Custodial Dad Says He Paid $100,000+ in Alimony to Working Ex-Wife, Received no CS
August 11th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesFrom Treasure Coast group seeks to abolish permanent alimony (www.tcpalm.com, 8/8/08):
Dick Lindsey decided something needed to be done.
Since his divorce in 1982, the Treasure Coast resident had paid more than $100,000 in alimony to ex-wife Barbara Lindsey while raising five of their children and not receiving child support.
Meanwhile, Barbara Lindsey, who couldn't be reached for comment, had run for Florida lieutenant governor and held several government jobs.
"She told the people she was capable of being the governor, but she told the court she couldn't take care of herself," said Lindsey, now 73.
Fighting the court became a costly battle that Lindsey, a Port Salerno plumber, knew he couldn't afford to win.
Instead, in 2000, he formed a group of local divorcees fed up with paying permanent alimony to former spouses who they say are capable of supporting themselves.
Calling themselves the Alliance for Freedom from Alimony Inc., the group seeks the abolishment of Florida's permanent alimony statute, something group members describe as unconstitutional indentured servitude. The group now has more than 500 members and there are chapters in Georgia and Massachusetts.
Under Florida's present permanent alimony laws, a divorcee can be ordered to pay a portion of his or her income to a former spouse until either of them dies.
The payments were designed to allow a former spouse to maintain their current lifestyle.
But the alliance feels Florida courts have allowed people to take advantage of the system.
The alliance favors an alternative similar to the Texas rules known as "spousal maintenance."
In Texas, spousal maintenance allows the receiving party a maximum of whichever is less $2,500 per month or 20 percent of a former spouse's monthly income. The payments last no more than three years, unless the receiver is disabled.
"If someone can't establish and support themselves in three years, that person doesn't deserve to be called an adult," Lindsey said.
Stuart attorney Joseph L. Gufford III disagrees with the group's position to abolish permanent alimony.
He acknowledges some people are unjustly required to pay alimony, but he said permanent alimony is only permanent until the paying party can prove the recipient is able support his or herself.
"If they do have the ability, they won't receive alimony — if the job is done right," Gufford said.
Alliance members, however, say the high cost of hiring a lawyer to end the alimony while at the same time maintaining alimony payments makes permanent alimony permanent...
Lindsey said 40 percent of the membership is female because more women are being forced to pay alimony to ex-husbands.
"If a woman is versatile and productive and ends up with a bum, she can be required to pay alimony," he said. "It's unreal."
A few thoughts:
1) I do believe that alimony is appropriate under certain circumstances, such as when one parent has made substantial career sacrifices in order to be the primary caregiver for the couple's children, and upon divorce their incomes are very unequal because of these sacrifices. I don't believe in alimony when its purpose is to "allow a former spouse to maintain their current lifestyle."
This is particularly true in the era of no fault divorce, when the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. It's one thing if a husband is abusive or a serial adulterer. It's quite another if a woman decides to divorce her husband because she's mad at him for whatever complicated reason and then gets to demand that he support her in the lifestyle she's accustomed to.
2) I love the way men who don't earn as much money as their wives are "bums." If you're a man, you can't win. If you work hard to be a good provider for your family, then you're blamed because you don't do enough child care and housework. If you put your kids first and your career second and your wife out earns you, then you're a lazy bum.
3) I don't know the details of the Lindsey case, but if what the father says is true, that is an outrageous injustice. It's also typical of the way fathers are treated--the fact that he was raising their kids was apparently totally disregarded.
"));
19 queries. 0.498 seconds.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
A lot of other women see their son's lives get destroyed by their ex-wifes. Also, a lot of women marry men who spend a sizable portion of their income to support their ex-wife. The truth is that alimony makes a lot of enemies, and not just men.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
"The payments were designed to allow a former spouse to maintain their current lifestyle."
I do not believe that the word lifestyle is included in the Constitution.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
"I love the way men who don't earn as much money as their wives are 'bums.' "
I agree, and this father should not have used that term (nor should he have that belief, of course, but is by nature that we expect men to be providers).
August 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
the above should say, "it is by nature that we expect men to be providers"
August 11th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
His ex-wife sounds perfect for government. She collected all that money (extortion) and then didn't give a damn about their 5 children. She sounds like she would be perfect as a "Family Court" judge.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
simple solution - WHERE"S DOC - cmon doc child support since 1982 - imagine the windfall you could get - 5 Kids hmmmmmm don't know the percentages in that state but I'd bet its a high one - and there IS a court order so.....
oh wait i forgot this time its the MOTHER whose the deadbeat - can't go after her now can we wouldn't look good
August 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Post-No-Fault Alimony has to go. Does the company that I quit to pursue other careers get ordered to pay me for life because I got accustomed? Are my parents ordered by the courts to pay me for life after I left their home after I turned 18? No, and no!
So why are men being ordered under the threat of state violence (contempt/prison) to look after women who wanted out of their marriage and left the relationship? Why, why, why?
August 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I like how "lifestyle" is only defined in the financial sense to the person (usually the wife/mother) who chose to not get a paying job during the marriage. I bet if I am now a divorced father, MY lifestyle has changed DRASTICALLY (including financially), yet I get no "compensation".
August 11th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Javier - State legilsations need to be updated to give alimony receiving ex-wives the following two choices:
1) Revisit their ex-husband's home daily to cook 3 meals per day, do 2 hours of house-care per day, and provide up 1 hour wifely-services every evening. After all the ex-husband got accustomed to these and his lifestyle cannot change after divorce. If the husband has any financial "obligation" to this ex, then this ex must have this obligation in return.
2) Opt out, and waive rights to any future alimony claims.
Can we draft this into a legislative change proposal, and wage battle in a key state to have it passed? The gay rights movement did the same for earning to right to marry, and their picked battleground state was Massachusetts. Volunteer funds/activism were directed from all 50 states to win the key victory that Battleground state. The plan now is to spread to other states via domino effect; #2 is California which just happened.
So which will be our battleground state?
August 11th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Stuart attorney Joseph L. Gufford III disagrees with the group's position to abolish permanent alimony.
Of course an attorney who stands to lose huge legal fees would be in disagreement. We cant have the common folks changing laws that make sure we have a new jaguar every year.
I agree this should be abolished. Especially in this case. I would be willing to bet the fact that this woman might have been the Lt Governor of the state had a lot to do with the judge deciding she should get alimony. We dont want to offend someone who could be in a position to affect us later would we.
Perpetual alimony is financial servitude plain and simple and it gives the recieving party no reason to better thier situation because that check is there every month. Why should they bother.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
This type of association of disgruntled men needs to be done for those suffering under the yoke of Child support
August 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Can we get Doc's opinion on this? I'd love to see how he responds to this.
This is just about the worst situation ever.
1. He pays 4000$/year(25 yrs of alimony x 4000 = 100,000$ ), to his wife, who earns much more money than him, and does not get one red cent of child support for ANY of their FIVE kids.
On a plumbers salary, its a miracle he actually kept everything afloat.
On Permanent Alimony, i agree with Mike D, there is no reason to try and get ahead by themselves when they can just kick back and chill on the check every month.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
And men are supposed to believe that this is the fault of some patriarchy? Yeah right. This is a powerplay for money plain and simple. If the system were rigged against women I'd be just as quick to say that it was all about the money. Greed. Money. Power. These things transcend gender. And the sooner that everyone sees that the sooner everyone can get on the same page.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I think judges many times award custody and dollars due to the myth of the maternal instinct. I know very few women personally, that I would consider, to actually possess what society thinks of as a maternal instinct.
I was discussing my belief, that the maternal instinct in women is a myth, and that not all women possess it, with a female coworker recently. She said that she believed that all women have a maternal instinct but choose to give up kids due to drugs or mental illness.
I countered with, what about abortion where women kill out of convenience? She was stumped and could not come up with an answer. She said "I never thought of that."
We as a society have way over-estimated womens roles in their children's lives.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Glenn, I disagree with your statement that alimony is appropriate when spouse sacrifices their career to stay home and be the primary parent. Come on, it is a privilege in this society to spend that kind of quality time with your children. And the sacrifice is a shared one by both parents, one spouse, who is probably spending more time out of the home away from children and is still not producing the money two could into the couple's estate which I feel is an equal sacrifice to the primary caregiver not working those years climbing the latter.
I think there should be no alimony period and I would argue that rehabilitative spousal should only happen if the spouse immediately gets in training or schooling full-time and end the moment they dropout or receive a failing grade. Residual income from an EX should never be OK.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
This is not a surprise at all. The courtsare so stacked in favor of women that even if they do everything that's wrong, or have made the most money, they still get the divorce and family courts decisions in their favor. Now, why would any man want to get married?
August 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
tommy said: "Now, why would any man want to get married"?
one reason and one reason only. regular sex that at the time seems like a good trade off.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
... only it's all an illusion. The average raging bachelor gets a lot more regular action (both in quantity and quality), than your run of the mill, trapped, beaten dog of a husband. Sad but true.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
David M,
“I countered with, what about abortion where women kill out of convenience?”
Convenience? As in, I’d rather get a pedicure than pay for diapers? Or more like, continuing a pregnancy will completely alter my life, and for the worse.
So I suppose MRAs who want the ability to walk away from pregnancies they did not intend, are only doing it for “convenience.” Right?
August 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
This is actually one thread I can’t disagree with anything Glenn Sacks says. And I read it 3 times. Because I can’t believe it.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
The problem here is not whether there is alimony or not. The problem is that govt has anything to do with how two individuals decide to liquidate a contract they formed a while ago.
If the courts cannot accept prenups, without a word of change enduced into it, there is no reason for men to approach the court or even get a marriage contract through one. What has to be taken utmost care of is not falling into the trap of common law marriage. Also, men would be wise to not keep an alliance with only one woman and openly so. It is the emotional dependence on one woman that blinds a man to see it clearly when his rights are endangered to be taken away at divorce.
In simple English - give feminists what they asked for - death of the concept of Marriage. That what is left behind is merely a sham that continues in the name of the long dead religious tradition. Real marriage died long time ago, its time to ceremoniously bury it.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Glenn says alimony is justified sometimes - Yes, and so is murder. There is a world of difference between voluntary alimony agreement and forced alimony agreement. In this regard the Islamic tradition of deciding alimony along with the contract of marriage AT the time of marriage seems like the most viable solution to the issue. Because without any such prior agreement - who is to judge whether there ever was an bilateral agreement about providing childcare as Glenn suggests would validate the existence of alimony? The family court judge?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
donnie's 6:33 is contradictory to david's 6:39
which of their statements is true?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
pankaj, what do you have to say for women who decline alimony when they are without a doubt entitled to it? I have the same question regarding child support when the wife agrees to a minimal amount.
Are there any "reasonable" women (like me)?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
oh... yes ... for that senario, the husband has numerous financial resources
August 11th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
A friend is going through a divorce. She wants the house, child support, 100% of college tuition for the kids, alimony, and for him to pay the mortgage and home equity loan. Basically she wants nothing to change except his personal mailing address.
Chances are, in MA, she'll get everything she wants and he will be living in a tiny studio apartment that is too small to get over night visitation rights.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“In Texas, spousal maintenance allows the receiving party a maximum of whichever is less $2,500 per month or 20 percent of a former spouse's monthly income. The payments last no more than three years, unless the receiver is disabled.”
Who would’ve thought that in between executing all those retarded people Texans would have been coming up with some sensible laws? Frankly, even three years is too much, but it’s better than for ever. Why people should be made to support their kids I get, but the Ex?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Both are true. David's illuminates donnie's. As David pointed out, the prospect of regular sex within a marriage is often an illusion, and as donnie pointed out, it only seems like a good idea at the time. I don't think it's always that way, but it often seems to be. I can understand how the two posts seemed contradictory to you.
I'm going to further disagree with donnie. I think a lot of men get married to raise children within that marriage, not for the prospect of having predictable sex on an irregular basis with the same woman until they die. As a further note to David's post, my experience and observation is that, for men, the quality and regularity of sex improves and increases with age (especially after the mid-30's). Women often demean/shame this as a midlife "crisis". Hooo baby! That's my kind of crisis!
August 11th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
i suspect we are both right georgia girl. i said the reason men get married is regular sex. that may not be the case even thought they believe it AT THE TIME. what a man believes to be true about women can be, and is regularly, completely off the mark.
also, david was referring to a "run of the mill, trapped, beaten dog of a husband." you on the other hand think all men should bow down and be run of the mill happy face husbands and there are those.........just not too many anymore.
no one is entitled to alimony in this society. i simply don't buy the mantra from non working wives that they were forced to live without a job. my ex-wife insisted that her ex-husband refused to let her work. of course, when we got divorced she told everybody i insisted that she WORK. neat how that works hey georgia girl? guess my ex was an anomaly.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Michael, re the ex wife'alimoney entitlement: would that depend on the length of the marriage, and what her role was during the marriage, and her ability to earn income?
I do, however, agree with TX on the 3 year limitation. Seems like 3 years is ample time to adjust.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
georgia girl.............can you seriously state and then convince yourself that fishgydud's post at 8:59 is a lie or just an out of touch exception? you may believe that but i am telling you that your in the minority here and it doesn't matter what your response is going to be.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
donnie, i'm not sure what you mean when you say that "all men should bow down and be run of the mill happy face husbands".
and, of course, i disagree that NO ONE is entitled to alimony in our society. I think it depends on circumstances (case by case).
August 11th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Consider the latest development .... john and elizabeth edwards. Let's just suppose the majority of assets are in his name. She leaves him because of his infidelity. What do you feel she's entitled to?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
GG,
If a woman is honorable one, then the man does not need any other assurance. The problem is that the system spares the man ONLY if the woman is honorable. Do honorable women exist - yes. Are they the majority - No. Do honorable men exist - yes. Are they the majority - No. But the current system puts the power of interpreting the marriage contract is put into the hands of the wife, a person that may or may not be reasonable - while the enforcement is done by using the power of the govt (a very large gun).
What do I need to say to women who decline alimony?
-> You are declining alimony now for whatever reason, that does not spare the other men who are stuck with either vindictive or actually pretty sane wife looking out for themselves. If it rains money on you, an honorable person may decide to use an umbrella. A less than honorable person will simply soak, while a crook will complain about the drought. Think why it rains money in the first place. The regular flesh and blood humans are probably distributed all over the range.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Edwards always seemed too much of a weasel to me. But then so did his wife for sticking by him, and fostering family ruining systems. Yes, my sympathy is with her that she is dying, but at least she had a pretty decent life before she is faced by death. Does she have any sympathy for men - other than her politician husband? My guess is if she could, she would tow the standard feminist line.
So my fantasy verdict would be to arrange a duel between them. Survivor takes all - only Johnnie will get no bullets.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
You know what! I think this is the first time i've ever agreed with you, Panjah
Now this next thing is off thread (but i need to get it off my chest):
We all sympathize with Edwards' wife (health wise). But didn't she LIE as much as her husband did by supporting a candidate whose transgressions could cause irrevocable damage to the party. ............ Think about it --- she seemed completely "trustworthy" in the eyes of the public.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Consider the latest development .... john and elizabeth edwards. Let's just suppose the majority of assets are in his name. She leaves him because of his infidelity. What do you feel she's entitled to?
Georgia Girl - She is entitled to half of those assets at the time of the divorce. She is not entitled to having little Johnny become her captive imputed work-slave for the rest of his natural life. If she wants to leave Johnny, she is free to leave Johnny. She can't leave Johnny but keep feeding off of his future cash flow just as if she had stayed with him. You can't have your cake, and eat it too.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
i think there should be a more severe penalty for infidelity. I'd want to be compensated for public humiliation plus pain and suffering .... plus half the assets, plus whatever else I could get under SC law.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Afterall, johnny had his cake and ate it, then went back for seconds
August 11th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Welcome to the world of post no-fault divorce, and how it allows immoral people to get away with using and losing good people.
You are outraged just like the men on this board now. That is a good thing.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:22 am
""Michael, re the ex wife'alimoney entitlement: would that depend on the length of the marriage, and what her role was during the marriage, and her ability to earn income?"
Regardless of any factor, the idea that just because you used to be married to someone you now owe them a living is grotesque. There is no justification, rational or moral, for it. Perhaps at the time this idea came along it was a good thing, but that was then and this is now. As I’ve argued many times, child support adds up to “If you, with full consent, made it, you have an obligation to look after it”, but you don’t make your wife, you don’t bring her into being, hence if anyone has an obligation to look after her finances its her mom and dad. And incidentally, I’ve never been stupid enough to marry, never will be stupid enough to do so, so this isn't a biased view. And of course, same applies when it's the wife who's paying alimony. Regardless of which sex is being bled, support for the very idea of alimony is an untenable position.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:51 am
MichaelClaymore
"Who would’ve thought that in between executing all those retarded people Texans would have been coming up with some sensible laws? Frankly, even three years is too much, but it’s better than for ever. Why people should be made to support their kids I get, but the Ex?"
We do not execute truely retarded people.
Here we call it bridge alimony and it is rare. With shared parenting, within two years (or sooner) child support will only be for three years also.
All the best
August 12th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Unfortunately, most women (due to society encouragement) expect to have the former husband pay them to either "maintain" a lifestyle, or "punish" the man for all of the abuse that she had to endure because he worked too much, and did not pay enough attention to her. I agree that alimony is acceptable in some cases. But I know a lot of men that sacrificed while the wife was in school, and has a better job than the husband. So a woman should have to pay just as much as a man should. In certain cases.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:45 am
jeana Says:
August 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
David M,
“I countered with, what about abortion where women kill out of convenience?”
Convenience? As in, I’d rather get a pedicure than pay for diapers? Or more like, continuing a pregnancy will completely alter my life, and for the worse.
So I suppose MRAs who want the ability to walk away from pregnancies they did not intend, are only doing it for “convenience.” Right?
_____________________________________________________________________
Jeana, I can always count on you to change the point of someone's comment. My point is too much "credibility" has been given to this myth of the maternal instinct. One of the bright Male bloggers on this site advised that you are always trying to redifine or change points others have made as you cannot directly confront what was said- as there is too much truth there. Instead of answering anything about a maternal instinct in women, you tried to change the point of what was said.
We can always count on you Jeana. As a female/feminist if you don't like what was said you'll just change the arguement. That may work on some of you dim liberal friends but not here.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
David M,
Maybe your point wasn’t about how selfish females are who have abortions, but it was said and I responded because it was demeaning to women. If you think that you can slip in comments like that without me responding, think again.
If you want me to comment on your point of a lack of maternal instinct in females, ok, I will. Why would most females choose their kids over their husbands if there was not a strong maternal instinct? I think there’s actually more maternal instinct in females than paternal instinct in males. Or maybe males show it differently. But I do think there is much more of a bond between mothers and kids in general. Which you and everyone here will disagree with. How many male animals take care of their young and protect them like the female of the species? The males get the females pregnant and go off and take care of themselves. The females are the protectors of the offspring.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:02 am
The alimony laws are based on concepts that for the most part no longer are true in today's American society. Back when developed, a proper and christian and good woman would have to re-marry to have non sinful sexual relations---which would have then did away with lifetime alimony and the next man would provide for her and on and on. But now adays the women live in sin ( shack up ) to keep on getting alimony for life and the concept is destroying our society.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I always love how when a couple gets divorced its status quo for the woman but the man has to make sacrifices.
My Ex got the condo -- I got to live in my Mom's house
My Ex paid $100/month roughly for Child Care -- I paid $1200/month
My Ex decided to break our separation agreement and seek full custody with free lawyer services -- I got to go further in debt while taking care of my son full-time for 7 months because he was kicked out of Day Care for agression issues yet family court ordered me to pay $300/month to her when I was out of work taking care of my son's aggression issues.
Yet I am the lucky one because I have split custody of my son and due to my efforts his aggression issues were reversed and he was able to go back to Day Care and I could go back to work.
Not many times in ones life can you really see the impact you have on anothers life.
My son will grow to be a better person because of me and my sacrifices.
Unfortunately, a lot of fathers do not have that chance due to our current system.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Again, marriage is pointless. If you are using the logic of getting regular sex from a woman (or filing joint taxes!) as the reason to get married it is seriously flawed. Your sex life will decrease markedly with marriage and the tax benefits are insignificant unless you live at the poverty level.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
jeana Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
David M,
Maybe your point wasn’t about how selfish females are who have abortions, but it was said and I responded because it was demeaning to women. If you think that you can slip in comments like that without me responding, think again.
If you want me to comment on your point of a lack of maternal instinct in females, ok, I will. Why would most females choose their kids over their husbands if there was not a strong maternal instinct? I think there’s actually more maternal instinct in females than paternal instinct in males. Or maybe males show it differently. But I do think there is much more of a bond between mothers and kids in general. Which you and everyone here will disagree with. How many male animals take care of their young and protect them like the female of the species? The males get the females pregnant and go off and take care of themselves. The females are the protectors of the offspring.
____________________________________________________________________
Again you have gone of point. You are talking about animals not humans. I was ,again,SPECIFICALLY talking about the myth that all women have this wonderful maternal instinct that is automatically attributed to them. This is false to believe this, yet it is what many courts base their decisions on. Many women conveniently kill their children through abortion. Other women such as Susan Smith drowned her kids by rolling her car in the lake. Rolanda Yates killed all 5 of her kids. My point is the maternal instinct attributed to all female human beings is a myth. What do say you to that?
August 12th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Jeana castigates: "Maybe your point wasn’t about how selfish females are who have abortions, but it was said and I responded because it was demeaning to women. If you think that you can slip in comments like that without me responding, think again."
Factory opines: If this was a demeaning statement, it was a deserved one. Abortion is well known to be one of the main forms of "birth control" in many areas of society (like for example, in the inner-cities of the US). There are TONS of women who have said "If I get pregnant, I can always get an abortion".
To argue otherwise is to ignore reality.
In other words...killing babies out of convenience.
And while I agree the behaviour is contemptible, stating that it happens in blunt terms is not "demeaning to women". It simply casts light on an area where women can and DO behave counter to public perception.
In other words, what David M said was true, and Jeana didn't like it (because it made women look bad), and tossed out the "best defense is a good offense" ploy - mostly because she couldn't argue with the statement otherwise.
Do I condemn women for doing this? Nope. They have the right to do so. I would NEVER get involved with a woman who had this outlook, because it's an immoral viewpoint, but I support their right to abortion - right after I get it too.
Just remember, the best defense against libel is to tell the truth.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
David M,
I can name just as many men who murder children as you name women. Probably more. What about the man who drowned his 3 kids in a bathtub a few months ago after his ex-wife warned about him but was ignored? It will do no good to bring up a handful of women who were in the news. Because there are plenty of men who do things like that too.
“My point is the maternal instinct attributed to all female human beings is a myth.”
I already said I don’t think it’s a myth. I think all women have a maternal instinct. But some women have psychological disorders that render it useless. Same for men. When people are psychotic or just plain evil, and these people are really only a fraction of people, you can’t count them.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Factory,
Any man who does not either wear a condom or ensure to the best of his abilities that the female he’s sleeping with is on birth control is himself using abortion as birth control.
And when birth control is unavailable or too costly, as it is for many inner city people and for teens, then I guess they don’t have a choice except to have an abortion. Talk to the “pro-lifers” who are virtually also anti-birth control.
And if you really believe that abortion is killing babies out of “convenience”, you must also believe that men who refuse to pay child support also do so out of “convenience” since they’d obviously rather spend their money on cars, bars, women, etc. Cheap, selfish men. Is that right, Factory? Can I have that opinion? Or would you think that is demeaning to men because there might be other reasons why men might not feel obligated to or not be able to take on the responsibility of parenthood?
August 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
jeana Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
David M,
Maybe your point wasn’t about how selfish females are who have abortions, but it was said and I responded because it was demeaning to women. If you think that you can slip in comments like that without me responding, think again.
_____________________________________________________________________
An abortion is a selfish act carried out by women for convenience.
It gives no regard to the child, and thus a maternal instinct cannot be attributed to the female.
Also it gives no regard to the males choice of whether or not to kill his child.
It also sets a poor example for other women that they can kill a child at their convenience and that they and thay alone make this choice.
So in this selfish choice-The "choice" of the woman overrides the child, the man, and society but is self serving to the woman. Please don't say the man had a choice to have sex with the female because the female had the same choice. The man=no choice. Child =no choice. Society= no choice. Female= all choice with no other choice from anyone.
It is sad that women use the act of killing a child as the ultimate power they have over everyone else.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
David M,
I’m not going to argue about abortion. Obviously you and I disagree immensely. You must also think that males never ever want the female they got pregnant to have an abortion. You must never have heard of males who force females into having them.
I bet if you men used a condom you could decrease the abortion rate by 90%. And make unwanted child support pretty much disappear. Or at least significantly decrease. Take the initiative and don’t rely on bad females who you think have all the control over you.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
jeana Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
David M,
I’m not going to argue about abortion. Obviously you and I disagree immensely. You must also think that males never ever want the female they got pregnant to have an abortion. You must never have heard of males who force females into having them.
I bet if you men used a condom you could decrease the abortion rate by 90%. And make unwanted child support pretty much disappear. Or at least significantly decrease. Take the initiative and don’t rely on bad females who you think have all the control over you.
_____________________________________________________________________
Again you have gone way off point. And again you have tried to redefine my idea and even what I "think."
I will tell you what I think to show you where you are off base with my "thinking." Yes, Some males do want there females to have an abortion. That doesn't mean the choice is their's. The male could want it and the female could say no.Where do men "force" females in this country to get an abortion? Your words not mine.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Jeana and David -
People must take responsibility for their own actions. Both Men and Women have the choice of contraception so a statement such as...
"I bet if you men used a condom you could decrease the abortion rate by 90%."
is a load of sexist bull...
Both men and women have a choice and David could just as easily argue that if women used the pill or another form of contraception you could decrease the abortion rate by 90%.
Women want equality but only the parts that they want. Your arguments prove it...
Some men have a say whether or not a woman should have an abortion, and some men coerce or pressure a woman to have one, but the bottom line is that the woman not the man has the final say.
As for "Society = No Choice" sorrry David but that too is a load of bull. We elected officials that decided on a Woman's Right To Choose. The only one that doesn't have a choice is the unborn child.
I fully believe and support equal rights for women but the same has to be applied to men and a system where it is automatically assumed that the mother is the better parent than the father is flawed. Every case is different and should be treated as such instead of being rrubber stamped through our judicial system.
Unfortunately, in this day and age a lot of feminists are prejudiced against men and all one has to do is substitute race instead of sex in one of their arguments and everyone would see just how wrong their arguments can be.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
jeana Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
David M,
I’m not going to argue about abortion. Obviously you and I disagree immensely.
_____________________________________________________________________
There is not much to argue about. You have the selfish point that a woman has free reign to overrule the life of a child, a man's wishes and what could benefit society because its her body. One person's feelings rule over the man, the child, and society. I get it. I know what selfish is, no need to explain.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Glenn Sacks says, "I do believe that alimony is appropriate under certain circumstances". PERMANENT ALIMONY is NOT appropriate under ANY circumstance. PERMANENT ALIMONY in Florida means that one ex-spouse has to pay the other ex-spouse money for the rest of their lives, until the receiver dies or remarries. Do you think an ex-spouse will ever remarry and stop receiving the free alimony money?
I am 41 years old and have been paying my ex-wife $2,000 in alimony since we divorced 8 years ago. My ex-wife was 33 years old when we divorced and was and is fully capably of working and has absolutely no disabilities. According to the PERMANENT ALIMONY law in Florida, I have to pay her $2,000 for LIFE until she dies or remarries. I have also payed her over $1000 a month in child support. ALIMONY is NOT child support for those of you who do not know the difference. My ex-wife has been living with another man now for over two years that also financially supports her and has no intention to marry because she will lose the alimony.
Can you see how the PERMANENT ALIMONY in Florida can be and IS ABUSED by those on the receiving end?
The Alimony Law in Florida must be changed. I and others, including Lindsey's Group, are trying to change the law. You can help by writing your Senators and Representatives about this enormous INJUSTICE!!!
See my Blog at : http://changethealimonylaws.blogspot.com/ for more info and links to Lindsey's Websites and others fighting this problem.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
To MichaelClaymore: You are right about Texas and its Alimony Law. It is one of only two states that I know that has an Alimony Law that is limited to 3 years and that is not based on perceptions of women dating back to ancient times.
Texas' law is the one that Lindsey's group in Florida is using as a model to change the existing law.
If you have not done so already, please write your Senators and Reps and let them know how you feel!
Thanks!!!
August 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
H,
Glenn didn't say he was for permanent alimony. I highly doubt he'd agree to that statement.
I've never heard of permanent alimony. Your situation sounds ridiculous. It's very unfair.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Mike K. Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
As for "Society = No Choice" sorrry David but that too is a load of bull. We elected officials that decided on a Woman's Right To Choose. The only one that doesn't have a choice is the unborn child.
___________________________________________________________________
Mike, Technically you are correct. The supreme court decided.
Dissents
Byron White was the senior dissenting justice.Associate Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. Justice White wrote:
“ I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[2]
So Mike you are correct but should this have even been decided by The Supreme Court?
Just recently The Supreme Court decided only 5-4 in favor of constitutional right to bear arms. Meaning it could have easily been 5-4 the other way and without producing a constitutional amendment the right to bear arms could have been taken away.
As justice white said "The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers....
Just as now "Family Courts" routinely hand custody to mothers now for no other reason than gender.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Jeana says: "Glenn didn't say he was for permanent alimony. I highly doubt he'd agree to that statement.
I've never heard of permanent alimony. Your situation sounds ridiculous. It's very unfair."
PK responds: Jeana, go to mensnewsdaily and talk to Denise Noe. She apparently is receiving permanent alimony from her ex husband due to a physical disability on her part. In addition, I believe that John McCain continues to pay alimony to his ex-wife because of the disabilities she incurred due to a car accident while the two of them were married.
I don't think the above is _very_ unfair. I can see arguments in that a marriage "contract" is "for better or worse, in sickness and in health" and someone leaving a disabled spouse is similar to abandonment. On the other hand, the world is full of women who have left husbands who lost their jobs.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
PolishKnight,
I was excluding people with disabilities.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Dear Jeana : Maybe Glenn does not agree with "permanent alimony"; however, he does not make that clear in this article. The title of the article from which Glenn got his material is named "Treasure Coast group seeks to abolish permanent alimony". Notice the "permanent". When you allow a judge, like it is allowed in Florida, to decide whether alimony should be awarded for 1, 10, 20, or 50 years, you basically allow for Permanent Alimony to exist.
Dear PolishKnight : You are missing the point here. My ex-wife and most people receiving PERMANENT ALIMONY are NOT DISABLED in any way. They are lazy and taking advantage of poorly written laws.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
David M.
We can argue this and disagree with their findings but the Supreme Court is the final say in this country on issues they decide to hear. And we elected the President and other officials that nominate and accept these Judges so again as part of a Democratic society we made our choice.
Personally, it is not right for me but I respect a woman's right to choose and would prefer to see more availability for the day after pill rather than any term abortion.
We all make mistakes and like it or not both parents have a responsibility to raise that child but as far as divorce or custody it should be something that the entire family has to work through and make sacrifices not just the men. This whole concept of living in a manner accustomed to is nonsense. Things change and we have to all make sacrifices so that we all can survive.
Unfortunately, until more women are in the same boat and find themselves supporting a spouse these laws will not change.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
To Georgia Girl :
You seem like a reasonable person. You said "Consider the latest development .... john and elizabeth edwards. Let's just suppose the majority of assets are in his name. She leaves him because of his infidelity. What do you feel she's entitled to?" Well, in most states it does NOT matter in whose name the assets are: at divorce, the assets are split up between the couple unless there is a prenup. I agree with a 50/50 split for everything accumulated during the marriage. However, thanks to the Alimony Laws, a spouse can get 50% or more of everything plus PERMANENT ALIMONY for life. And there goes the 50/50 split.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
GG, I would jump on the band wagon for infidelity being treated differently just remember there are more bad girls out there than men. it would have to be a double edged sword or it is just like the current system - Mom liberated for fooling around and well dad a pervert and narcissistic personality.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
What if the man did nothing wrong and the woman just said life is too short to be unhappy after 35 years of marriage.....remember the man did nothing wrong ..the wife just wants something different...What do you guys say??? Should the wife that is breaking the marital contract of 35 years get permanent alimony???
August 12th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
It would appear that even Glenn Sacks has bought into the myth. The one about alimony is necessary somtimes? No, the one about the state having the right to meddle in our private lives. I can guarantee you that if alimony did not exist, there would be a lot fewer women making the choice to bypass a career and let their husband's shoulder the financial burden for life. As long as they know the state is going to be their masandric enforcer when the marriage fails, they will continue the charade. Also, in case anybody didn't know, a marriage license serves no other purpose than to deed your entire life over to the state. In essence, it is a slave contract with the state.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
ImproveTheLaws:
I can't speak for Glenn, of course. But from what he's written before, I can't imagine he's ok with permanent alimony except for very rare cases, if even then. Even I'm not for permanent alimony, and I'm a liberal.
Parents are responsible for their children until they're technically of adult age, so it would stand to reason that one adult shouldn't be responsible financially for another adult forever! I mean, people would be outraged if a 40 year old sued their parents for support and said they needed $1,000 or more a month to live.
Although I think if you haven't worked in 20-30+ years, you do need some time to get adjusted to the working world. But come on. Alimony for life?
August 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
James D,
How do you know there's more bad girls than guys? I would have to disagree. But I have no statistics.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
""1) I do believe that alimony is appropriate under certain circumstances, such as when one parent has made substantial career sacrifices in order to be the primary caregiver for the couple's children, and upon divorce their incomes are very unequal because of these sacrifices. I don't believe in alimony when its purpose is to "allow a former spouse to maintain their current lifestyle.""
I would disagree with that in part. Alimony was, originally, support a man paid to a non-resident spouse, one he could no longer live with but could not divorce due to the times. Divorce is now legal and being forced to support somebody you are divorced from, somebody to whom you owe no debt, somebody with whom you share no financial ties and do not even speak to is just plain WRONG on too many levels to mention here.
What you are referring to is more properly ROI, a return on investment, not unlike that between business partners. A woman who sacrificed the development of her own career in order to facilitate the development of her husband's career while staying home to raise a family while the husband is enabled to enhance that career, has, in fact, made an investment in that husbands career for which she may well be entitled to a share or some compensation. Such an amount can be calculated either privately or in probate court, but it should be considered just that, compensation, or a return on her investment, and a fixed, finite sum. It should never be support for supports sake once a divorce is finalized, support that is too often open-ended and in some cases never-ending.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Skitz, I like your idea. Now, all they have to do is deduct the value of everything the man bought for the wife throughout the marriage (and if he paid for the house, car, etc...her half of those things would factor in), just like you do when you dissolve a business partnership. Division of assets is only part of the story. The value of living "free" for decades cannot be dismissed. (keep in mind, when I was a married man I was a SAHD)
If there's any "value" left over, she can have that as well...provided she can prove that the guy wouldn't have made the money without her presence. Alternatively, we could say Alimony is completion of payment for the services rendered by the wife (childcare, housekeeping, etc)....in which case it's a cut and dried, finite number that has a basis in past services delivered.
Of course, this can't be achieved through something so nauseatingly simplistic as adding up the average annual salaries of these careers, and charging that. Oh no....she would have to PROVE her worth...in court even.
.
.
.
.
.
Believe it or not, there are far stronger opinions out there than mine ... You women SURE you want to leave correction of these injustices strictly to men? Cause it's going to get done...with or without you....
August 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Skitz:
"What you are referring to is more properly ROI, a return on investment, not unlike that between business partners. A woman who sacrificed the development of her own career in order to facilitate the development of her husband's career while staying home to raise a family while the husband is enabled to enhance that career, has, in fact, made an investment in that husbands career for which she may well be entitled to a share or some compensation".
I agree somewhat with the way you frame the issue. However, an investment doesn't entitle anyone to anything and in fact one can have a negative return on investment. Nobody is entitled to an RIO or any one else's RIO/paycheck/means of survival.
"Such an amount can be calculated either privately or in probate court, but it should be considered just that, compensation, or a return on her investment, and a fixed, finite sum. It should never be support for supports sake once a divorce is finalized, support that is too often open-ended and in some cases never-ending".
This sounds more reasonable than the alternative we have now but I wonder how fairly probate court could calculate this.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Something just occurred to me, how about, instead of alimony, the person in the SAH role is loaned money from the other spouse for up to a maximum of three years after with the other spouse must begin paying back every single cent?
August 12th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
"Something just occurred to me, how about, instead of alimony, the person in the SAH role is loaned money from the other spouse for up to a maximum of three years after with the other spouse must begin paying back every single cent"?
All me to rephrase: "How about the breadwinning spouse essentially loans money to the SAH spouse for a maximum of three years after which the SAH spouse must pay back every cent loaned to them"?
August 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Aw geez fast fingers, small keyboard.............All=allow.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
GS,
Excellent article. In Florida, alimony is controlled by Florida Statute 61.08-Alimony. If one would read it, they would see that the law is vague and leaves the decision of alimony, it's amount, duration, and reason for, to the judge. This invites unequal application of the law and 'legislating from the bench". The legal profession perpetuates this scheme. Alimony in Florida, as in Texas, should be limited to the lesser of 25% of payors income or $30,000 whichever is less, for three years. This would reduce caseloads significantly. Thank you for keeping the issue current.
Jack in Fl.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
There is no such thing as maternal/paternal instinct in humans. I refer you to Webster’s…
“Instinct-a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity.”
Note the words inherent and natural. Parenting is a learnt behavior in both men and women. We know this because if it isn’t taught to us neither men nor women exhibit these behaviors. There have been cases of little girls who are lost in the woods, miraculously survive to adolescence, are found and taken back to civilization, get married and on the baby’s arrival ask “What the hell am I supposed to do with this thing?” If women had an actual instinct as opposed to a learnt set of behaviors they would, without instruction, do what simpler animals like cats do- stick the nipple in the kid’s mouth. Think about it- if a female animal has to be taught what her breasts are for what are the chances that she doesn’t also have to learn the finer points of mothering? Bloody small would be my guess.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
By the way, anyone who gets married just for regular sex is an idiot- you can get that from a whore and in the long run it will cost you a lot less both in financial and emotional terms.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Maternal instinct is more than sticking your breast in a baby's mouth. And besides, cave people knew how to do it. So do they have more maternal instinct than females of today? Are cave dads more paternalistic than dads of today? Those males could kill a mammoth.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Yes Jeana, but a modern dad can kill a armed human - which is much more a daunting task than killing a mammoth.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:33 am
"Those males could kill a mammoth"
Times change in the way children are raised and in the way people survive. Having moved to the big city after having been raised on a farm, I don't miss our family butchering four hogs, 1 cow, and numerous chickens every year just to feed ourselves. Haven't seen a mammoth in a long time. There is one thing that hasn't changed over all these millenia:
http://tinyurl.com/6qk4pv
August 13th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Ray,
Nice picture. They look very old. But they're probably around 30. Or less.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:47 am
“Maternal instinct is more than sticking your breast in a baby's mouth.”
This is true of mothering but not of maternal instinct, as I have established that the latter does not exist. Let me repeat- instinct is innate, not learnt, if you don’t, without being told, know what to do with a baby it’s not instinct anymore than programming your vcr is instinct. And even if there were several aspects to “maternal instinct” what would be the point in having the “instinct” to keep the baby clean, if you don’t have the “instinct” to feed it? All you’d end up with would be a very clean, yet dead, baby, and what use is that to the survival of the species?
“And besides, cave people knew how to do it.”
Well, at least the females did- I don’t think being breastfed by your dad is of much benefit.
“So do they have more maternal instinct than females of today?”
They are all dead now so they don’t have anything modern females don’t, except maybe cleaner bones.
“ Are cave dads more paternalistic than dads of today?”
They also are dead, and I believe you meant paternal not paternalistic.
“Those males could kill a mammoth.”
I don’t know what killing animals has to do with paternal behavior as it is done primarily to feed oneself, and anyway, if mammoths still existed I could kill one much more easily than a cave man, what with machine guns and Ted Nugent and what-not. In fact I believe that is why the North American mammoth is extinct- when the Ted Nugents migrated across from Asia 13 thousand years ago they brought M16s and flamethrowers and Ted Nugent-ed everything in sight.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Breastfeeding is instinctive, period.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Then why do they teach first time mothers in hospital how to do it? Even with the coaching my Ex was not able to and we had to resort to breast pumps and bottles.
For babies it is instinctual for women not so much.
Ladies if you really want equality among the sexes then you have to let go of the stereotypes.
Just a quick check how many of us work for a company that has a family leave policy for the birth of a new child where the father can take 2 weeks or more off with pay?
August 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
That doesn't make sense to me. Her breasts were exploding with milk! So what was the problem? At any rate, breast feeding is an instinctive trait for any female animal.
Then when the mother is no longer able to breast feed, she says "Here, have a banana".
August 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Mike K,
Yes, some women do have problems breastfeeding. I think the natural thing to do would be to stick a kid’s mouth there, but it’s also painful for many and lots of females don’t make enough milk. Just because something is instinctive doesn’t mean it’s easy to do. Females throughout time had other females helping them with things like breastfeeding.
How does that mean it’s not a natural maternal instinct?
August 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
How did a conversation about how wrong and unjust Alimony is turn into a conversation about " a woman's "breastfeeding" instinct and man's ability to kill a "mammoth" ?
That's is my way of asking, can we please get back to the real topic at hand?
August 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
ImproveTheLaws
People in one state should be very concerned about the laws in other states.
What if a Florida court decides to take jurisdiction over a Texas marriage? Florida has a six months residency requirement in order for a party to be eligible to file a divorce case. What’s to stop a spouse (husband or wife) from moving there six months prior to the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage?
Move in with relatives while telling your spouse you just need time to think things over, and in six months do the deed.
All the best
August 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
lol@Improve ...
August 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
In my case my ex-wife was granted spousal maintenence with no end date. The alledged purpose of the maintenence was to even out our standard of living as I had no way of supporting her in the same standard we had been living in. I was also paying 29% of Gross in child support. The maintenence award was an additional 10% of Gross. Add that to 30% in tax obligations and figure out what my standard of living truely was. My annual gross was 38K. After 8 years and having 2 children no longer eligible for child support I thought I would attempt to get the maintenence stopped. She has been receiving it long enough to have gotten a Masters degree. Although her chosen vocation has been part time waitress during the evenings and weekends. The result of my attempt was a reduction of my child support because my, middle child had turned 18 that year, and the desicion that I had not shown that my ex is able to do more than part time waitressing. I would have to pay an additional 1500.00 to have her go take a test. This was after $7000.00 in expensis just to get that far. As a side note. My ex is also receiving all the aide that the state of Wisconsin will give her. If you ever want to see gender bias in full action. Family Court Walworth County Wisconsin. Women move there based on recommendations from their lawyers because Wisconsin is famous. I would have been better off getting divorced in California.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Kevin C : You are absolutely right. I am totally for changing the Alimony laws for the better in every state ( except Texas and Indiana) which have it pretty fair at this time. It just happens that I got divorced in Florida, so FL is top on my list.
Georgia Girl : Lol right back at ya.... we can not lose our sense of humor or we'll lose our minds
Alan : It seems like Wisconsin Courts are trying to compete with Florida courts to see who is more unfair. Hang in there, one day not too far from now , Permanent Alimony will be a thing of the past! In the meantime, join the fight and write your Congressmen an tell them to change the laws.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
GLENN --
You have an answer inside one of your questions:
"7) If there is anybody in this case who should be obligated for child support it is Mintz's former lesbian partner Deborah Mrantz. It is Mrantz who agreed to have the child with Mintz and the two of them agreed to raise their child. Deborah Mrantz is apparently no longer in the picture, and nobody involved in the show seem to know what had happened to her. Perhaps she left after their breakup and abandoned her child. Perhaps she was driven out of the child's life by Mintz, as is common in lesbian breakups."
Your last guess is correct. Mintz did, in fact, kick Mrantz out of Mintz's house shortly after the birth of the first child (the son). I recall that it was something on the order of four months. Mintz is noticeably circumspect about the details of this whole thing regarding Mrantz as well as how her current attitude about the reponsibility of parents sits with that instant break up of the household.
...
Along those lines, Mintz continued to be the single parent in the home through at least the first three years of the second child's life, often relying upon day long shifts by babysitters. At one period, she relied upon a live-in lover to take care of the children while she spent the day taking care of her other errands, attending classes, shopping.
The background of this is, according to Mintz, that Mintz told Mrantz that she would marry Mrantz on the condition that Mintz would have a child. Thus was Mrantz on assignment to locate a donor. At the time, both Mrantz knew Zoernig as they both worked at the College of Santa Fe, so she approached him, introduced him to Mintz, and so on.
Mintz has had a habit of changing both her verbal agreements and her view on what those agreements were, apparently to conform to her change of agendas.