Quote:
Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted
Can you blame her for not wanting to send him a check every month? It's like handing him an award for abusing her child.
Should criminal activity in the marriage make spousal support null and void? Should criminals be due money from their spouse simply because she (in this case) earned more during the marriage?
Traditionally, judges in family court look into claims of domestic abuse in marriages when determining alimony, but that hardly seems like enough. A rape of a child is beyond the pale and clearly impacts her mother.
Cases don't even have to be this heinous. Surely when a spouse turns out to be a crack dealer or something equally illegal and harmful to a family, the responsible spouse who leaves to escape criminal activity should be given a chance to truly break free.
These cases can't be allowed to happen. Victims shouldn't be re-victimized because the law is inflexible.
|
I am sorry to snip a brilliant post but this is something really interesting and relevant to what I am involved with personally and professionally.
I am also only going to post from a Canadian perspective as that is the nature of my knowledge.
In Canada, spousal support (aka alimony) is used to adjust for "standard of living", based on disparity in income for two former domestic partners. For the most part, it can be a fairly dated law-- it was *mostly* used in circumstances where there was a partner that did not work outside the home.
Please keep in mind that there are many circumstances where spousal support is necessary to offset a difference in income due to such instances as long term disability, chronic health issues (ie big medical expenses),inability to find full time employment, students...
To say that spousal support is an "award for abusing her daughter" also lends itself to the logic that "spouse x is a cheater/liar/lazy/uneducated/scumbag/drug addict/etc" and therefore should not receive spousal support.
I don't agree that the guy should receive it, the thought makes me *CRINGE*--but I also don't want to see spousal support be attached to conditions.
In an already patriarchal malfunctioning system to tie more caveats to spousal will only harm people (particularly women) already with economic disparity and often people with disabilities.
Put women further into further into economic stratification post divorce? Lower their standard of living? No, thank you. It's a slippery slope I want to avoid.
I also would like to point out that spousal support in Canada is never punitive or based on criminal activity. It's a calculation based on previous three years of taxes. If a judge ever made something like that punitive , it would be a case for appeal and a miscarriage of justice.
I also want to speak finally to parental alienation:
Parental rights are linked/tied to all legislation around Divorce Acts/Family Law Acts. With support ($) there is also a tie to custody/access/parental time. These are usually "rights" (I use that term loosely) that people view around both divorce and parenting.
Ask any mental health/ social worker/ social justice professional that works with families frequently and they will likely tell you that children will *WANT* and *NEED* attachment to both parents developmentally. (Barring extraordinary cases of neglect) I can probably provide 100s of sources on this. Parental loyalty and attachment is REAL. Foster parenting is a prime example, children often can be moved into "better" homes and would still choose and love their attached/bio parents unquestionably. Age of the child and trauma are two easy factors to point out.
There are shades of grey and factors--please do not read this as an absolute. But we try to act in the best interest of children. I realize in THIS case --the system is failing this poor traumatized girl and I would never advocate for re-victimization. Gosh, talk to me for five seconds and you will know my stance.
But I also look at it from family justice as I work for children's rights. And in that circumstance, I don't want parental rights (whether they be $ or access to children) --to be tied to criminal activity. Sometimes supervised visits are mandatory. Sometimes it is letter writing/phone calls only. But criminals can be good parents. People with criminal records can be good parents. People with a history of domestic violence can be good parents.
Parents are gods/goddesses in the eyes of children and no matter how immoral or wrong their actions are-- their children often love without that societal judgment. Try and protect children and victims to the best of society's ability.
Justice is flawed, but I don't see the need to "throw the baby out with the bath water" for lack of a better phrase.
Does there need to be change in the family justice system? Oh heck yeah!!!!
Is there always a need for change in child protective custody? Oh heck yeah!!
Do we always need to be vigilant and advocate for women and children's rights?
Core value for me right there.
The MAJOR problem for the law is *CASE LAW & PRECEDENT*
In most circumstances this becomes the basis for future law, decisions and legislation.
If the courts rule, against this awful heinous abuser, it can be a future slippery slope for the law to be twisted against women again and promote further power loss for those already victimized by a system that works against them.
I would love to share more thoughts on this subject