Under the category of topics that makes my husband nervous, today I’m talking divorce law inspired by this post by Colby Cosh.
Colby discusses the recent changes in divorce law in Canada. The latest case overturned a previous divorce agreement saying that it was a tax dodge and setting the precedent that all divorce agreements have the potential of being overturned.
Cosh writes,
In a single blow, one of Canada’s most famously progressive judges has turned back the clock 60 years on divorce law. The revived doctrine is that it is a husband’s job to support his wife, and not the state’s. But Miglin also makes the state, and not the husband and wife, the arbiter of how they are to divide assets. Madam Justice Abella’s old-fashioned view of marriage will warm some hearts, but men and women who quite reasonably thought themselves free of their spouses are chilled to the bone.
I could see that constantly returning to court to renegotiate agreements could become rather chaotic and that should be avoided. But on the other hand, if you’ve been married for many years and have kids, there is no clean break with a spouse. There are always negotiations going on if not about money, then about child visitation issues, holidays, and things. You’re never rid of your spouse. And any attempts to have a clean break from your spouse, usually benefits the husband.
Part of the problem is that modern divorce law totally screws over women with kids. Most women with kids have either stopped working to care for them or had to scale back their work responsibilities in some way. Guys, on the other hand, keep climbing the career ladder without pause. Mothers’ sacrifices are not taken into account in modern divorce law. Women always end up worse off than their higher earning husbands.
If this makes me Victorian, then “God Save the Queen.”
Apt. 11d 
I agree that divorced moms deserve a lot more financial consideration than they often get, but why do you consider women’s scaling back careers to take care of the kids a “sacrifice”? To me, being the one who is “climbing the career ladder without pause” sounds a hell of a lot worse.
LikeLike
I agree that divorced moms deserve a lot more financial consideration than they often get, but why do you assume all women consider scaling back their careers to take care of the kids a “sacrifice”? To me, being the one who is “climbing the career ladder without pause” sounds a hell of a lot worse.
LikeLike
I agree that divorced moms deserve a lot more financial consideration than they often get, but why do you assume all women consider scaling back their careers to take care of the kids a “sacrifice”? To me, being the one who is “climbing the career ladder without pause” sounds a hell of a lot worse.
LikeLike
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
As for me, and mine, we meant it when we pledged “Til Death Do Us Part” before God and our Families. We also pledged to never utter the D word in our home.
Would that our children could be taught to take such vows seriously again…
LikeLike
I know way too many men who have been screwed in divorces to let that go unmentioned. One friend ended up giving up the house and the car, and taking on a debt that the ex-wife had agreed to pay and then reneged; he ended up living with his mom for about 18 months; he still paid 20% of his income after taxes to his ex; and she constantly threatened to try to keep his son from him. Things are much better now, but he allowed himself to be put into a financial hole because of his fear that she would carry through on her threats. And he doesn’t have a job that permits the ladder-climbing or financial remuneration discussed, and certainly didn’t permit a court fight. Another friend has an ex-wife who cheated on him, openly, without stint. Because the laws in his state are somewhat draconian, he didn’t even try to get full custody of his daughters (whom he loves and with whom he has spent much time). Luckily they’re old enough to make their own observations about who spends time and energy with them.
So, although many women do get screwed, so do many men. In the former case, things have worked out reasonably well, but largely because the man in question was patient and refused to be separated from his son, and mom got her act together a little. The law surely didn’t help. In the latter case I described above, it was the law’s preference for awarding custody to the mother that was a major factor in his actions.
LikeLike
I will second Carla’s comments. I know far too many men who have been dragged to hell and back through the use of the court systems. In California they run un-checked against men and take a woman’s word without any true backing. It sickens me the way people will treat each other, especially when children are involved.
Likewise i second Marty’s comments. We said I do 30 years ago, it has not been sunshine and roses always, but a comittment is a comittment! Love isn’t something you fall into – it’s sacrifice.
LikeLike
Sara – Is staying at home a sacrifice? Depends on what day you ask me. It is definitely an economic sacrifice. Taking time off to raise the kids means that that parent isn’t earning social security credits or a salary of his/her own. Transitioning back to work is impossible if enough time is taken off. Divorced women in their 50s who spent their prime years driving the kids to soccer practice are screwed.
Yeah, I’m sure a lot of good guys have been screwed by divorce proceedings. But on the whole, middle aged women who no longer have alimony are worse off. Sounds like the problem in both of Carla’s cases had to do with custody agreements rather than financial splits.
LikeLike
It has always been my belief that once children arrive or marriage lasts, say, more that five years, divorce does not end the relationship; divorce only transforms it. It is always in a woman’s interest to properly engineer the terms of that new relationship.
Hopefully, marriage is permanent. When it is not, a woman needs to conclude it successfully. Of importance are keeping one’s emotions in control and calculating the best possible ending. Adultery (usually the case in most divorces) should be expensive.
Mothers who have opted not to work, but to stay home and raise a family stand to lose much, much more than their employed spouse. You are correct, the current divorce laws manage to overlook the time off from employment that most women take to raise a family. I’m unsure of possible solutions though. Have any new laws to make divorce more “fair” been bantered about?
LikeLike
What about prenups? If you make everything clear at the onset (no matter how unromantic it seems), you at least have a starting point for negotiations should the marriage fail?
LikeLike
I’ve never made more than my wife, or as much as…Does that mean she should have to support me if we get divorced?
LikeLike
I would trade positions with my wife in a heartbeat.
LikeLike
re: more fair divorce laws. Prim, I’m just starting to read up more on this topic. But I think that the longer that one has been married and the more time that one spouse has been out of the labor market should raise the amount that the employed spouse should have to pay in any divorce.
re: pre-nups. Melissa, I don’t know. I guess pre-nups should should have written into them various contingencies. Like what if one person ends making a larger sacrifice than could have been envisioned prior to pre-nup. Like what if after the marriage, the couple has a child with disabilities. One person has no choice but to stay home with the kid for many years. I don’t know. I just feel that unpaid work should be accounted for in divorce proceedings and even in pre-nups.
It doesn’t matter which parent does the work, just that is compensated. And hopefully, it never comes to court.
LikeLike
I grew up in an environment where divorce was shameful (as was having a child out of wedlock….for the mother but not the father).
The real deal is not the divorce legislation (although that’s important) but the cultural values around integrity of marriage and childbearing.
The other real deal is, can American culture add homosexual couples to the mix? That is to say, accept same-sex (civil) marriage as true marriage?
LikeLike
But custody agreements are not unrelated to financial issues–in the one case, for example, it was precisely the mother’s threat to sue for full/exclusive custody that caused him to accept really bad financial situations. I should add that mom wasn’t staying home to take care of the kid; they couldn’t afford that (in either case I mentioned, actually).
As for flaime’s question, it depends. If you’ve always held a job, if you didn’t restrict your job activities to raise kids, for example, then no, you shouldn’t get alimony, any more than a woman who did the same. If you raised the kids, took only part-time jobs to do that, etc., and she made a lot more than you, then yes.
LikeLike
That is interesting how women can use the court’s bias towards them during custody agreements as leverage to win a larger financial settlement. I wonder how often that happens.
LikeLike
I think all of the posts have been very insightful. I noticed that no one mentioned proof of infidelity as being an element that gave one of the parties an advantage. I hired http://www.chaetingspousepi.com and they got some video surveillance of my soon to be ex with her boss. My lawyer thinks it will give us an advantage. Any feedback would be appreciated.
LikeLike
Divorce In Woman
She has an affair with businessman Gaerste and uses him to force society to S
LikeLike