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.



( 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.