In Victoria, Alimony for Unmarrieds
November 12th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.This article tells us that, in the state of Victoria, family law now provides that common-law couples now have the same rights and duties as married couples (Daily Mail, 11/9/09). So when a Melbourne businessman broke up with his mistress of 20 years, she sued him and received a court order that he pay her £55,000. The actual legal basis for the suit is not made clear by the article. On one hand it seems that the breakup made the woman "sad," which sounds like a tort action. She also claims that the man always told her he'd take care of her, which makes it sound like a contractual claim. On yet another hand, given that the suit seems to be a creature of the Family Law Act, it sounds like alimony.
Whatever the case, the woman had a job and a house the whole time. The man had a wife. He also paid his mistress a four-figure monthly allowance. Somehow, the woman seems to believe that that arrangement shortchanged her. It seems she provided him "emotional support" and that's why she thinks he owes her now. Of course it should go without saying that, in addition to cash, he provided her emotional support as well; otherwise, why did she carry on with him for 20 years? So why the emotional support issue isn't a wash, I don't know.
Victoria has expanded the rights of unmarried couples. Does that mean that unmarried fathers have the same rights that married fathers do? In the U.S. marriage can make an enormous difference in whether a father has real parental rights or not.
In Victoria, extension of marital rights to unmarried couples clearly encourages people to not marry. Is that what Victoria wants? It must be, given the change in the law. And it's worth mentioning that, over many decades, it's been the goal of many radical feminists who loudly proclaimed the family to be the seat of women's oppression. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Victoria has taken a step in that direction, but somehow I doubt it.
Thanks to Duncan for the heads-up.
"));
19 queries. 0.681 seconds.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:35 am
It's funny how they say men naturally want many women, and women naturally want one man, and yet they claim marriage oppresses women, even though what it does is bind a man to a single woman.
Go figure.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:45 am
This article tells us that, in the state of Victoria, family law now provides that common-law couples now have the same rights and duties as married couples (Daily Mail, 11/9/09). So when a Melbourne businessman broke up with his mistress of 20 years, she sued him and received a court order that he pay her £55,000.
It's called palamony here in the usa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony
Doesn't usually work though...
Background
Despite the quasi-divorce proceeding suggested by the word, "palimony" is not a legal term and has never been used by the California Supreme Court. The proper legal term, at least in California, is "non-marital relationship contract", and because the relationship is non-marital, the family courts have no jurisdiction. Disputes over contract terms are civil cases, thus enforcement is left to trial courts, or in California, "superior court".
Non-marital relationship contracts are not limited to two people, and because these contracts are non-marital, any party can also be party to a marriage.
Palimony is a popular term, not a historical legal term, used to describe the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal, live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married. Unlike alimony, which is typically provided for by law, palimony is not guaranteed to unmarried partners. There must be a clear agreement, written or oral, by both partners stipulating the extent of financial sharing and/or support in order for palimony to be granted. Palimony cases are determined in civil court as a contract matter, rather than in family court, as in cases of divorce.[2]
November 12th, 2009 at 11:08 am
So "behaving like a gentleman" means treating women like hookers?
....The funny things people will say without realizing they are saying it....
November 12th, 2009 at 11:53 am
so, you were paid regular amounts of money for your company and intimacy.
Since you don't live in Orange County, what's the traditional way to describe someone that lives with that financial arrangement? Person of Negotiable Affection?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Bottom line:
PROSTITUSION
He paid her and got sex
November 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Incredible. What's next? A MALE-only tax (and more FEMALE-only government programs)?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
That IS funny. Apparently, the court accepts the idea that a man must always pay for sex and "emotional support" and then keep paying for it. But does not seem that weird when out-of-marriage children can legally demand child support already. Its not that far a leap to get to out-of-marriage "wives" getting alimony.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
It sounds like there needs to be some type of single page document that couples can sign that removes all financial liability. Just like when you go to an amusement park or rent a piece of equipment.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Pankaj im not sure if i am misreading you and if I am im sorry but " But does not seem that weird when out-of-marriage children can legally demand child support already. Its not that far a leap to get to out-of-marriage "wives" getting alimony." doesnt make sense, while i agree child support fees are in many cases out of proportion Men and women both have to support their progeny , just because a couple isnt married it doesnt mean we dont have responsibility for our own ....... then again we should get to see them, they shouldnt be poisoned against many of us ( and the majority not ALL but the majority ) are decent men who love their kids.
I had a really weird day at work , ( my shift is nights so i only work with 3 other people ) and one was not a regular she is the biggest stereotype there is , unshaven legs and armpits reads every religious ideal to be cool and is also a gender feminist who feels all men are bad but she is quite vicious in it , and she rubs me up the wrong way.
She had a drugs calls where a guy was abused by his partner ( female ) who was a narcotics user, the kids werent his but he had been with them since they were young and had been de facto dad for the whole time so he had no rights to them but her violence was overspilling onto them and if he left they had no one to take the abuse in their stead.
I was monitoring the call and listened to the tree hugger dismiss this guy and excuse her behaviour while not offering him any support , got annoyed and pulled her aside to chat and clarify this and discoverd she was abused by her ex ( alleged ) and this is what has caused her extreme reaction and it got me thinking back to glenns articles this week .
femisting, jezzebelles and the pig site all spring to mind , the latter being the most extreme of the 3 in terms of man hatred and it got me thinking of the abuse the writers hit out at glenn and harry with and it made me realise the one major flaw with many people and why i feel no side is going to win this ....... the pig was obviously abused and hurt badly by some scumbag and that has coloured her views badly and there is a LOT of anger , she is basically a female angry harry ....we seem to be so wrapped up in our own pain we havent seen others and when we do here , its with the acknowledgement that women go through pain as well ..... for them they dont have the gender balance so they only see women as being abused hence the anger aimed towards us for daring to want a change , if we get what we want, equality , if we get a say in our kids lives they suddenly have to give up some of the power and i cant help but wonder for some like the pig is it that they dont want to give us anything is the irrational fear that because someone has done it we all will .... and if so is this what we should be arguing on that we are not this ..... ok chain of thought rant over.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Palimony for a long term relationship where the man could be alleged to leading her on is one thing, but a woman crying that the guy she was helping cheat on his wife didn't follow through on his promises to her is laughable. I know of a few women who are cheating on their spouses and/or helping a man cheat on theirs and they think they can trust such men. What goes through these women's minds?
Duncan, the notion of "out of marriage children" demanding support is simply a form of backdoor alimony. The support doesn't go to the children, it goes to the mother who has chosen, in a society with contraception, abortion, adoption and legal infant abandonment, to have a child without the consent or discussion with the other person. Such a person is on a similar moral plane as the jezebels above who seem to think that they deserve pity for acting in an abhorrant fashion.
It's my experience with most angry feminists that they are not products of misplaced anger. On the contrary, they are usually spoiled and any justifiable anger they have towards men is due to the men getting the better of them. They thought they could trick a man, he tricked them, and they're enraged at the injustice of not getting their way. Say what you like about Angry Harry, but he doesn't work on "victim" hotlines to attack real victims.
As Ann Coulter points out in her recent book, politically correct victims in modern society are the biggest victimizers of them all. The squeakiest wheel is the most greased!
November 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
"it doesnt mean we don't have responsibility for our own"
Is it Always "our own"? Especially if the man has made no commitment - and holds no control over the decision to produce a child? And you yourself agree that fathers are deprived of any access to them.. as any type of right.
There are things that are not "our" because we give them up or never asked for it in the first place - this is even verified when the justice system proves it so by its selective enforcement.
Sorry if that is too harsh for you, but the support for out-of-wedlock children was a perversion of the support for children born to married couples, where man had committed to provide. Taking this explicit commitment to implicit for out-of-wedlock children IS stretching the definition of responsibility. Call it a slippery slope, but the justice system is only sliding - the explicit commitment of matrimonial support is not being stretched to non-marital relationships.
I am for abolishing all COERCED/state enforced child support - (make it state enforced everything, if you feel comfortable with it). It is only in a voluntary child support condition, where a father's rights and responsibilities will be coupled. If one is violated, the other one goes as well.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
And to clarify, I am not suggesting that men be irresponsible. However, a family court is the last "authority" (except maybe the president(s)?) I would expect to tell a man what and how a man should fulfill them. Let the first non-sinner throw the first stone.
As many people here will agree that fathers do love their children, and when capable and not prohibited from it will take responsibility for the child. Yet, one of the subtexts of the "Child support system" is that fathers are bunch of heartless, selfish goons who will not pay unless compelled to with overwhelming force. And indeed there are some that will be like that.. but laws and a general system should never be designed for a minority and yet act on the majority - as it will lead to perversion of law and justice.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Mr. Franklin,
The courts actions prove your statement that marriage provides more protection in parental rights for father.
Many a fathers or husbands are systematically removed from their very home because of separation while divorce proceedings are under way, either by the mother, or the judge and therefore separated from their children yet the fathers are ordered to pay for it all.
I have lived and witnessed that being married did not garner me any any respect in the eyes of the judges.
The facts are that whether the child is born during marriage or out of wedlock the father's rights to his child is the least concern by the judges, child protective services and the lawyers and our overall state and fed govt.
Every statement that misleads people in believing a lie does not help us gain any ground in doing what is truly best for our children - having fit, loving and involved parents in our childrens lives.
The current manner of handling child custody in which a fit parent is removed from the child's life in over 85% of the cases is nothing short of State Sponsored Child Abuse.
The State and Fed govts define the NCP as the Absent Parent.
The NCP ultimately has no rights to their kids and the CP has the final say in all matters.
They dont call us the NCP 'just because'. It has a meaning and legal application.
Chris Hobbs
www Why Judge Little com
November 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Guys,
Just so you know, in the states of Oregon and Washington there is a legal practice that has been in force for about a decade called MERETRICIOUS RELATIONSHIP, whereupon a man merely living with a female for an unspecified amount of time (as little as a month) subjects himself to community property laws. Basically, your short time girlfriend can get a big alimony payout for living with you for even a short period of time.
The funny thing about this law is that is was never actually made into a law by legislation, some judge just pulled it out of his ass and the rest followed suit, so in all senses it is just a "made up" law. It is also a quiet law, with no mention of it in the female dominated media up here, so many a man gets waylaid by it without having any idea such laws exist.
I personally know a high school buddy who had a woman (with child) move in with him for six weeks. She began to act abusive and he asked her to leave. She locked him out, and would not leave HIS house. He had to pay an attorney $3,500 and the attorney's advice was to BRIBE the woman to leave, as he had left himself wide open for a meretricious relationship lawsuit. Eventually the woman left - after receiving $15,000 BRIBE to leave. The attorney thought my friend was LUCKY to get out so cheaply, had another client who had to pay $55,000 for his meretricious relationship.
Needless to say, my friend will never consider letting another woman live with him, in fact he has not dated since that happened, five years ago.
Right now, if you google meretricious relationship, you will notice lots of law firms advertising to handle meretricious relationship lawsuits. It is big business in the northwest.
No country for MEN, old or otherwise....
November 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
correction: "The courts have proven your statement to be untrue" was my intended post.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
As a devoted parent, and a tax paying citezen, I must admit that it infuriates me that my money is valued as more important to my child than I am. Title IV-D was passed in an attempt to make sure that the 50 states and the federal government did not have to "foot the bill" so to speak for raising a persons children. That being said, the FEDS still spend billions (and the states receive) of dollars to make sure the money is collected. I know for a fact that men in prison for other crimes other than child support are located by the 50 states attorney general offices so that they can still try and collect child support and send them child support bills while in prison. IT IS A BUSINESS FOR THE 50 STATES. When a good parent wants to be involved in a childs life, there is NO financial help for that parent. A PARENTS MONEY IS VALUED AS MORE IMPORTANT TO A CHILD THAN THE PARENT. They should be held atleast as equal, but that is NOT how our system views it.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Why don't our political leaders just pass a law to have all boys fit with a counter on their penis at 13y/o? It can count each ejaculation and the man can be taxed $10 each. This tax could then be paid out as a subsidy equally split between all women.
It would rid us of this BS pretense at morality, spousal support, or child support and it would be more equalitarian as rich men would pay the same as poor men, and all women would collect the same share (instead of women who marry & divorce doctors compared to women who marry and divorce day laborers). Plus we could get rid of welfare.
This is tongue-in-cheek.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
A high-priced prostitute on retainer is all she was.
She knew he was married so if it hurt her feelings when it was over, TOO BAD! That’s what you get for getting involved with someone who is already spoken for.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Duncan says "is it that they dont want to give us anything is the irrational fear that because someone has done it we all will .... and if so is this what we should be arguing on that we are not this ....."
Maybe but the problem is they are irrational, so reasoning doesn't work with them. Most of us have had people in our lives, male and female, that we feel have "done us wrong". However, most of us are rational people and realize that individuals do wrong, not genders.
Pankaj says "Sorry if that is too harsh for you, but the support for out-of-wedlock children was a perversion of the support for children born to married couples, where man had committed to provide". I agree. If a "single" female chooses to keep a child that her boyfriend, one-night-stand or ex clearly did not want, she should bear the responsibility of that choice on her own.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
2nd wife I agree its just the articles from glenn earlier this week got me thinking in many ways we are fighting what the authors claimed us to be as such it muddied the water a little
November 12th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
and i realised i didnt specify . I agree if one partner wants the kid and the other doesnt then they have responsibility i was meaning children from relationships ....... as i said it was a chain of thought rant.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
John
"Why don't our political leaders just pass a law to have all boys fit with a counter on their penis at 13y/o? It can count each ejaculation and the man can be taxed $10 each. This tax could then be paid out as a subsidy equally split between all women."
A hilarious analogy. I don't want to give them any more ideas though. Haven't quite gotten that bizarre yet, but give 'em time....
November 12th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
My understanding is that Chris Hobbs is correct. Marital status has no bearing at all on child custody. Isn't child custody a completely separate set of laws than marital and divorce law?
Put simply, legal civil (state-sponsored) marriage is charitable welfare for women. (The fact that men do benefit financially from marriage once in a while is a cosmic accident and the people who dreamed up alimony are turning over in their graves over it.) Men have been trying to avoid having a "ball and chain" strapped to their ankles for many decades by not marrying and courts are always able to catch up to them at some point. That's what this case is about to me.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Duncan "2nd wife I agree its just the articles from glenn earlier this week got me thinking in many ways we are fighting what the authors claimed us to be as such it muddied the water a little".
Yes, they were basically calling all males abusers. Just goes to show how irrational their thinking is, frightening that people actually listen to what they have to say when they are obviously delusional and can't see past their own noses.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
And men still ask western women to marry them - fools....
The lady who lives next door to me is a 65yo feminist and even she is disappointed with the whole thing!A while back she suggested that I never let another women move in.
She is correct.
I would suggest "the rude guy" podcast for MRA'S, you will need i-tunes from apple to play this.I don't agree with all the rude guy says but he is thought provoking, I am getting many GEN-X and GEN-Y guys telling me they see the whole world through new eyes.
http://happyfool.therudeguy.com/
http://www.therudeguy.com/
We have a state election in Victoria next year, and man that votes for any major political party is nuts, both Labor and Liberal are anti-male.
Cheers
MGTOW
(Melbourne, VIC, Australia)
November 12th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
"And men still ask western women to marry them - fools...."
Please let me restate this...
And men still marry women in the western world - fools.
You see there's a reason why so many foreign women from the non-western world like Russia and Asia want to marry westerners. It's not because of our incredible manhood - it's our community property and alimony laws they "love".
November 12th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Wow nice find MGTOW. Thanks.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:17 am
It is just another way to screw over a male.
What is it about the for lack of a better term "british" type culture that is so hateful of men.(Australia,Canada and, England) They have some really incredible stories. I really can't talk too much because US is nearly there. As soon as they pass this national health care. The government can openly just punish men with out having to talk of the best interest of the child.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:34 am
I'd like to protest the insulting treatment here of prostitutes. Prostitutes make a clear agreement up front which both parties understand and agree to. What these women do is simply fraud or obtaining financial advantage by deception. They're criminals pure and simple. It's an outrage that they can't be prosecuted for it.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Actually, this might be good news for divorced men.
If the law is effectively recognising "Common Law" status, then a woman who divorces and receives maintenance, who then cohabits with another man for the prescribed time limit has effectively re-married in the eyes of the law.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Will she have to pay tax for it? Or is tax only for men? Or maybe it is a tax on men. Or just attacks on men.
What if she spent all the money and was still unhappy. Does that mean she can go back to court and ask for more?
November 13th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Wow, great point Thunderchild.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Fish, meet bicycle
Champ says: "You see there's a reason why so many foreign women from the non-western world like Russia and Asia want to marry westerners. It's not because of our incredible manhood - it's our community property and alimony laws they "love"."
PK comments: I've often heard accusations made that Russian and Asian women marry foreigners out of desperation or a mercenary understanding of the alimony and community property laws. And in some cases, they are right. (Although the state department's statistics show that these marriages are 80% successful after 7 years beating normal marriages by a long shot.)
Let's consider for a moment that even when they're right, doesn't that also apply to desperate, poor women in the states? I know working class American women and they would be wise to find a man to marry and take care of them. But they don't make the effort to find one because they're conditioned to play a waiting game or just plain lazy. The Asian and Russian women at least recognize that they're going to have to do SOMETHING to get married.
And THAT is one of the main things that threaten the status quo: The notion that men actually provide something of value in relationships that women may want and being open and honest about it. That a woman simply waiting for men to give her stuff ISN'T a sufficient reason for a man to rush up with them. It's amazing, really, that there are still men in this culture that buy into that paradigm.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Hi PK.
I agree with what you're saying. Just remember modern western civil marriage is welfare for women, doesn't matter where they're from. Just making the point that whether you marry an American woman or a foreign woman you're still at great jeopardy to have a ball and chain strapped to you for the rest of your life.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Taking the plunge
Absolutely, Champ. What I'm saying is that even though marriage is a huge risk for men, it's one that many of us find worth taking. Men are the risk takers that allow society to leap forward.
I chuckle when a feminist sneers at me for marrying a foreign woman with jabs such as: "You traveled halfway around the world for her!" and "You still risk losing everything if she divorces you!" and I reply: Indeed, and that's what makes me different than millions of aging career women who wind up alone because they can't even ask a man out or date a few thousand dollars down. When my wife looks at me, she sees someone who would move mountains to be with her. It's a beautiful thing to look in her eyes and see that.
I was watching a news story on ABC this morning and I was amazed at the incompetent producing: The first story was about young women now having the option to freeze their eggs (still experimental) for $10K (+annual fees) in the hopes that if they wind up meeting a man in their 40's, they can unfreeze her eggs. The hostess was all excited: "This is great for women who worry about this unlike men!'
Then, and I am NOT making this up: 5 minutes later they feature cat ladies: Lonely aging women with dozens of cats. Could they have timed this better, perhaps? Who produces this show? I can just see a 25 year old career girl viewer saying to herself: "No need to change my ways. I can just cruise along for 15 years and worry about family later" and then sees a real estate agent with 20 cats who wound up alone and has the cats to keep her company but has problems managing them. She is reasonably attractive but complains: "I'm a good catch. Why wouldn't a man want me?" Another successful career woman is retired, and alone, and has 125 cats but can't bear to give them up for possible euthanasion. The psychologist proclaims: "These women all have something in common: They're lonely and unable to bear changing their lives even as they desperately want to."
THAT is the freedom that women's equality has given most women: loneliness or winding up busting their humps "balancing work and home."
So, seriously Champ, I'll take what I have over what they have anyday. Does that help put things into perspective?
November 13th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
PK that was the funniest post I've read in a long time. You have a good humored way of looking at things. That Kate Goslin lady is getting ready to feel what loneliness is. I'm waiting for her to try and get back with ex hubby or a few years from now see a story about how the "family " has a new pet cat as she celebrates being sexy at 40.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:53 am
I have handing out the MGTOW flyer out at my local shopping centre and the young GEN-Y
men love it!
November 14th, 2009 at 2:55 am
MGTOW (Melbourne AU),
This rude guy.. he is not good and is towing the Obama type "liberal" line of thought. Not that he needs to be taught a few things - Obama is doing that for me.
Good luck if you buy into his thing.. not really sure if one should be listening to an arrogant person who makes statements like "Labor = capital", or that the US should arm the good Afghans against the Taliban (er... OKAY smarty pants! How do you differentiate between the good Afghan wanting military aid and the Taliban? Does this guy think they wear black and while uniforms?) Maybe he is just not good at Economics or World Politics - although he sounds a class-warfare types - to me when he says that all rent is exploitation.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I have got it, feminism, is a movement started by upper class gold
digging women so they can get one thing.......more.
What do women want more they just want more.Enough is never enough
with most western women...
November 14th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Pankaj Says:
November 14th, 2009 at 2:55 am
MGTOW (Melbourne AU),
I agree with those points you make, but his podcasts on women are spot-on.I have listerned to all of his podcasts, and as I stated in my first post about the rude guy
I do not aggree with all he says but the stuff on women is gold.Ignore the political stuff and have a listerned to his podcasts on women, so many young men tell me that they felt the wau
the rude guy does, but they thought they where alone.
Men from the left, right and the many grey areas in between agree with the rude guy on women, this does not translate to them aggreing on everything else though.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Sorry about the spelling, still getting used to the I-phone.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Okay I will check those out.. although I would advice any young men to avoid listening to class warfare types, as these will inevitably lead to an idea that "women as a class" are opposed to "men as a class". Indeed the man could be coming to some right conclusions, but if he comes to it from a wrong perspective, he will inevitably lead to wrong directions to the solution.
Will post again once I hear his podcast on women.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Wrong Perspective, but also Real
Pankaj, that brings up an interesting point: For some time now, the left has been engaging in identity politics with straight white heterosexual males expected to not identify with each other in a role other than as oppressors. Every other category, however, are both encouraged to view themselves as victims, entitled, or at least think together as a collective political class.
That's not to say that there aren't people who judge others and themselves as individuals, but we have to be aware that this is the culture we live in TODAY. People may engage in such thinking at a conscious, sub-conscious, or more commonly hypocritical level but most think this way moreso in our culture than in any other culture including some ugly ones I won't mention (you can guess though.)
The notion of a color blind and gender neutral society has long been abandoned by most other than starry eyed idealists such as here. The rest are just milking the system or getting run over by it. What NOBODY is doing is IGNORING it because the cognitive dissonance requires people to continually monitor every thought, word, and action they engage in order to not get nailed as a racist or sexist. It's like a psychological study that asked participants to not think of the word "dog" and every time they did, they had to ring a bell. They rang that bell nearly all the time.
There is room for humanity in recognizing that we're different people. In fact, that's what our humanity is all about to begin with. We recognize that people have different experiences, needs, and values and work with them. Our ethnicity and gender are a part of ourselves as much as anything we choose on our own. It's a direct biological tie we have to each other and our ancestors.