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

[semaphore]

No, they really didn't...

Divorce was seen as being an extreme measure until very recently.

They still did it though, just less often. Also depends on the culture. Divorce was no big deal in Japan.

[Banawani]

I'm not sure it needs to be ELIMINATED. Spouses who stay home to raise kids make valuable sacrifices. Permanent alimony, however, is complete nightmare fuel in its own right. It encourages the payee to simply sit on their ass and collect checks. If they find a new partner they simply move in and enjoy all the benefits of cohabitation without losing their alimony payment.

Alimony needs to be limited. I'd say to 5 years, tops. That will allow the recipient to rehabilitate themselves into the workforce.

No it needs to be eliminated.

If someone has full custody, that means they should have full responsibility. If you can't afford a kid, you shouldn't have one whether you have a spouse or not.

The only money that should be exchanged post divorce is whatever money the two partners feel like giving.

Once you split you should have no legal obligation to the person, splitting assets is bad enough.

[Ryuukon]

Yeah it's not like the average child support payments only cover less than half the cost of actually raising a child (for that income bracket).

Income bracket matters how?

Child support should be just that, supporting the child. Food, clothing, possibly housing. That's it. Yet if the ex decides to move into a condo, that should have no bearing to the one paying child support. A child can be fed and clothed on a VERY modest income. Millions of Americans do so every day. It's not the fault of the, presumable, father, that the mother wants to live outside of her means all because she thinks her ex-husband will be forced to pay for it.

To defend such is perhaps the most basic discriminations around today. If you want to argue otherwise, then you are an idiot.

And for the record, my parents divorced when I was 14, and I moved in with my mother. We never saw a CENT from my father. Yet we did just fine. Had to cut more than a few corners, but I never once went without clothing, food, or housing. Would I had prefered to buy Nike's instead of Payless bargain shoes? Sure. What kid wouldn't? But did that detract from my upbringing? Quite the contrary. I learned from an early age when and where to cut pennies to balance a budget. Compare that to people with $40k+ in credit card debt that had actual child support available.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Semaphore, I mean this in as nice a way possible, but your method of arguing is extremely abrasive. People don't care what statistics or studies say, they care about their own experiences. Experiences are what shape a person's perspective. If I, or someone I know, or any of these other posters and people they know have had this kind of crap happen, then it's happened. The fact that they don't have an encyclopedia article detailing it doesn't make it any less real, or any less valid. Given the sheer number of men complaining about settlements regarding alimony and child support, I'd say that's enough evidence that there's a serious problem in the system, and that it very often does favor the woman by default. And to be fair, I know you've stated that you agree it's not a perfect system and needs worked on, but I'm trying to offer constructive criticism here. The reason you never get the sourced evidence you ask for is because that's not what people go by. They go by experience.

Don't bother. If you don't have multiple references to scientific studies for anything, I would imagine up to and including what color do people favor the most, then you're wrong, and if it's not in an electronic form by the 2nd page of Google then it doesn't exist and it's something you've just made up on the spot to her.

Also understand that when she needs to prove anything, news articles are perfectly legitimate sources.

Spend your time on better things and just let her think she's smarter than everyone else by running around in circular logic and telling everyone what they think or find "doesn't count."

On to the topic at hand, alimony should be near abolished. It has little place anymore. In a very rare burst of logic for this state, Massachusetts is actually doing it almost right. A very rare swing and connect for Massachusetts.

Spouses, no matter which one, should have no "right" to maintaining their "lifestyle" off the back of the other spouse in a divorce. It's a major life change. Not "the same but just without the person I don't like anymore."

[Laize]

You find it surprising that bitter disillusioned people are angry?

Of course not. When they're almost ubiquitously bitter and disillusioned due to the family court system, I think it's time to change.

Should probably do away with permanent alimony. And why don't we get rid of alimony period in no-fault divorce cases where the breadwinner isn't the initiator?

---------- Post added 2012-12-10 at 12:52 AM ----------

If your wife gets into an accident and become paralysed, should you be able to divorce her to avoid paying her hospital bills? There's a difference between saying the system needs to be improved, and that it needs to be gone completely.

That's what I said.

In no-fault divorce cases where the breadwinner is NOT the initiator, there should be no alimony.

Alimony is a perfectly valid tool for helping a nonworking spouse transition back into the workforce.

It doesn't get to be a permanent meal ticket.

[Dch48]

Because infants don't have medical expenses, clothing needs, equipment needs like cribs or baby monitors, right? No, all they need is food and diapers. Clearly an experienced parent talking here, yeah.

I linked and sourced authoritative figures. It's your prerogative to disbelieve them, that's fine. But the fact remains that what I am saying is supported by evidence, while your claims are nothing but your own highly biased personal opinions. When you can't refute evidence with anything resembling facts or logic, all you're doing is sticking your ufingers in your ears when you hear inconvenient truths.

I raised 2 kids and I have never made more than 18k a year. My kids never had any medical expenses when they were infants or even much of any in their lives and certainly never had anything like a baby monitor which is not a necessity unless the child has a condition that warrants that expense.Things like cribs and even baby clothing can be obtained very inexpensively second hand and the kid will never complain.


I also did have to pay child support for the two kids but it was only set at $67 a week total for both which their mother spent on drugs proving that she didn't even need that much. When I see cases where people are forced to pay more per month than I ever made, I'm horrified

I still see no "truth" in those highly inflated figures you gave.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

It doesn't get to be a permanent meal ticket.

Well, it does get to be a permanent meal ticket at the moment. But there is 0 reason it should stay that way.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

If your wife gets into an accident and become paralysed, should you be able to divorce her to avoid paying her hospital bills? There's a difference between saying the system needs to be improved, and that it needs to be gone completely.

I'd make the argument that such a thing should be considered a negative asset to be split the same way other assets are.



What I'm confused about is why you don't have to make the same kind of effort to get alimony as you do to get unemployment.

[semaphore]

I'd make the argument that such a thing should be considered a negative asset to be split the same way other assets are.

Effectively splitting liabilities. That's an intriguing idea, but I don't think the law can accommodate that, or that it won't be even more abused than simply evaluating for equity (racking up massive credit card debt, divorce, debt halves). A better way is to reform the current system with guidelines to make it more predictable and equitable.

What I'm confused about is why you don't have to make the same kind of effort to get alimony as you do to get unemployment.

I don't know where you live but alimony is not normally entitled to by default.

---------- Post added 2012-12-10 at 01:53 AM ----------

I raised 2 kids and I have never made more than 18k a year. My kids never had any medical expenses when they were infants or even much of any in their lives

So sounds like you're talking about two decades ago.

I still see no "truth" in those highly inflated figures you gave.

I don't care what you see, the fact remains you are unable to actually demonstrate why these figures are "highly inflated" and is simply asserting your personal opinions on what the country spends on children.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I don't know where you live but alimony is not normally entitled to by default.

Well, what I mean is, to get unemployment, you need to show you're actually making an effort to get a job and support yourself, but I've never heard of such a thing for alimony and can't find any information on it.

No, they really didn't...

Divorce was seen as being an extreme measure until very recently.

Maybe in really highly religious areas.

[semaphore]

Well, what I mean is, to get unemployment, you need to show you're actually making an effort to get a job and support yourself, but I've never heard of such a thing for alimony and can't find any information on it.

Probably because there's several types of alimony where having a job in and of itself is irrelevant. Someone who gave up on their education/career for the other spouse is entitled to alimony from that regardless of subsequent work (sacrifices were made, sacrifices must be compensated for, is the logic). The same goes for if someone put their spouse through college or something like that, then in a divorce they'd also be entitled to alimony to reimburse them of the costs (of course never sees anti-alimony types mention this).

Rehabilitative alimony does require the applying spouse to submit a detailed plan for how they're going to become self-sufficient. In all cases, the court is supposed to take actual earning capabilities into account in order to be equitable, though of course the claims of many is that judges are bad.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Here's what Massachusetts is doing.

The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 in Massachusetts

The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was signed by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick on September 26, 2011. The new law went into effect in Massachusetts on March 1, 2012.

What Does the New Law Apply to and Where is it?

This law applies to Petitions for Divorce or Complaints for Divorces or Complaints for Separate Support actions filed in Massachusetts.

The bill is Chapter 124 in the year 2011, Sections 1-6 called an “Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth” of Massachusetts. The new law is codified under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 208, Sections 48-55.*

What Are Some of the Changes?

The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 changes the law in Massachusetts by adding limits to the time alimony can be paid, adds cohabitation language, adds an end date for alimony such as retirement and cohabitation and creates new types of alimony.

What Are Some Types of Alimony?

Alimony may no longer always be unlimited. New definitions include “Rehabilitative Alimony, “Reimbursement Alimony,” “Transitional Alimony” and “General Term Alimony.” See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 48.

“Rehabilitative alimony” is moneys to be paid by one spouse (the “payor” spouse) to help their other spouse who expects to be able to support himself or herself at some time in the future. That spouse who receives alimony could learn a new skill so he or she can get new employment (called “reemployment” in the statute) and be self sufficient within a period of time. It could also be a sum ordered by a judge.

“Reimbursement alimony” is moneys to be paid from the payor spouse to a spouse who contributed to the “financial resources” of the payor spouse such as to “complete an education or job training.” It could be a contribution that was economic or non-economic.

“Transitional alimony” is moneys to be paid from the payor spouse to help the other spouse to adjust to a lifestyle or a new location due to the divorce.

Reimbursement and Transitional alimony only applies to a marriage of five years or less. Both can be a one time payment or periodic payments. Also, Rehabilitative and Transitional alimony are not modifiable.

The other type of alimony is called “General Term Alimony”. To understand general term alimony, one has to look at the definitions under the new law.

What are some of the New Definitions?

New definitions are stated in Chapter 208, Section 48:

“Alimony” is “the payment of support from a spouse, who has the ability to pay, to a spouse in need of support for a reasonable length of time, under a court order.”

“General Term Alimony” is “the periodic payment of support to a recipient spouse who is economically dependent.”

“Full retirement age” is the payor’s normal retirement age for social security, under the “United States Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program.” (See 42 U.S.C. 416) It does not include early retirement. Right now the full retirement age is 66 or 67 years of age depending on ones year of birth. (Up to the year of birth in 1959, the retirement age is 66. From the year of birth in 1960 and thereafter it is 67. ) To determine ones age for retirement, please

visit: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/retirechart.htm.


“Length of Marriage” is changed to mean from the date of the legal marriage to the date of service of the Complaint or Petition for Divorce or Complaint for Separate Support.


Also, under the definition of length of marriage, it states that cohabitation before the marriage could be added to the length “if there is evidence that the economic marital partnership began during their cohabitation period prior to the marriage.” (See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 48.)


Factors


The factors to determine the amount and length of payment of alimony are still generally the same as the current law under M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 34, except conduct has been taken out of the factors for alimony, but not property division due to a divorce.


The questions to ask based on factors for alimony stated in M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 53, include:

-What is the length of the marriage?

-What are the parties ages?

-What is the health of each spouse?

-What is each spouses’ income?

-What is the employment of each spouse?

-What is the employability of each spouse?

-What is the economic and non-economic contribution that each spouse gave to the marriage?

-What was the couples lifestyle during the marriage?

-What is each spouses’ ability to maintain the marital lifestyle after the divorce?

-What economic opportunity was lost due to the divorce? and

-What are other relevant and material factors?


How Much Needs to Be Paid?


Generally the alimony that needs to be paid is 30-35% “of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued.” See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 53 (a). This does not apply to reimbursement alimony or if there is a deviation. (See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 53 (b).


What is excluded from the order are capital gains, dividend and interest that the parties obtained from assets they divided and gross income from a child support order. To figure out what is “income”, please visit the definition of income under the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines which are found at: http://www.mass.gov/courts/formsandg...s/csg2006.html.


What are Grounds for Deviation from the for General Term Alimony?


The court may deviate from the time and amount limits for general term and rehabilitative alimony under M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 52 (e).

The grounds for deviating from general term alimony and rehabilitative alimony as stated in the M.G. L. 208, Chapter 52(e) are as follows:

“(1) advanced age; chronic illness; or unusual health circumstances of either party;

(2) tax considerations applicable to the parties;

(3) whether the payor spouse is providing health insurance and the cost of health insurance for the recipient spouse;

(4) whether the payor spouse has been ordered to secure life insurance for the benefit of the recipient spouse and the cost of such insurance;

(5) sources and amounts of unearned income, including capital gains, interest and dividends, annuity and investment income from assets that were not allocated in the parties divorce;

(6) significant premarital cohabitation that included economic partnership or marital separation of significant duration, each of which the court may consider in determining the length of the marriage;

(7) a party's inability to provide for that parties own support by reason of physical or mental abuse by the payor;

(8) a party's inability to provide for that party's own support by reason of that party's deficiency of property, maintenance or employment opportunity; and

(9) upon written findings, any other factor that the court deems relevant and material.”


How Long Does the Payor Have to Pay Alimony?


How long the payor spouse has to pay alimony depends on the type of alimony and the length of the marriage, the factors, whether there is cohabitation and whether there is a deviation.


“Rehabilitative alimony ends after five years or less, remarriage, a specific event or death of either spouse. (See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 50.) It could be extended upon a showing of compelling circumstances. (See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 50(b)).


“Reimbursement alimony” ends after a date certain or the death of the recipient. This type of alimony is for a marriage of five years or less. The income guidelines do not apply. See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 51 (a-c).


“Transitional alimony” is not paid more than three years from the date of the divorce. It ends upon a date certain or the death of the recipient spouse. This type of alimony is also for a marriage of five years or less. It can not be modified. (See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 52 (a-b).


“General term alimony” is paid under M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 49 (b) (1-4), as follows:

-If a marriage is five years or less, general term alimony is not longer than one-half the number of months of the marriage (or a maximum of two and a half years).

-If a marriage is 10 years or less, but more than five years, general term is not longer than 60% of the number of months of the marriage or

-If a marriage is 15 years or less, but more than 10 years, general term alimony is not longer than 70% of the number of the months of the marriage or

-If a marriage is 20 years or less, but more than 15 years, general term alimony is not longer than 80% of the number of months of the marriage.


Therefore, one must count the months of the marriage to determine how long general term alimony would be, then multiply it by the percentage listed.


Generally, general term alimony ends when the spouse who receives the support remarries or the death of either spouse or upon full retirement age at 66 or 67, depending on the date of birth of the spouse who is paying the alimony. (See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 49 (f)). The alimony to be paid can be changed upon a material change of circumstances.

If the spouse who receives alimony cohabitates by maintaining a “common household” for a continuous period of at least 3 months, then alimony can be suspended, reduced or terminated. See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 49 (d). There are factors for the court to consider what is a common household under M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 49 (d) (1)(I-vi). It can be reinstated if the recipient spouse moves out, but it can’t extend over the termination date in the original order.

The cohabitation and retirement clauses do not apply to Rehabilitative, Reimbursement and Transitional Alimony.


What is Not Considered in the New Law?


If a spouse that pays the alimony remarries, the new spouses’ income and assets are not considered. See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 54 (a). Also, second jobs and overtime work is considered immaterial for payor spouses who are working a full-time job and the second job or over-time is after the initial order of a court. See M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 54 (b).


What Can’t be Changed Under the New Law?


If one has a current court judgment that the parties agreed that “alimony survives the judgment” or if the parties agreed that alimony can not be modified, it can not be changed due to this new law. (See Section 4, under the Chapter 124 of the Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth.)


Also, Rehabilitative alimony and Transitional alimony can't be changed.


Does One Need Security if Paying Alimony?


Some security may be required by the court such as life insurance or another type of security during the time one has to pay alimony.


When Can a Payor Spouse File a Complaint for Modification to Stop Payment of Alimony?


Since the new law has restrictions on when the alimony can be modified, one can not file an action in court immediately to reduce their alimony. (See Section 5 under the Chapter 124 of the Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth.)


There are certain dates when one can go into court to try to change or modify the current alimony order and it depends on the length of marriage or retirement age or if there is cohabitation for a period of time. The dates one can go in to court are as follows under Section 5 of the Chapter 124 of the Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth:

-on or after March 1, 2012, if a former spouse who is receiving alimony is cohabitating with another under the definition in the new law or

-on or after March 1, 2013, for spouses who are paying alimony for a marriage that was five years or less or for spouses paying alimony who will reach full retirement age on or before March 1, 2015;

-on or after March 1, 2014, for spouses who are paying alimony for a marriage that was more than 5 years to 10 years or less;

-on or after March 1, 2015, for spouses who are paying alimony for a marriage that was more than 10 years to 15 years or less; and

-on or after September 1, 2015, for spouses who are paying alimony for a marriage that was more than 15 years to 20 years.


In Conclusion


There are a lot of changes to this new alimony law in Massachusetts. This new law will provide more structure for both spouses who will pay or receive alimony than under the former law. Former spouses, especially dependent ones in their 50s and early 60s who receive alimony, may be able to continue with alimony if they fit the deviations categories in general term alimony or rehabilitative alimony. It has been thought that this new law will encourage marriages. Due to the cohabitation clauses and the consideration of economic partnership before a marriage (which could be added to the length of marriage in a divorce) could entice more couples to marry earlier and not wait. The new law will also encourage settlements and not court hearings due to the restrictions in the law for filing Complaints for Modification well into the future. Mediation and the collaborative law processes are excellent ways to settle matters due to this new law. All in all this new alimony law is a welcome change to the former law.

Oh man, I just remember a case from when I was in a court room for something previously. There was a guy who made a good bit of money, and had been divorced from his wife for some time now. He was pretty close to retirement age from what I remember. Him and his lawyer were seeking an end to the alimony, and he was paying a really large amount. Part of the reason was that his ex-wife was now had cohabitation with a guy. Her and her scumbag lawyer were trying to say things like "well they've barely lived together for 9 months" and "this new guy only makes 200k a year" and blah blah lifestyle bullshit. There was nothing better than seeing the judge lose patience with her and her lawyer and rule in favor of this guy.

[Zechs-cenarius]

I totally understand why alimony is around but it is complete garbage. A person regardless of their sacrifice in a marriage should not be monetarily compensated for that sacrifice during the divorce. That would be like saying the sacrifice of the other person is meaningless in the entire situation. Prenups should be automatic and default for any marriage. This case is an extraodinary one but completely ridiculous. As someone said on the first page....it should not be made a permanent meal ticket.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Probably because there's several types of alimony where having a job in and of itself is irrelevant. Someone who gave up on their education/career for the other spouse is entitled to alimony from that regardless of subsequent work (sacrifices were made, sacrifices must be compensated for, is the logic). The same goes for if someone put their spouse through college or something like that, then in a divorce they'd also be entitled to alimony to reimburse them of the costs (of course never sees anti-alimony types mention this).

Rehabilitative alimony does require the applying spouse to submit a detailed plan for how they're going to become self-sufficient. In all cases, the court is supposed to take actual earning capabilities into account in order to be equitable, though of course the claims of many is that judges are bad.

Do you not think there is an appropriate amount limit of compensation? Like, a person sacrificing their education/career for 10 years gets divorced who then finishes their education/starts their career shouldn't necessarily get anymore alimony because what they have really sacrificed is not measurable. You can say that they are 10 years behind in their career but that's unfair. They're actually just 10 years ahead in their age.

[semaphore]

Do you not think there is an appropriate amount limit of compensation?

I do, I do find those multi million alimony Hollywood is found of ridiculous. But I'm not going to make a random stab in the dark and pretend that I understand the situation well enough to be able to make any claims as to what is a reasonable limit. But I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of your post.

Like, a person sacrificing their education/career for 10 years gets divorced who then finishes their education/starts their career shouldn't necessarily get anymore alimony because what they have really sacrificed is not measurable. You can say that they are 10 years behind in their career but that's unfair. They're actually just 10 years ahead in their age.

What? I don't understand this logic. Even if you can't precisely quantify the sacrifice, that doesn't mean the sacrifice wasn't made. Their careers were put on pause for ten years, playing word games about "10 years ahead in their age" is just semantics. This obviously depends on your specific line of work or area, but I can't imagine a 10 year disruption being anything but incredibly detrimental.

[Grizzly Willy]

Would it be fair if child support was withheld when the person caring for the child entered into a relationship with another person, since the second person could now pay to raise the child with them?

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Even if you can't precisely quantify the sacrifice, that doesn't mean the sacrifice wasn't made.

A sacrifice is just that. A sacrifice.

It shouldn't entitle someone to anything more than enough to live reasonably until such a time that they are able to reintegrate into the work force.

---------- Post added 2012-12-09 at 09:37 PM ----------

Would it be fair if child support was withheld when the person caring for the child entered into a relationship with another person, since the second person could now pay to raise the child with them?

No, not really. There's no real reason anyone else should be required to pay for another person's dumb kid, especially outside of a marriage.

[Rukentuts]

Would it be fair if child support was withheld when the person caring for the child entered into a relationship with another person, since the second person could now pay to raise the child with them?

I don't know about child support, but alimony needs to.

[Laize]

I do, I do find those multi million alimony Hollywood is found of ridiculous. But I'm not going to make a random stab in the dark and pretend that I understand the situation well enough to be able to make any claims as to what is a reasonable limit. But I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of your post.




What? I don't understand this logic. Even if you can't precisely quantify the sacrifice, that doesn't mean the sacrifice wasn't made. Their careers were put on pause for ten years, playing word games about "10 years ahead in their age" is just semantics. This obviously depends on your specific line of work or area, but I can't imagine a 10 year disruption being anything but incredibly detrimental.

Do you think permanent alimony is a fair form of compensation in any situation?

[semaphore]

Would it be fair if child support was withheld when the person caring for the child entered into a relationship with another person, since the second person could now pay to raise the child with them?

It's still your child though. Not sure why you'd dump the responsibility on someone else. However, obviously that would be a change in circumstances which would terminate alimony (in most cases of stable long term relationships) and would probably mean the cost of raising the child for the custodial parent has decreased, so a case can be made that support payments ought to as well.

On the other hand, as I said and shown earlier, child support payments are rather low relative to the actual average expenditure on children.