[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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.

There’s a problem with Societies definition of ‘paid his debt’.
The gender-based inequalities are blatant, because yes, you are quite right—Most recipients of alimony/child support are women, which nicely supports the tax break (for mostly males) AND tax payable (mostly women—and mostly women in precarious tax brackets to begin with).
This particular story has the smack of a double handed bitch-slap.

The reward that he received for sexually abusing a child was exactly in society claiming that his ‘debt was paid’. Did he have to cough up a few cows or a flock of sheep or an acre of land? In what way has his debt been paid? That’s what makes me nuts.

As for her daughter’s recourse: Shitballs.

Other than the recourse of dealing with the residual and long lasting effects of sexual abuse in childhood, and into her adult life, I suppose she could set forth the arduous task of squeezing blood from a stone. I’m sure Mr. Ed is in the perfect position to set immediately forth amassing a fortune, of which his daughter can see the ‘justice’ of via a civil suit against said Asswipe. THIS is also what makes me nuts.

Abuse, including Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, Sexual Abuse, (Woman Abuse) are all criminal activities. Assault, n’est- ce pas? At that point, all bets should be off. As a Perpetrator you (should) immediately loose all rights to any assets associated with the victim/spouse/non-offending parent, all rights to the matrimonial home, all rights to any possible support of any kind, of any nature. Let’s just go so far as to say “All rights rescinded on account of your undeniable, sociopathic, sadistic sad shit”. And since I’m now in the land of Unicorns fluffing out the skittles of restorative justice, it wasn’t the State nor the Crown that got raped for 16 years of her of her quarter century of age. Three quarters of her life experience spent being abused. It was a nine year old girl .

And filed under things that make me go “Huh?” is : Most states still have provisions to prevent an ex-spouse from becoming dependent on state assistance.

It should be the DUTY of the State to see her transition from abuse (victimization) to supported survivor, without forcing her into contact for the 200.00 bucks a month the court would order he pay. Child support comes first. (Is that stone bleeding yet??? This should not be the community’s answer to violence against women and children. “If you break, you bought it—we ain’t takin’ care of anything” mentality. If you want to send him the bill via an asshole tax for the rest of his life, great.

Crime and Punishment, right?