It's just the beginning

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?NY

Women are hard at work determined that only men will pay alimony. Now that women have been bitten by their own alimony laws, new alimony laws are being drafted to make women exempt from paying.

Victim Ordered to Pay Attacker Spousal Support - Yahoo! News

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?NY

Women are hard at work determined that only men will pay alimony. Now that women have been bitten by their own alimony laws, new alimony laws are being drafted to make women exempt from paying.

Victim Ordered to Pay Attacker Spousal Support - Yahoo! News

Bali...its not the same thing at all. He is being sent to prison for raping her, and the outrage is that a judge would order her to pay alimony to the person who raped her.

Lets say that a woman stabbed her husband and put him in the hospital. She was convicted of the crime and sentenced to prison. He divorces her and the judge orders him to pay her alimony. It would be equally outrageous as the above story.

 

[Bali Hai]

Bali...its not the same thing at all. He is being sent to prison for raping her, and the outrage is that a judge would order her to pay alimony to the person who raped her.

That's HER story. It's way too convenient on the wife's part to have had the foresight to audio tape the so-called "rape" of the wife by the husband. Give me a freaking break!

Lets say that a woman stabbed her husband and put him in the hospital. She was convicted of the crime and sentenced to prison. He divorces her and the judge orders him to pay her alimony. It would be equally outrageous as the above story.

You can bet that the man who was stabbed would pay the alimony and there would be no public uproar about changing the alimony laws either. Afterall, the woman probably had a good reason to stab him, right?

 

[LdiJ]

You can bet that the man who was stabbed would pay the alimony and there would be no public uproar about changing the alimony laws either. Afterall, the woman probably had a good reason to stab him, right?

Bali...sometimes your lack of a grasp on reality worries me.

 

[mistoffolees]

Bali...sometimes your lack of a grasp on reality worries me.

Sometimes?

 

[Isis1]

Without siding with Bali, I still not seeing what the judge did was wrong. Personally, she shouldn't have gotten a "discount". Alimony is about numbers. Not actions. Financially speaking, she was responsible. Granted she gets a stay while he is in prison. Where he will serve his punishment. Once his sentence is complete, his obligation is done. Therefore punishing him further is not what the family court is about.

 

[LdiJ]

Without siding with Bali, I still not seeing what the judge did was wrong. Personally, she shouldn't have gotten a "discount". Alimony is about numbers. Not actions. Financially speaking, she was responsible. Granted she gets a stay while he is in prison. Where he will serve his punishment. Once his sentence is complete, his obligation is done. Therefore punishing him further is not what the family court is about.

I do see something wrong about a victim of a violent crime having to have a lifelong (or long time)connection to the perpetrator of the crime, via having to give them money. Its one thing to split the marital assets, particularly in a community property state, but that continuing outflow of funds, in that scenario, seems like punishing the victim.

Its kind of like saying that a rapist should be able to have parental rights to a child that was concieved of the rape. Most state laws prohibit that, but I am not sure that all do.

 

[mistoffolees]

Without siding with Bali, I still not seeing what the judge did was wrong. Personally, she shouldn't have gotten a "discount". Alimony is about numbers. Not actions. Financially speaking, she was responsible. Granted she gets a stay while he is in prison. Where he will serve his punishment. Once his sentence is complete, his obligation is done. Therefore punishing him further is not what the family court is about.

I don't see it that way.

Alimony is typically dependent on circumstances (and should be even in the cases where it isn't). For example, alimony is commonly terminated if the recipient remarries. The intent in most cases is a temporary transitional thing to help the recipient get their life back in order.

Now, in this case, there are two problems:

1. The recipient will be in jail - so the alimony isn't really going to be of any use in him getting his life back together.

2. Since he was guilty of a violent crime against the payer, it could be argued that he no longer has the right to expect the payer to help him get his life back together - at her expense.

I don't see alimony as something that is automatically owed to him, but rather as an equalization payment that the court can order when there is reason for the recipient to deserve it.

 

[not2cleverRed]

There's got to be more to this story, considering he was also awarded legal fees.

And he's only 40 - not too old to "start over", even after he serves his time.

 

[ecmst12]

If adultery can cause a person to not be awarded alimony, then for DAMN sure sexual assault should be the same.

 

[LdiJ]

There's got to be more to this story, considering he was also awarded legal fees.

And he's only 40 - not too old to "start over", even after he serves his time.

That's weird too...he actually was convicted of the rape and is going to jail for it, so obviously there was serious evidence. He must have had one heck of an attorney...

 

[Bali Hai]

I don't see it that way.

Alimony is typically dependent on circumstances (and should be even in the cases where it isn't). For example, alimony is commonly terminated if the recipient remarries. The intent in most cases is a temporary transitional thing to help the recipient get their life back in order.

Now, in this case, there are two problems:

1. The recipient will be in jail - so the alimony isn't really going to be of any use in him getting his life back together.

2. Since he was guilty of a violent crime against the payer, it could be argued that he no longer has the right to expect the payer to help him get his life back together - at her expense.

I don't see alimony as something that is automatically owed to him, but rather as an equalization payment that the court can order when there is reason for the recipient to deserve it.

It's amusing watching people trying to leap across the river on every dry stone they see without getting their feet wet.

The wife makes 100 grand per year, the husband makes nothing, she owes alimony period! The judge determined $1k per month. End of story.

The DA should focus on their job of prosecuting offenders and not becoming involved in changing the the law, but instead, upholding it!

 

[Bali Hai]

That's weird too...he actually was convicted of the rape and is going to jail for it, so obviously there was serious evidence.

OR, a woman judge, woman prosecutor, and, all woman jury. If you don't believe that innocent people are convicted and sent to prison on a regular basis, you should be worried about your own grasp of reality.

With the right circumstances a ham sandwich can be convicted and sent to prison for having horse radish on it instead of mustard.

He must have had one heck of an attorney...

He didn't need a good attorney to get the ex to pay his fees. Where else would the attorney get the fees paid from?

 

[tuffbrk]

The sad thing is that one is dependent upon their attorney. Half of whom shouldn't have a law degree, never mind be actually practicing. It just gives an unfair advantage to the party able to afford better representation (or presumed to be better representation).

I can't help being somewhat concerned that this judge ruled as they did to ensure that men didn't start crying "rape" during divorce as a means to avoid alimony.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Careful Bali Hai. If some members feel offended by your position, they might report you. Justice is not always what some seek.