California Alimony Reform

In the recent election one measure not on the ballot in California was to limit alimony to 5 years. The measure was pushed by Steve Clark and California Alimony Reform but they were unable to raise enough money to gather the necessary petitions to get it on the ballot. 

Clark pays $1000/month in alimony whereas I pay three times that. Furthermore I was required to pay child support for both children until the youngest one was out of high school not just until they turned 18 as it apparently is California. Minnesota is possibly the worst state there is when it comes to divorce. 

I have been quite busy preparing for my upcoming hearing on my motion to set aside the judicial order for permanent alimony. (called spousal support in Minnesota) Every time I write about what has happened to me I am struck with how good of a case I have. This is immediately followed by a punch to the gut knowing that despite the facts, the law, and principals of equality and fairness, I have nearly always lost in court. Whether I win or lose this round, it will be the last battle. 

The Sturggle

It is going to be a long few months for me. I have filed a motion to, among other things, set aside the 2012 court order which included permanent spousal support. Spring has also filed a motion against me asking for even more money. My motion should be a slam dunk given the clear evidence of fraud upon the court committed by my ex-wife and her lawyer along with the Minnesota state statute which specifically says court orders in family court can be set aside for fraud upon the court with no statute of limitations. See below. In addition, the very idea that a person who was not the primary parent during the marriage according to custody evaluator and who could make make just as much money as me according to the vocational evaluation would receive permanent alimony after taking the majority of marital assets, despite not contributing anything to their accumulation, is simply beyond belief.  

I know many divorced people and not one of them pays or receives alimony. The only ones who receive child support are those who have sole custody of the children. Yet I had to pay Spring child support even though I had the kids the majority of the time. 

Unfortunately my experience is that the facts, truth, the law, and justice are not particularly important factors when judges rule. The good thing is that no matter how the court rules, this living nightmare will soon end. 

518.145 DECREE, FINALITY AND REOPENING.

Subd. 2.Reopening. On motion and upon terms as are just, the court may relieve a party from a judgment and decree, order, or proceeding under this chapter, except for provisions dissolving the bonds of marriage, annulling the marriage, or directing that the parties are legally separated, and may order a new trial or grant other relief as may be just for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 59.03;

(3) fraud, whether denominated intrinsic or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the judgment and decree or order is void; or

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment and decree or order upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment and decree or order should have prospective application.

The motion must be made within a reasonable time, and for a reason under clause (1), (2), or (3), not more than one year after the judgment and decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment and decree or order or suspend its operation. This subdivision does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment and decree, order, or proceeding or to grant relief to a party not actually personally notified as provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.

The Trial Of The Chicago Seven

I saw the new movie The Trial Of The Chicago Seven this week. Fantastic! The story  revolves around  the trial of seven defendants, including Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Tom Hayden for inciting riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968. The new Nixon administration chose to prosecute despite the fact that the outgoing Johnson administration had concluded that the rioting was started by the police.  Hayden, hardly some no name radical, had recently been a pallbearer for Robert Kennedy who had been assassinated while campaigning for the presidential nomination. 

The movie has an equal number of hilarious and disturbing parts. On the funny side was when Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin dressed in judicial robes one day during the trial.  The judge ordered them to remove the robes only to find out they were wearing police uniforms underneath. 

On the disturbing side is when one defendant, Bobby Seale who co-founded the Black Panthers, was bound and gagged during the trial by the judge. The movie has Seale gagged for a brief time but the reality was far worse. He spent three days of the trail tied up and gagged. The entire movie is like that. It is a nearly unbelievable depiction of the judicial system but the reality of the trial was far worse. 

Feminist View Of Alimony

Feminists are often the most vocal opponents of alimony. Which makes a lot of sense because alimony in all but the most unusual circumstances treats women as less capable than men. Additionally, it often burdens second wives with the cost of alimony to a first wife. 

Unfortunately, many feminists do not understand that the reality of alimony does not reflect their modernist views. In an article on Mom's For Shared Parenting, it is stated that:

Thankfully, family courts are slowly turning this around, with lifetime alimony all but gone, judges (especially female judges, who fought their assess off for their own professional success, and have little sympathy for women who chose to perpetuate this sexist model) increasingly expect both parties to be responsible for both the financial and time cost of child rearing, as shared parenting is moving through state legislatures around the United States.

I wish. The problem is that no one knows how many people are subject to lifetime alimony because data is not kept on it. 

Think how crazy it is that I am paying lifetime alimony. The custody evaluator ruled that parenting was joint during the marriage, although joint custody was awarded the children spent the vast majority of time with me post-divorce, my ex-wife has never spent a dime of her earned income pre or post divorce on the kids, she divorced me, she took the majority of marital assets,  and she clearly committed crimes during the divorce. It is surreal, it is wrong. 

Interpreting Suicide Statistics

People read what they want into statistics. For example, statistics show that men who are divorced are  nine times more likely to die by suicide compared to divorced women. Why is not so clear so everyone just makes a guess and usually that guess aligns with their own experience and worldview. 

The author of an article in Psychology Today quotes: 

Dr. Kposowa, a sociologist at the University of California–Riverside, suggested that society has undervalued the strength of paternal-child bonds, and thus underestimated the traumatic effect of severing those bonds through our typical custody arrangements. Further, we fail to appreciate the catastrophic financial impact of divorce on men, and the anger and resentment engendered by losses of both property and status in the wake of a divorce settlement. 

but also states:

I suspect that something else is afoot. Couldn't it be that the personality and social factors that contributed to the failure of the marriage also contribute to excess suicide risk afterward? Couldn't the risk factors for divorce in men be related to the risk factors for suicide in divorced men? Female dissatisfaction with the marriage is a stable predictor of an eventual divorce. Perhaps we should consider marital behaviors that might lead to such dissatisfaction.

which is just an opinion. 

I, quite unsurprisingly, think that a combination of financial obligations (alimony is paid by the man in 98+ of cases), loss of contact with their children, and the crime rewarding nature of our family court system lead more men than women to commit suicide after a divorce because they are most often the victim. No one has the evidence to prove or disprove that in general but it is certainly true, and supported by the evidence, in my case.

The Future Of Civil Marraige

Why do we have marriage? It is time that more people asked themselves that. For civil marriages, it provides or various benefits and costs which differ from the non-married. Benefits include certain tax advantages, social security benefits, legal decision making and inheritance. Disadvantages include certain tax disadvantages, legal obligations to the spouse, and legal and financial costs stemming from  dissolution. 

In this day when marriage can be between any two people regardless of gender and many companies extend marriage-like benefits to domestic partners, one wonders why we need civil marriage at all. 

Eliminating civil marriages would be a huge benefit to society. The tax and legal codes become much simpler and fair. People could still get married but it would be as part of a religious or private commitment ceremony. Husband and wife would be just terms anyone could use as they please. 

My guess is that  more and more people will choose to not marry which in turn will cause a general weakening of the benefits of marriage until at some point marriage as a civil institution will fade away. That will be a good thing. 

The History And Future of Marriage

I ran across an informative and quite humorous video on the history of marriage along with some speculation on its future. It is well worth watching. 

"Law 142 of the Code of Hammurabi (ancient Babylon) states that if a wife could demonstrate that her husband neglected her while she had no guilt, she had the right to take her dowry back and regress to her father’s home."

was a lot better than paying alimony till death as I have to!

Reddit discussion here.