One Thing I Agree With Dave Sim On

[Gail Simone]

I don't think our divorce laws are fair in this country.

I realize that they were probably well intended. But it makes no sense that in, say, John Cleese's divorce, his ex-wife should end up with more of his earnings and income than he is allowed to keep. Is that fair?

I place a high value on those women who stay home and keep the house and raise the children (and on the men who do that as well), and I definitely think that if a man or woman gives up their career to support their spouse, that that's worth something.

But shouldn't this be judged on a case by case basis? We don't have one-law-fits-all for any OTHER financial transactions.

Okay, say a spouse works two crappy jobs to put their wife or husband through medical school, and completely gives up their own dreams and career to make that happen. Then, the newly minted doctor becomes a serial philanderer and a drug addict and gives the spouse vd.

Now imagine a second scenario where a waitress marries an already rich celebrity, cheats on him, and then leaves him after a month.

Should the spouse in the second scenario get the same compensation as the first? Should she be entitled to half his wages for years?

I venture to say that these laws actually REWARD crappy behavior and encourage breakups.

I'm all for fairness. I believe staying at home and raising kids is a job worth something in a marriage.

But I don't believe the no-fault laws are even slightly fair.


Where am I wrong?

[KevinTBrown]

Nope. Not wrong.

BUT I will say that any spouse is entitled to half the earned income for the time they're married and only for that time.

[Sally Sensational]

No-fault divorces were designed for marriages like mine: we were married for 4 months, had no property or children, and just wanted to go our separate ways. I hadn't even changed my name. A few months (most states require a separation period even in a no-fault) and $250 later and we were divorced.

They don't really work for any other situation, though. I agree that every situation needs to be addressed individually, especially when there are large amounts of money or property involved.

Personally, I think that every state/country should require a short course in "What Marriage and Divorce Means to Your Finances" before they issue a marriage license. Too many people get married without knowing what they're getting into in terms of taxes, credit ratings, and potential end results if a divorce occurs. I know that the whole idea is horribly un-romantic, but just a few cases will demonstrate that being all gushy and "we're gonna be together FOREVER" and just tying the knot without thinking the possible financial ends through is generally a bad idea.

[thehod]

I realize that they were probably well intended. But it makes no sense that in, say, John Cleese's divorce, his ex-wife should end up with more of his earnings and income than he is allowed to keep. Is that fair?

There was a bit of a to-do over here a few years ago when footballer Ray Parlour and his wife divorced.

Wikipedia explains it better than I can.


Parlour married his wife Karen in 1998; the couple had three children before separating in 2001. In July 2004, they agreed a divorce settlement which awarded Karen Parlour two houses and a £250,000 lump sum but the issue of maintenance was not agreed. Ray Parlour offered Karen £120,000 p.a. on the basis that this would meet all of her and their children's needs, but she wanted more. Initially the court awarded her £212,500 a year, but both parties were unsatisfied with this and appealed.

The Court of Appeal increased Karen's award to £440,000 p.a. However, this would only be paid for five years to enable her to put aside £250,000 each year to build up her own capital resources. The case brought with it media speculation that future divorce cases would bring people a more equal share in their former partner's future earnings, and a possible increased usage of prenuptial agreements.

This is bearing in mind that Parlour is now retired from the game, and as such his ability to earn this level of cash is substantially reduced.

[Jae Namkyoung]

This is a little off-topic but, I also think that Child Support is kinda unfair.

My Dad raised me since I was six by himself, my Mom took off when they got divorced. He never saw a dime, yet when my Dad's first wife cries foul over due-back Child Support for my two brothers, and yes they are over the age of 18, one is now 30 the other is 28.

They take it at the drop of a hat, but when my Dad asks for his money from my Mom, IT TAKES THEM YEARS! We had to go through three different states, Texas where we live, Nevada where the divorce occurred and Florida where my Mom and her new husband live.

-_-

Gail you're not wrong.

[Wonder Watcher]

Where am I wrong?You're not wrong.

I think the divorce laws might be even worse in the UK.

[Typo Lad]

This is a little off-topic but, I also think that Child Support is kinda unfair.

My Dad raised me since I was six by himself, my Mom took off when they got divorced. He never saw a dime, yet when my Dad's first wife cries foul over due-back Child Support for my two brothers, and yes they are over the age of 18, one is now 30 the other is 28.

They take it at the drop of a hat, but when my Dad asks for his money from my Mom, IT TAKES THEM YEARS! We had to go through three different states, Texas where we live, Nevada where the divorce occurred and Florida where my Mom and her new husband live.

-_-

Gail you're not wrong.
Oh yes, G-d forbid a man need child support. The system does not like that.

[Gail Simone]

Oh, yeah, same thing.

I THINK these laws were well-intended.

But this stuff needs to be judged case-by-case. There is no sense at ALL in automatically assuming the woman is the better (and needier, financially) parent.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

There is the Steven Spielberg divorce from Amy Irving. Where in 4 years of marriage she got $100 million dollars . Irving also its rumored got a piece of Spielberg's films . That earns her money from what I remember hearing.

[Jae Namkyoung]

Oh, yeah, same thing.

I THINK these laws were well-intended.

But this stuff needs to be judged case-by-case. There is no sense at ALL in automatically assuming the woman is the better (and needier, financially) parent.


No kidding, it was hard for a long time we lived with my Grandparents.

By the time we DID move out, it was with that abusive bitch of a step mother.

Then my Dad is finally starting to make some money, and oh look the state starts taking money from him AGAIN. We've been living pay check to pay check ever since.

Oh yeah, heaven forbid that there's actually responsible Fathers out there who actually struggle to provide for their kids. Lord knows, that NEVER happens.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

And sometimes the courts do rule pretty fair. And its suprising how far they can be. Last year for example Paul McCartney was finishing his nasty divorce with Heather Mills. Sir Paul offered Mills $65+ million in a settlement . Way more than his attorney wanted him to as she claimed.

Mills rejected it , claiming she wanted $200-$250 million of Paul's money. Claiming she was entitled to it since he was worth $800-$1 billion dollars now and had inspired him to record new songs (yes she was full of shit). The battle was on and finally a judge ruled Heather Mills would get $48 million from Paul McCartney. Citing that the couple was only married 4-5 years . That had they been married like Paul & Linda ...he would have seriously gave her more. But he rejected her claim she inspired him to record new music.

Mills went fucking crazy. She dumped a water glass on McCartney's attorney's head. She stormed out angry claiming Paul didn't want his daughter to fly 1st class as he did.

McCartney's attorney claimed Mills showed what she truelly was then. And that McCartney has his estate carved up in his will for all his children in equal shares. That Beatrice will never worry for anything and its dumb to think that.

The Heather Mills ruling made me happy to see someone that damn spiteful get her just desserts in court.

[DamianL]

You're not wrong.

I think the divorce laws might be even worse in the UK.

I don't believe they are...

Libel laws - yes

Divorce laws - not as far as i know.

:confused:

( see the above example Mills v McCartney)

[Puppetmaker Grae]

Oh, yeah, same thing.

I THINK these laws were well-intended.

But this stuff needs to be judged case-by-case. There is no sense at ALL in automatically assuming the woman is the better (and needier, financially) parent.

I think it should be considered that celebrity divorce cases are not really going to be typical of most people's experience of divorce. How do things usually work out for normal people?

[dupont2005]

i think they are becoming less gender based though. i know a girl who was knocked up at the age of 14 by a 20 year old man. her mom had them get married instead of send the father of her grand child to prison. a couple years later into the marriage and the mother finds out her daughter is being beaten and held captive by this guy. with intervention, they get separated.

after that, the man is stalking his soon-to-be ex-wife. following her to work, sending family members to the house, so on. he moves back in with his gang banging felon uncles and she moves back with her mother. when the divorce is finalized, the man has 51% custody of the 2 kids they had together, and she is paying child support. a small amount, but still...

[Reverend Smooth]

It should be noted that in the overwhelming majority of divorce cases, women's income goes down, whilst their husbans' stays the same or rises. The vast majority of women are not making more than their husbands after the divorce, even though they're usually the ones stuck with supporting the kids.

[Wonder Watcher]

I don't believe they are...

Libel laws - yes

Divorce laws - not as far as i know.

:confused:

( see the above example Mills v McCartney)

You could well be right.

I'm probably biased as I wouldn't have given fraudster Mills 48 pence never mind $48 million.

Having said that if the judge had fined Paul $48 million for being stupid enough to marry her in the first place and foisting her on the British public for 5 years I would have considered that a fair result.

[sk716]

I think it should be considered that celebrity divorce cases are not really going to be typical of most people's experience of divorce. How do things usually work out for normal people?

Depends on the State. Arkansas, and several other Southern/Mid-Western states are not Alimony states. If there are no children at the time of the divorce nobody owes anybody else anything after the dust settles.

Child support laws in these states vary, though. I know Arkansas has gotten pretty vicious about child support over the last 10 or so years. If Arkansas Child Support Enforcement ends up involved they will be involved and harassing the paying parent until the child/children is/are 18 or all due monies have been paid. Grown children suing deadbeat parents for back child support is pretty common here, too.

[LewisH]

gets married in the first place. I think it's a conspiracy by caterers and lawyers myself.

[Merey]

No-fault divorces were designed for marriages like mine: we were married for 4 months, had no property or children, and just wanted to go our separate ways. I hadn't even changed my name. A few months (most states require a separation period even in a no-fault) and $250 later and we were divorced.

They don't really work for any other situation, though. I agree that every situation needs to be addressed individually, especially when there are large amounts of money or property involved.

Personally, I think that every state/country should require a short course in "What Marriage and Divorce Means to Your Finances" before they issue a marriage license. Too many people get married without knowing what they're getting into in terms of taxes, credit ratings, and potential end results if a divorce occurs. I know that the whole idea is horribly un-romantic, but just a few cases will demonstrate that being all gushy and "we're gonna be together FOREVER" and just tying the knot without thinking the possible financial ends through is generally a bad idea.

This is fantastic advice. I'm getting married next Spring and I'm beginning to realize just how little I know about the tying together of finances. I need to find a good resource and start educating myself.

[Bo Bo]

Has anyone heard from Doc Absurd lately? Unfortunately he would have a lot to add to this :frown:

(I hope that's the right Doc I'm talking about :redface: )

[4thHorseman]

My fiance's parents are about to get a divorce. Her mom plans on taking as much as she possibly can leaving her dad and sister (who's living with her dad) with not enough money to afford the apartment they are currently in.

Oh, and her mom was lying to her dad about relationships she had during their marriage (long story) and she was cheating on him the last couple of months. He still does not know that, but he will by the time the divorce comes around.

If for some reason she comes out with ANY money from it, I am not going to bite my tongue any longer around her.

[NickThompson]

It should be noted that in the overwhelming majority of divorce cases, women's income goes down, whilst their husbans' stays the same or rises. The vast majority of women are not making more than their husbands after the divorce, even though they're usually the ones stuck with supporting the kids.
But in this case there are no kids from the relationship, and she is now so stinking rich that her income changing is totally irellevent.


She should get money, sure, but the fact that she now has more money than the person who actually earnt the money is just stupid.


The stupidity is also shown quite well from a Cleese quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6043628/John-Cleese-in-12-million-divorce-settlement.html


“What I find so unfair is that if we both died today, her children would get much more than mine.”

[sweetdreams]

My brother just got divorced. He can barely get by and he won't get to see his kids (they won't get to see their dad) because she's had to move back to her family out of state (who have pretty good money). Divorce just sucks, so right now it's hard to feel bad for Mr. Cleese and at the same time I agree that it's ridiculous! (I just sent it to my brother, thx for the link)

[Reverend Smooth]

But in this case there are no kids from the relationship, and she is now so stinking rich that her income changing is totally irellevent.


She should get money, sure, but the fact that she now has more money than the person who actually earnt the money is just stupid.


The stupidity is also shown quite well from a Cleese quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6043628/John-Cleese-in-12-million-divorce-settlement.htmlIt is stupid, but it's not representative of most divorce cases.

[Tad Sivana]

I'd just like to point out for Connie Booth fans that while she was married to John Cleese she was writing, producing and performing along with him, including stuff for Pythons as well as the famous Fawlty Towers series.
She was not home watching tv, she was working to build the Cleese brand!

[Corrina]

I think that the law is skewed in some cases toward the woman getting support because it used to be the case (and is probably true in the majority of cases now) that the wife stays home and takes care of the kids while the husband earns income.

It is true that the husband supports her and the children monetarily during this time period. It's also true the what the wife does for the family during this time period are tasks that would have a very high monetary value if one had to hire someone to do it.

And the wife would very possibly limit her outside the home work options for the future because of time spent at home.

This would be why some women are given support after a divorce above and beyond child support, to recognize the effort put into the marriage/caretaking that did have value and to give the woman a chance to get on their feet until they can support themselves and better support their kids.

That's the theory behind it. And I think it's valid, in many cases.

HOWEVER,

Times are changing somewhat and, as Gail said, cases should be handled on an individual basis. There are simply times in a divorce where having two separate living places is so much more expensive that there's no money left over for one partner to support the other on top of it, no matter if it's the wife or the husband.

Which kinda sucks but the fact of the matter is that one household is cheaper than two and if the two parties decide to get divorced, that fact isn't going to change because more money is needed but isn't there.

[Tyr]

This is a little off-topic but, I also think that Child Support is kinda unfair.

My Dad raised me since I was six by himself, my Mom took off when they got divorced. He never saw a dime, yet when my Dad's first wife cries foul over due-back Child Support for my two brothers, and yes they are over the age of 18, one is now 30 the other is 28.

They take it at the drop of a hat, but when my Dad asks for his money from my Mom, IT TAKES THEM YEARS! We had to go through three different states, Texas where we live, Nevada where the divorce occurred and Florida where my Mom and her new husband live.

-_-

Gail you're not wrong.

I have to agree with this it seems that child support laws favor the mother, I gotta 'nother example of this.

A former classmates ex had been married previously, the wife in his former marrage was given custody of his kid. The woman in question was a dead beat that blew all her child support money on crack, and would dump her son off on him when she grew tired of him, then come and grab him when she needed her next fix.

Well things weren't going well for my classmate and her ex. It looked as they were heading for a divorce, and given his past situation, and the fear that he was going to lose his kids again...well one night, during a heated argument he snapped. He pulled out a 9 mm and shot her 5 times at point blank range, she took two in the hip and three in the leg. When he releazed what he had done, he called 911.

To this day my classmate walks with a limp, and from the telling she hates the dead beat crack mom alot more then the one that pulled the trigger.

[sweetdreams]

I'd just like to point out for Connie Booth fans that while she was married to John Cleese she was writing, producing and performing along with him, including stuff for Pythons as well as the famous Fawlty Towers series.
She was not home watching tv, she was working to build the Cleese brand!


I saw that, I loved Fawlty Towers and thinks she's great!

[Reverend Smooth]

Bleah, the poor woman. (The classmate, not the crackhead.)

I can personally state that after my parents divorced, my mother got very little except for three kids (whom he didn't want), and we all struggled financially while he did his own thing, avoided child support payments, and was a deadbeat. Even when I was a homeless teen, he couldn't be bothered to help out.

He made out really well; he didn't have to raise the kids, avoided child support which wasn't set at a punitive amount anyway, and was free of his family responsibilities completely.