Except in unusual circumstance you should be able to continue to get your ex-husband’s money if you get divorced and even then it should be for a limited amount of time. You have a right to half of what was earned during the marriage but nothing afterwards. Women are not children and they need child support. They can go out and get jobs and support themselves. Courts should not be in position of compensating for people’s poor life choices.
I'm with Phelix here. There are most definitely cases in which the wife deserves alimony (and, rarer but still existing, cases in which the husband deserves alimony). Men in many of the highest-paying jobs - CEO's, say, top surgeons, that sort of thing - spend so much time on their job that most of the household and care of the children has to fall on their partner's shoulders, who as a result has it difficult in her (or his) professional career. In very few families does the couple think it desirable for both partners to make the kind of family sacrifices required for a career in the top echelons of many fields - and I think most people will agree with that, that it's really not a good idea to leave kids to be raised by the housekeeper or whatever, with the parents always gone. Hence, there's almost inevitably one partner in such families who sacrifices his or her career, not necessarily entirely but at least to some degree, for the sake of the other. That is not a "poor life choice", that is labour division between a married couple. And when that married couple decides to get a divorce, then yes, the partner who made sacrifices should get something in return.
Now you do say that there's a right to get half of what was earned during the marriage, or what remains of it, which in some cases may be sufficient, but there are certainly situations in which that just isn't enough. Take a couple, let's see, gets kids at thirty, divorces at forty-five, wife has largely given up her career, maybe kept working part-time or some such. With your suggestion, she'd get her share of what remains of the earnings during their marriage, but nothing more? She's been prevented from serious career progression during fifteen years, while her husband kept working and progressing, and at forty-five is beginning to reach a level where he makes good money. And then when they divorce you think it's fair for both of them to just continue where they are, with no compensation of any kind for the woman having put her career on hold for all those years? It really isn't.
Scuzziest politcal ad of the season... so far
29/09/2010 08:06:19 PM
- 1047 Views
Wow...that reminds me of Homer Simpson looking for that "sweet, sweet can".
29/09/2010 08:31:35 PM
- 718 Views
You think that's worse than Renee Elmer's one in North Carolina?
29/09/2010 08:38:30 PM
- 1041 Views
The ad didn't make me cringe, but the interview afterward certainly did
29/09/2010 09:07:06 PM
- 675 Views
I despise them both. In their own way they are both disgusting, manipulative, ignorant tools.
30/09/2010 03:46:36 AM
- 592 Views
To be fair...
29/09/2010 11:59:33 PM
- 759 Views
Why should a woman get alimony for cheating on her husband?
30/09/2010 05:23:03 AM
- 676 Views
Because the law in question only eliminated it for women.
30/09/2010 05:27:12 AM
- 929 Views
You can argue almost any position but that doesn’t make it right
30/09/2010 08:17:03 PM
- 781 Views
Poor life choices?
30/09/2010 09:46:14 PM
- 749 Views