there is no way that he could be paying such a large percentage, or he'd have appealed to a superior court already. Rather than attacking the judge for applying "sharia law" (like wtf). Unless he had $10 million in the bank or something.

What is unbelievable to me is that the guy can't amend his alimony payments based on change of circumstance, and that the bills that would allow such amendments were voted out of committee. Amazing...glad I don't live in New Jersey :P

He is already supposed to be able to do that. I don't know why the article says otherwise. This is set a long time ago in Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980). Since then a bona fide change in employment has been a valid "change of circumstances" to request reduced alimonies. So yeah, I find it unbelievable too.