Learn More

Here is the second in a series of Divorce Corp polls. Please vote only once. We will post the results after we have received a statistically significant number of votes.

 

And here are the results, accurate to within + or – 6%

DC_PollQuestions_WordPress_No2_Results

 

There are now 2 wage earners in approximately 80% of US families. The old model of homemaker / breadwinner has changed. It is now the exception rather than the rule.  Yet our family laws still presume that there will be a homemaker who needs alimony support after a divorce, and this presumption allows the divorce lawyers to expend countless billable hours investigating incomes, benefits, retirement plans, ability to earn a deemed income, and other factors that have no relevance to the average modern American couple.

We are not advocating that alimony be eliminated for existing married or divorced persons; but we do recommend that statutory alimony be eliminated for marriages going forward unless the couple enters into a private dependent support agreement. Those couples who wish to live a traditional life style may provide for alimony contractually. But it should be a routine part of the average American divorce process.

Why have our State legislatures not eliminated the homemaker / breadwinner presumption, given that the model no longer fits the majority of current marriages, and creates an enormous expense for those going through divorce? Laws should help the general public, not just a group of wealthy professionals. When a law’s purpose is no longer relevant to the vast majority, and where that law causes there to be an unnecessary transfer of income from the middle class to a wealthy class of professionals, it should be eliminated.

Join us in our reform efforts! Let’s let our legislators know that it is time to change this law. Join us at www.divorcecorp.com/reform.

 


13 thoughts on “Should Alimony be Governed Differently? Poll #2

  1. MIssed economic benefit from the job you left when you got married to the promotions and job you would have had if you had stayed employed for the duration of the marriage is easy to calculate. A $30,000 year job with 3% raises and a 10 year marriage comes out to about $10,000. A $100,000 year job with 7% raises and a 25 year marriage comes out to about $3000 monthly for 5 years. (Reimbursement alimony). None of this justifies lifetime alimony or much payment beyond a few years.
    There is just no excuse for much alimony in this day and age. Financially exploiting the ex-spouse is a deterrent to the next generation to marry. If welfare recipients lose benefits with cohabitation (and an increase in total household income), alimony recipients should as well. Total household income is available to the occupants of the house and should be grounds to promptly terminate alimony.
    ANd of course the breadwinner has a right to retire at the ordinary age of retirement for his/her profession or when social security allows it. When the alimony recipient turns 62, the alimony should automatically be reduced the amount of social security that the recipient is allowed to collect from the breadwinnner (1/2 of the amount the breadwinner can collect).

    • Abolishing alimony is a noble and popular concept but only under the circumstances that the parties are honest and fair about the assets they have to divide. Because of the corruption that exists in the courts, in many instances one or the other party is playing “hide the ball” and getting away with it. I know my ex squirreled away money and assets that he acquired during out marriage and then balked at having to pay even the most nominal amount of alimony. Attacking any one of the avenues of equalizing the financial ramifications of “being married” only creates new avenues of being deceptive. I think that alimony is a powerful tool. I know my ex lied to the court about the financial hardships he would face after our divorce and had I not had some support I would have gone to live on the streets while I had attempted to bring to the court’s attention what had truly transpired.
      In my case, my judge was invested in “punishing” me based on my ex’s counsel’s portrait of me. I had no lawyer to defend me.

  2. The current alimony laws give to much discretion to the Judge. Such discretion creates conflict which leads to unnecessary time, energy and money fighting for something that is based on another s opinion.. that being the Judge. In my case it was agreed by both parties in the Final Judgment that I was to receive $25k in lump sum alimony and I sign over my home. Since a payment of 5k was due from former wife less than 2 months after the signing of the agreement, I was to receive the other 20K one year later. I signed over my home and moved out my home according to the divorce decree thus finalizing the end of my 25 year marriage.. something I did not want nor ask for. 5 years later I have not receive one penny in alimony and it is obvious that my entire divorce proceedings was nothing more than a fraud and since have been forced into penury fighting this nonsense. I also was hit with a bogus injunction with comments taken from political blog by the same lawyer that represented my former wife. This same lawyer represented my former wife 6 months later pro bono while this injunction was active when I filed a motion for contempt against my for wife in getting the 25k that was owed to me. The Magistrate ruled in my favor and former wife was ordered to pay this lump sum alimony as support alimony and former wife was found in contempt. Then, as stated under Florida Statute former wife’s lawyer made her rebuttal within the 10 day period and the Judge in our divorce case had the Magistrates order stricken.. thus finding former wife NOT in contempt. I tried to have this same Judge recused 3 yrs earlier during my divorce because his wife and my former wife work for the same employer which is most certainly a conflict of interest. Obviously this Judge took my recusal personally. So I took this seemingly simple divorce out of the box and contacted the FBI and Homeland Security. As I stated to both Federal Departments we are now dealing with Domestic Terrorist working within the legal system and if they do not do something about this situation we will handle the Terrorist much like our Ancestors would. I believe the Federal Government will help us deal with such lawyers and judges who are viewed as Terrorist but are looking for us to do our part. It’s simple… if we work together… we can change anything including Family Law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZ8xXUzXoM&feature=channel

    • Also Permanent Alimony is nothing more than glorified welfare and in my opinion all alimony should end after 5 yrs. Keep in mind I am owed alimony but have been involved in eliminating Permanent Alimony since 2008 with Dick Lindsey. In fact the group offered me to be a lobbyist and after dealing with one high profile state representative I returned the check to Dick and told him he was wasting his time and money dealing with these Morons (Legislators). Of course this was 2009 and attitudes have changed. Sorry for the over extended comments but I just had another cup of coffee…. walshie

    • Dan I sympathize with your predicament and present difficulties but I am more than skeptical
      of the FBI or DHS helping the people with the INjustice system . If they were going to do that wouldn’t they have started by now . I don’t mean to sound cold but want to make this point…”How’s that working out for you ” ? Law enforcement and the judicial branch work to closely together to voluntarily police each other , unless somebody holds
      their feet to the fire ! We The People are doing just that by reestablishing Common Law Grand
      Juries in each county across America . Go to http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org to learn more , get involved , and support the peoples right to Justice . The Grand Jury is the Peoples means of policing the government including the judicial system . Check it out !
      Mike Bolam Organizer for
      Sarasota County Common Law Grand Jury

  3. If you believe there is “no such thing” as “lifetime alimony” – you are very sadly mistaken !

    There is a 1982 federal law that allows state divorce (kangaroo) courts to divide military retired pay as jointly earned marital property in divorces. there is NO OTHER WAY to terminate this garnishee EXCEPT by the DEATH of either the military retiree or the former spouse ! Look at the law -10 USC 1408 (USFSPA)

  4. There should be no alimony awarded to the filer of a no-fault divorce. They are choosing to be on their own. If their spouse does not want the divorce then what do right do they have to ask that whatever disparity they face be equaled out. The spouse is not forcing them to divorce by choice or by wrong doing.

    It is unjust and unfair to force payment from an innocent person to someone who has cause them harm by breaking up the family. If a spouse wants to leave let them. However, they should not be allowed to sue for anything without grounds for doing so.

      • Not allowing someone to sue for alimony without grounds is not punishment. If someone faces disparity after filing for divorce unilaterally then the disparity is theirs by choice.

  5. KANSAS HB 2462 Clarification and outline of the BILL
    To all those people that keep saying this is going to be a “cash cow for attorneys” or more litigation you simply need to KNOW THE FACTS OR REALITY OF THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN!! The opposite world you live in now is that one. On September 5, 1969 (then Governor Ronald Reagan signed the first “no fault divorce” legislation in the U.S., he later admitted that it was one of the largest regrets of his political life). Seeking to eliminate the strife and deception often associated with the legal regime of fault-based divorce, Reagan signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce bill. The new law eliminated the need for couples to fabricate spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce; indeed, one likely reason for Reagan’s decision to sign the bill was that his first wife, Jane Wyman, had unfairly accused him of “mental cruelty” to obtain a divorce in 1948. But no-fault divorce also gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband and wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve a marriage for any reason — or for no reason at all.
    From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled — from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This meant that while less than 20% of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50% of couples who married in 1970 did. And approximately half of the children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parent’s part, compared to only about 11% of those born in the 1950s. In our state today they don’t keep the statistics for cost to couples getting divorce but the National number in Domestic Court sits at $50 BILLION and growing, that is more than all the other legal courts COMBINED in the U.S.!!
    This Bill would:

    Section 1 Replaces the Kansas Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee (made up of attorneys across the State who specialize in Family Law) with a new nine member group of legislators to set child support guidelines! The idea that only lawyers are capable of making such decisions is moronic.  It makes one wonder why the status quo isn’t considered a conflict of interest for ‘the lawyers.”  It doesn’t’ seem to matter what area of government or tax-funded extensions thereof, these various entities’ seem to think they are the only ones with the knowledge to make decisions and the general public needs to mind its own business.  This is there’s…  They need to be reminded who “they” work for!
    Places a 3 year window of earnings to select from for the first three years or until one parent remarries.
    Parenting time adjustment for parents with less than 42% of the time.
    Addresses bonus pay, overtime and pay raises or promotions to not be automatic increases.
    Requires accountings by recipients of child support to substantiate how the support was used   Within reason, it doesn’t have to be necessarily to the penny.  Everyone wants the payer to be responsible, so why shouldn’t the recipient be required to do the same.  Frivolous personal use of child support money by recipients’ is one example of injustice in the current system.  If the states/courts/governments’ preeminent concerned is about the “interest of the child”, why wouldn’t they want to know if the money is in fact being spent on the children?
    Imputing income to a parent. (deliberately unemployed, economic conditions, layoffs, etc.) Attributes “income” to stay-at-home parents for the value of doing the shopping, doing laundry, cleaning and providing child care.  Again what could possibly be wrong with this?

    Section 2 New language to address gaming winnings within the State being seized for Child Support.

    Section 3 New language that requires for a jury trial if a parent request one in all family law cases that involve modification of child custody, residency, visitation or parenting time. This is absolutely necessary to specifically ensure constitutional equal protection.  Far too many cases where Constitutional Rights of one or both parties are ignored by courts that have little or no oversight, broad discretion (license to do what they want) and legal immunity to do so.

    Section 4 Amends KSA 20-1204a It limits punishment for contempt to a fine of not more than $500 rather than leaving open ended for judges. The fine should be the secondary matter, versus placing parents in jail.

    Section 5 Amends KSA 23-2904 which allows the courts to make a modification of maintenance retroactive to no greater than 1 month or greater than 12 months.  

    Section 6 Amends KSA 23-3001 Automatically end child support a month earlier (May 30) for eighteen year olds   What could possibly be wrong with this?  Not one High school in Kansas runs through June 1st!

    Section 7 Amends KSA 23-3002 Which forces the courts to consider all relevant factors and resources in determining Child Support

    Section 8 Amends KSA 23-3004 Which allow parents to form an agreement between the parties for payments rather than through the State without court approval   The parties should be given an opportunity to form their own resolutions without potentially oppressive extensions of the court.  If the parties can agree on what is reasonable and fair in a written agreement (even if it is compiled by a third party neutral eliminating possible coercion by one party over the other) the courts should accept it and leave them alone.

    Section 9 Amends KSA 23-3005 Which allows the courts to modify any title IV-D case retroactive to any date prior to the motion

    Section 10 Amends KSA 23-3103 Which address language for income withholding orders. Item (j) 1 allows for the parties to present to the court a written agreement for alternative arrangements. The state (judges) see itself as the arbiter of fairness and will not allow stupid private citizens to determine what is right and/or fair.  We are talking about putting some state/government workers out of their jobs.  The horror of it all…

    Section 11 Amends KSA 23-3104

    Section 12 Amends KSA 23-3106

    Section 13 Amends KSA 23-3114

    Section 14 Amends KSA 23-3201 Shared Custody will be the presumed best interest of the child or children. Places the parental rights, responsibilities and care of any child to grant equal legal and physical access to the child unless one party can prove this to be harmful to a child.
    Applies a criminal standard of proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) in any proceeding to modify a prior order of custody or joint custody, residency, visitation and parenting time Showing evidence not the “Preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence” which is simply a belief base and little or no evidence to support the judge’s decision making. Your lawyer won’t challenge a bias judge!
    There will be a presumption by the state that shared custody be paramount for the parent/child relationship. Any parent that opposes this setting will be required to prove the other parent is a danger to the child/ren through an evidentiary hearing.

    Section 15 Amends 23-3202 Which allows for the parties/parents to enter into a parenting plan that the courts shall adopt. The courts will not be allowed to change, modify or alter the parents agreed plan.

    Section 16 Amends 23-3203. Allows the child through the determining the legal custody to speak if the child desires as to their preference or desires.

    Section 17 Amends 23-3206 as it pertains to custody orders.

    Section 18 Amends 23-3207 as it pertains to the residency of the child.

    Section 19 Amends 23-3208 as it pertains to the enforcement of parenting time, exchanges and first right of refusal.

    Section 20 Amends 23-3209 Requires the judge to interview a minor child, “on the record” in cases requiring the court to determine custody, residency, parenting time or visitation.  Per our current state statutes now children can testify on anything from criminal to adoption. Statute 22-3434: Videotape of testimony of child victim admissible in certain cases; limitations; standard of proof; objections, restrictions. (a) On motion of the attorney for any party to a criminal proceeding in which a child less than 13 years of age is alleged to be a victim of the crime, subject to the conditions of subsection (b), the court may order that the testimony of the child be taken: & KSA 38-2262: Placement; testimony of certain children. At any hearing under the code, the court, if requested by the child, shall hear the testimony of the child as to the desires of the child concerning the child’s placement, if the child is 10 years of age and of sound intellect. We would also want lines 4-5 added back in on page 23 as this was an error.
    Section 21 Amends 23-3210 Allows for investigation and reporting through a licensed psychologist or other mental health professional only.
    Section 22 Amends 23-3214 Strikes the language that allows the courts to require parenting classes after a filing of divorce.
    Section 23 Amends 23-3218 Adds language for changing custody, residency and visitation is done with evidence presented and shown beyond a reasonable doubt. It also forces the court to review the party’s financial situation so as to not cause harm or be their financial circumstances are compromised if the courts want to order physical or mental evaluations.
    Section 24 Amends 23-3219
    Section 25 Amends 23-3401 Requires hearings before a District Judge (rather than a hearing officer) in expedited proceedings to enforce visitation rights or parenting time orders   If SB 287 is passed these orders cannot be appealed to a District Court, then this is going to be a VERY bad thing.  Appellate court case loads would go through the roof, and cost well over $25K for the appellate review which you will lose.  It would cost Kansan’s plenty more…

  6. When alimony is intended to equalize the disparity after a divorce, there has to be a question of is it fair that the disparity is shared. Why should someone benefit from a marriage they have chosen to stop contributing to? Why should someone who did not want a divorce suffer more disparity to offset the disparity of the person who forced divorce upon them?

    What has been missing from the equation is the protection of the innocent party. If the court recognizes that divorce causes disparity then why does it not recognize that unilateral divorce without grounds causes harm? Should they not protect the party that has done nothing wrong? Why should the one who does harm to another be awarded anything from them?

    Often the one who is responsible for the divorce is awarded alimony because they have needs. However, one person’s needs do not obligate another to fill those needs. This is especially true when that person is able to fill their own needs.

    When there are children involved would it not be better for them to have least one parent who is financially stable instead of having both share poverty?