Quote:
Originally Posted by CherylNYC
I say we activate the women's mafia. Dead people can't collect alimony.
|
This is one of those news stories that makes me go hmmm. It also makes me have to separate out emotion from logic.
I understand when his lawyer says....
"Under the law, he is entitled to some relief from the higher income producing spouse, so that the marital standard of living can be maintained."
I also understand why the ex-wife would say.....
"The law makes no sense. He victimized a little girl all these years and I have to pay him for that behavior," she said.
My dilemma is alimony is about a financial obligation to a former spouse as part of a binding marriage contract which entitles them to compensation to maintain their style of living during the marriage. It is not about rewarding him for sexually abusing a child well into adulthood.
I am also concerned when there is talking about "conditions" whereby this marital obligation can be removed.
Remember the history of how alimony began....."Divorce law in the U.S. was based on English Common Law, which developed at a time when a female gave up her personal property rights on marriage. Upon separation from marriage, the husband retained the right to the wife's property, but, in exchange, had an ongoing responsibility to support the wife after dissolution of the marriage.
British law was amended by legislation including Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882 which reformed females' property rights relating to marriage, by, for example, permitting divorced females to regain the property they owned before marriage."
Alimony was a hard fought right.
As societal circumstances changed so did the alimony laws. Amounts and duration limits have been enacted which have been sometimes a help and sometimes a hindrance for women. Most states still have provisions to prevent an ex-spouse from becoming dependent on state assistance.
Alimony is taxable for the recipient, a tax deduction for the payer. Who makes more money? Who is the likely recipient?
I am reluctant to say criminal activity should factor into alimony. Most recipients of alimony are still women.
This gets to be tricky shit.
In this particular case, at 1:30 in the morning, I am thinking this woman is not potentially going to be paying alimony to her ex-husband victimizing her child for 16 years. She would be paying alimony as it is prescribed by law. It is unfortunate she chose to marry a douchebag.
He pleaded guilty. He served his time under the law. Society says he paid his debt.
On the other hand, her daughter, who is now an adult, should have legal recourse to file a civil suit against her stepfather who pleaded guilty to raping her.