NationStates

Personally, I don't believe it should. It's a relic of a bygone era where it was rare that women worked, and if they did they made basically nothing. That's not the case in this day and age. Plus I think It's a little absurd to promote the idea that sharing someone's last name for a couple years suddenly entitles you to live off of them. What say you NSG?

Yes, it should.

Two parents = two people with a responsibility for the kid's wellbeing.

Ideally that's economic and non-economic. But if the relationship between the parents makes some forms of shared care impossible, that doesn't mean it makes all forms of shared care impossible. You don't have to like someone to send a cheque. So that responsibility remains.

Neu Leonstein wrote:Yes, it should.

Two parents = two people with a responsibility for the kid's wellbeing.

Ideally that's economic and non-economic. But if the relationship between the parents makes some forms of shared care impossible, that doesn't mean it makes all forms of shared care impossible. You don't have to like someone to send a cheque. So that responsibility remains.

Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex. But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.

The Republic of Fore wrote:Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex.

Ah, I stand corrected. While often thrown in with child support, as I did there, you're right. They're not the same thing.

In which case the argument for it is a different one. It depends on the circumstances, I'd say. As, presumably, courts do. But you don't want to be in a situation where one partner is economically dependent on the other, and due to that is unable to, say escape an abusive relationship.

Whether something like that is the case needs to be determined on a case by case basis. I'd be hesitant to agree with a blanket ban.

But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.

I don't think they necessarily can. But that's a different discussion. With child support, the key is that the kids have a right to support from their parents, if you ask me. And they didn't sign that right away, no matter what happened to the parents' relationship.

No, it shouldn't. Economic dependence is not a valid argument in a society with a welfare state.

Neu Leonstein wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex.

Ah, I stand corrected. While often thrown in with child support, as I did there, you're right. They're not the same thing.

In which case the argument for it is a different one. It depends on the circumstances, I'd say. As, presumably, courts do. But you don't want to be in a situation where one partner is economically dependent on the other, and due to that is unable to, say escape an abusive relationship.

Whether something like that is the case needs to be determined on a case by case basis. I'd be hesitant to agree with a blanket ban.

But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.

I don't think they necessarily can. But that's a different discussion. With child support, the key is that the kids have a right to support from their parents, if you ask me. And they didn't sign that right away, no matter what happened to the parents' relationship.

Courts usually don't look at circumstances no, they just tend to rule in favor of women. A gentleman from Oklahoma served life in prison for not paying his ex wife alimony. And if the person is truly that financially dependent, but needs to escape then there's shelters for that. As far as signing rights away though, you actually can. You sign a legal document saying you give up all rights to see or contact the child. In return, you can't be held liable for child support.

Child support yes, alimony no.

Nope it shouldn't, unless the partner is separating from a particularly abusive relationship in which they were significantly withheld from acquiring any savings, assets, or potential to support themselves after the separation).

Ostroeuropa wrote:No, it shouldn't. Economic dependence is not a valid argument in a society with a welfare state.

For the US anyways, the welfare state is weak to nonexistent. What can I say? Americans want to support actual working poor or disabled people, and not a bunch of people who could be seen as lazy bums or those who're unskilled when they could become more skilled, if they really applied themself.

I do often wonder why European nations are too generous with their welfare, if all it ever gets them is unwanted immigration from poorer countries?

Saiwania wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:No, it shouldn't. Economic dependence is not a valid argument in a society with a welfare state.

For the US anyways, the welfare state is weak to nonexistent.

So fix that shit, rather than adding extra problems.

What can I say? Americans want to support actual working poor or disabled people, and not a bunch of people who could be seen as lazy bums or those who're unskilled when they could become more skilled, if they really applied themself.

Except that's not true in the slightest.

I do often wonder why European nations are too generous with their welfare, if all it ever gets them is unwanted immigration from poorer countries?

Because that is also a straight-up lie. What it gets us is a massively positive return on investment.

No.

Because divorce shouldn't exist. When marriage and divorce are simple to attain, we set them up for failure.

Sundiata wrote:No.

Because divorce shouldn't exist.

Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...

I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.

But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Sundiata wrote:No.

Because divorce shouldn't exist.

Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...

I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.

But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.

The problem is ultimately abuse, not marriage itself.

Abused people need channels to heal, while abusers need not abuse. Easier said than done, though.

But at the end of the day, alimony and divorce don't foster economic freedom.

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Neu Leonstein wrote:Yes, it should.

Two parents = two people with a responsibility for the kid's wellbeing.

Ideally that's economic and non-economic. But if the relationship between the parents makes some forms of shared care impossible, that doesn't mean it makes all forms of shared care impossible. You don't have to like someone to send a cheque. So that responsibility remains.

Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex. But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Actually, I think a guy who engaged in casual sex with a woman who said she wouldn't keep the baby even if she got pregnant shouldn't be thrown into poverty with her if she changes her mind. I think a guy like that has more cause for "paper abortions" than a divorced man who wants to leave the woman and child in poverty just to spite the woman.

Honestly, this sort of stuff, in the context of marriage, should be handled in pre-nuptial agreements. If you don't think marrying them is worth the risk, don't marry them.

Sundiata wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...

I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.

But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.

The problem is ultimately abuse, not marriage itself.

Abused people need channels to heal, while abusers need not abuse. Easier said than done, though m

Not to derail the thread but why should an abused partner have to stay married while his/her abusive partner learns "not to abuse"? Would they not "heal" better away from the bastard who perpetrated the abuse on them.

Let's remember, after all, that two women (in the UK alone) are murdered every week by a current or former partner (I don't have the stats on men to hand -- apologies).

Anyway, this thread is accepting the reality that divorce exists. Not talking about some airy-fairy fantasyland where it is banned due to the preferences of a tiny minority.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Child support yes, alimony no.

I'm going to second this

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex. But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Actually, I think a guy who engaged in casual sex with a woman who said she wouldn't keep the baby even if she got pregnant shouldn't be thrown into poverty with her if she changes her mind. I think a guy like that has more cause for "paper abortions" than a divorced man who wants to leave the woman and child in poverty just to spite the woman.

Honestly, this sort of stuff, in the context of marriage, should be handled in pre-nuptial agreements. If you don't think marrying them is worth the risk, don't marry them.

If you don't think sex is worth the risk of pregnancy, then don't have sex.

Come on.

Sundiata wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Depends on the jurisdiction.

Actually, I think a guy who engaged in casual sex with a woman who said she wouldn't keep the baby even if she got pregnant shouldn't be thrown into poverty with her if she changes her mind. I think a guy like that has more cause for "paper abortions" than a divorced man who wants to leave the woman and child in poverty just to spite the woman.

Honestly, this sort of stuff, in the context of marriage, should be handled in pre-nuptial agreements. If you don't think marrying them is worth the risk, don't marry them.

If you don't think sex is worth the risk of pregnancy, then don't have sex.

Come on.

We have an abortion thread for the endless consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy discussion.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Sundiata wrote:No.

Because divorce shouldn't exist.

Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...

I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.

But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.

Better idea:

Accused of abuse: You are given a restraining order until the matter is settled. The government provides for her and/or the kids if need be until you are on trial.

Exonerated: The marriage is declared null and void to prevent further false accusations. Damages are awarded to the exonerated. The kids, if any, are put into foster care so false accusers can never influence them again.

Convicted: The accused goes straight to jail, does not pass go, does not collect $200. In fact, the accused is expected to provide more than that amount of money to the accuser through hard labour on the chain gang.

This went off the rails pretty quick.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...

I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.

But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.

Better idea:

Accused of abuse: You are given a restraining order until the matter is settled. The government provides for her and/or the kids if need be until you are on trial.

Exonerated: The marriage is declared null and void to prevent further false accusations. Damages are awarded to the exonerated. The kids, if any, are put into foster care so false accusers can never influence them again.

Convicted: The accused goes straight to jail, does not pass go, does not collect $200. In fact, the accused is expected to provide more than that amount of money to the accuser through hard labour on the chain gang.

1. You seem to be assuming all abused spouses are female
2. You seem to be assuming all abused spouses have children

Twilight Imperium wrote:This went off the rails pretty quick.

Yes. Fair point.

My original post was my answer to how I would treat alimony -- for abused/controlled spouses with no ability to amass funds for self-support.

The Free Joy State wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Better idea:

Accused of abuse: You are given a restraining order until the matter is settled. The government provides for her and/or the kids if need be until you are on trial.

Exonerated: The marriage is declared null and void to prevent further false accusations. Damages are awarded to the exonerated. The kids, if any, are put into foster care so false accusers can never influence them again.

Convicted: The accused goes straight to jail, does not pass go, does not collect $200. In fact, the accused is expected to provide more than that amount of money to the accuser through hard labour on the chain gang.

1. You seem to be assuming all abused spouses are female
2. You seem to be assuming all abused spouses have children
3. I assume you have recent statistics from a recognised source (governmental, a journal, or equivalent -- no mommy blog equivalents) about the number of false abuse allegations to make this rigmarole pressing?

1. Force of habit. I was picturing the typical narrative of it when typing; I'm normally one of the foremost critics of this narrative.

2. That's why I said "and/or" the kids.

3. There's no such thing as a "reliable" source on a matter as murky as this. Even the official sources are tainted by who knows what kind of incentives; cops not wanting to admit they screwed up in allegations they believed? Allegations they didn't believe? No one truly knows all that goes on behind closed doors.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Sundiata wrote:The problem is ultimately abuse, not marriage itself.

Abused people need channels to heal, while abusers need not abuse. Easier said than done, though m

Not to derail the thread but why should an abused partner have to stay married while his/her abusive partner learns "not to abuse"? Would they not "heal" better away from the bastard who perpetrated the abuse on them.

Let's remember, after all, that two women (in the UK alone) are murdered every week by a current or former partner (I don't have the stats on men to hand -- apologies).

Anyway, this thread is accepting the reality that divorce exists. Not talking about some airy-fairy fantasyland where it is banned due to the preferences of a tiny minority.

You misunderstand, divorce doesn't stop abuse.

However, abused people shouldn't be confined to their abusive environment and have the right to economic freedom.

No, alimony should not exist.

Sundiata wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Not to derail the thread but why should an abused partner have to stay married while his/her abusive partner learns "not to abuse"? Would they not "heal" better away from the bastard who perpetrated the abuse on them.

Let's remember, after all, that two women (in the UK alone) are murdered every week by a current or former partner (I don't have the stats on men to hand -- apologies).

Anyway, this thread is accepting the reality that divorce exists. Not talking about some airy-fairy fantasyland where it is banned due to the preferences of a tiny minority.

You misunderstand, divorce doesn't stop abuse.

However, abused people shouldn't be confined to their abusive environment and have the right to economic freedom.

I question how you make out that permanently divorcing an abusive partner -- never to speak directly to them again (only contacting them via lawyers, if necessary) and having a restraining order (if necessary), and police alarms -- will not have at least a better chance of stopping abuse than leaving someone legally and permanently tied to an abusive partner.

But, as this is straying from the topic of the thread, I'll have to keep wondering.