Talk:Alimony

US only?

This article is, as far as I can see, only about US law. But I cannot se it mentioned anywere, rather it states in the beginning that alimony "is an obligation established by law in many countries", specifying that the article might be about alimony in general on a world-wide scale. The rest of the article, though, seems to be about US law only even if it is not explicitly stated. I don't know if the article should be about US law only, but if it should, it must be specified, and if it shouldn't, it must be rewritten to explicitly state what parts of the article are specific for US law. I don't have enough knowledge to do anything about the article myself, but I added the the globalize/USA template to the article. 212.181.133.116 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi her, I heard, that if your marriage's year and your Age are together hit 65 Years, you are automaticlly get Alimony for live! Is that treu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheiz live (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spousal Support

Is it possible for someone to waive their right to spousal support and then 2 1/2 years after the marriage ask for it and get it?

I believe so, but depends on jurisdiction, and judge. :) You would likely have to show a 'change of circumstances', which should be its own wikitopic. --Fish-man 19:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok,can a wife (party A) who has full custody of their teenage child (or child whatever the case may be) and be asked to pay allimony cause they made more money then the other? Also is ones retirement/pension be considered in a alimony case if its thought one won't live to enjoy and/or use their retirement?

Alimony is prositution in arears, where the courts establish the fees.

Alimony is an awful lot like Involuntary Servitude. 207.5.194.240 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Gender basis of alimony

Alimony reflects traditional views of marriage that males that must pay for wives, even after the termination of the marriage contract. Why is the fundamental gender dynamic of the assumption of male responsibility as a general rule not addressed in this article? Dogru144 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The sexism inherient in it seems like something that would be here. 205.157.110.11 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I came to this page after reading about the huge divorce judgment that Heather Mills got from Paul McCartney and wondering about the reasoning behind this. I'm sure this page gets lots of visitors every time there's a celebrity divorce and a big alimony payment is awarded, so wouldn't it make sense to have an explanation of the historical circumstances and legal reasoning surrounding alimony laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.191.23 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Child Support

Child support is listed as being an obligation of the non-custodial spouse, but in shared or joint custody situations, this is not the case - child support is still usually required by the courts, and paid by the parent with the higher income at the time of the divorce to the one with the lower income. I will think how to word this, and if no one kvetches, I will change the child-support sentance. --Fish-man 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am changing this now.--Fish-man 14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

One issue with child support and alimony is the state will enforce both as "support" if they are ordered at the same time. For instance, if a Court orders $100 in child support and $4,000 in alimony, which is not unusual because alimony is a transfer of income from one party to another. So in effect most, if not all, state enforcement bodies will enforce both streams of payments. What this creates is a perception of claim of the "deadbeat" name. Because if no alimony is ordered , then child support would be nominal or capped by state guidelines, as an example $1,000/mth. So if the paying spouse pays $2,000/mth for 5 years, that paying spouse would be still in arrears of $120,000, and still be identified as a "deadbeat" by local law enforcement and state agencies. On the otherhand, if no child support is ordered but alimony is ordered, then the alimony is not enforecable by the state. A case recently reversed in Todd Nadrich v. Renee Nadrich, all temporary support, alimony, and child support required reversal because the order did not take into account the former husband's living expenses, noted in opionin by the Florida 4th DCA. Basically this case is complicated by the fact, pending the appeals court decision, the former husband Todd Nadrich, was subjected too a 100% wage income deduction order, an equitable lien on his home and the forced sale of the property, also reversed. However after all said and done, the income is gone, the property was sold and the former husband could not even pay for transportation to work or even the basic needs of the children while the former wife, Renee Nadrich, had agreed to a substantial timesharing schedule. It is apperant the laws need to be changed. Every state needs to adopt alimony guidelines, as in a recent case in Florida denotes, alimony is similar to winning the lottery. Ibtodd (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Factors Affecting Alimony

I would like to add subsequent clarifications to the factors, perhaps in a lower section - I will sandbox changes here, and look for any comments

(Sandbox removed)

Please comment... --Fish-man 20:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes Inserted.--Fish-man 14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

نفقه

نفقه

در اين بخش به موضوع نفقه در اسلام و ايران خواهيم پرداخت. منتظر باشيد

anyone read Arabic?--Fish-man 23:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

External links

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about that....I'm removing the link. Joshcating 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been the target of multiple different vandals over the past few days. Anybody have any ideas on how to resolve this? Xnuala 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is obviously vandalism and is definitely not written from a npov. I think we should request semi-protection. Almost all of the edits that have added the vandalism or reverted it back are from unregistered users. Masciare 00:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, you can request here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection--Hu12 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection for this article. We'll have to wait and see if it is approved. Masciare 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Alimony - Can I file after 13 years?

I had a bad divorse. I couldn't collect child support or alimony because my x filed for bankruptsy. My x worked for cash at his uncle business, the district attorney went to the place of business and bought a spark plug to prove he was working. My x told the judge he was just helping out for the day. The judge believed my x. Now some years later my x has a nice house, cars and a 6 figure income, just like before our divorse. We were married for 16 years so the 10 year rule applies for lifetime alimony in California. So can I file today, I have become disabled as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.123.141 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alimony causes murder

Do you think anything should be written about all the murders that occur, usually of wives, so alimony wouldn't have to be paid? Many get away with the murders because it was made to look like suicide or robbery or many other things? Stars4change (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

Is it worth mentioning that alimony is actually a form of indentured servitude (slavery), being that one has to work for the benifit of another without receiving due compensation for their labours? MattUK (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I would appreciate any suggestions on how to better maintain a neutral point of view in this article. I will note that this artical has extensive footnotes. Otherwise, I would ask that the "NPOV flag" be removed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTiger1985 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out on your talkpage, the section is clear advocacy and soapboxing for alimony reform. It is full of weasel words and argument for the cause, as well as inappropriate combining of (sometimes primary sources) to make points that are not made in the references themselves. You need to find secondary sources, talking about the "alimony reform movement" and use them for this section. --Slp1 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Slp1

Please read the four added sources at the beginning of the Alimony Reform Section - Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Huffington Post and National Public Radio. These are very credible sources and support every fact in the ensuing sections.

Which "weasel words" are you referring to? Please also point out the "soapboxing" and I will correct. Otherwise, please remove the NPOV warning. Thanks. PTiger1985. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTiger1985 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the references. However, they have just thrown up additional problems, in that I note that you have copy and pasted whole sections of them into the article. You must not do this. Please remove any other sections that you have copied from other sources (or reword them in your own words) and I will comment on what is left. But to give you a head start.... Neutral Point of View means that we need to be neutral about the issue of alimony reform; putting forward what the significant views are about it but not pushing one opinion over the other. On rereading the section you contributed to, do you really feel it is neutral? No, of course not. The section is pushing one perspective and making an argument for alimony reform using original research and synthesis. More later when you have dealt with the copyright infringement issue.--Slp1 (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Section Removed

Having checked further, I noted multiple other copyright vios, as well as the original research and NPOV problems noted above. I have removed the whole section as it needs to be completely rewritten following WP policies. If PTiger1985 or others want to try again, I suggest starting small, with a very short paragraph summarizing the issue. Note that most of the info appears to relate to one possible bill in one state of one country of the world. Given this, the length and detail was in any case inappropriate, since the alimony reform movement seems rather small at present.--Slp1 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)s

I have made the correction requested. Also, please note that the reform movement in at least a have dozen states is dicussed in the Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio and the Huffington Post. Massachusetts is ahead of other states, but this effort is clearly going on across the nation.

I have also directly quoted the WSJ on the multi-state nature of the Alimony Reform movement.

I have also better documented the changing concept of the "Partnership Model" with a new source.

I have also extracted a direct quote from the Massachusetts Law School publication, The Reformer, on how alimony is likened by experts to welfare.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Thanks for the help!!! PTiger1985PTiger1985 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTiger1985 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. PTiger1985PTiger1985 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTiger1985 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you have left whole sentences of copy and pasted material in there, and you have not addressed the issues of original research, synthesis, undue weight etc. As I said, please start small, with a well-sourced paragraph that can be checked carefully. --Slp1 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely Started Over

I have completely rewritten the Alimony Reform sections.

All text is original - no cut and paste. I have footnoted all facts I have removed all NPOV I have not included any original research - only documented statements and facts from published (non-copywrited) materials.

Thanks for your help! Sorry, I am new at Wikipedia, but trying to provide insight on this topic!

PTiger1985 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The section appears to focus only on the USA, so I changed the chapter heading to reflect that for the benefit of our world-wide readership. As far as I can see, it appears you have done some very good work here, so thank YOU! Jusdafax 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks.

PTiger1985 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no you didn't remove all copy and paste material, as you know.[1] Nor have you removed the POV, the original research and inappropriately sourced material. I have tagged all the parts I have found to be problematic in order to help you fix the article. If you have specific questions about why I have tagged what, please feel free to ask. I will give you a few days to fix these issues, and remove the overall tone of advocacy/argument, or I will delete the whole again.--Slp1 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

History

To understand the history of alimony it is important to understand two concepts. 1) The English Common law doctrine of coverture created a responsibility for spousal support after the marriage 2) Alimony was originally intended to provide 'sustenance' support to an ex-wife who (at the time - 17th Century England) usually had no means of support. Over time the purpose of alimony evolved in many states (but not all states) to providing the lifestyle the wife became accustomed to during the marriage. In Texas and other states, alimony is limited to providing essential needs.

In Massachusetts and other states, alimony is intended to provide the lifestyle a spouse became accustomed to during the marriage.

This evolution of the purpose of alimony, leads to vastly different alimony amounts depending on what state one gets divorced.

PTiger1985 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also extremly important to understand that women are increasingly finding themselves paying alimony. Also, alimony began as a means of providing 'sustanence' support to an ex-wife without means of support. Now, alimony is paid to spouses, both men and women, who are perfectly capable of self-support. A very important change in the role of alimony over its History.

PTiger1985 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you this, but any post that starts "it is important to know that" makes clear that an editor is more interested in promoting his/her viewpoint that anything else. We are not interested in what you think is important. We are concerned in reflecting what mainstream reliable sources have to say about the subject. As I have said before, you cannot use WP as a soapbox to promote the truth about what you think is important.--Slp1 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel the truth is important to know. Don't you?

PTiger1985 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to promote the truth, then get your own website and write away to your heart's content. If you want to contribute here you will have to follow the policies and guidelines of this place. And one of the prime rules here is verifiability not truth. I'm sure you'll understand the reason when you consider that your version of the truth is probably rather different from your ex-wife's. We focus on what reliable sources have to say on the subject of the article, not what individual editors believe to be true.

I have, as you will have seen rewritten the entire first section. Hopefully this will give you an idea of what is required for the alimony reform section. A few specific tips to help you.

• youtube, random websites (e.g. mrcustodycoach), blogs are not considered reliable sources. Neither is Huffington Post nor opinion columns, though these two might be considered reliable for the opinion of the author, if s/he is notable. ie "XXX argues that xxxxx".[2] Lots of your refs fall into these categories. Better references are required.
• no original research or synthesis is permitted. Take a look at my edit summaries, where I have indicated that I have deleted OR, and hopefully you will be able to figure out what the problem is. If it isn't clear, please ask, and I will be happy to elaborate. The main thing is that you cannot combine different sources to make a different point; the point you are wanting to make needs to be in your reference. Example... there is nothing about alimony in the article about babylonian currency you cited.
• no advocacy, which is the big problem with the alimony reform section. It is also way too long. Summary style is what is required. --Slp1 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• verifiability. Often I find that citations added do not contain the information claimed. It is important only to include information that can be verified from that specific citation, and not to add other ideas or spin. --Slp1 (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Men's Rights and Fathers' Rights Movements

The changing social circumstances in the US that are described in this article have also inspired the Fathers' rights movement the Men's Rights movement and efforts to reform child support and custody laws.

I am creating links to those sites. They ARE NOT spam.

PTiger1985 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Help on this Article Greatly Appreciated

I believe alimony is to most, a very confusing topic. A topic that can be better understood and less threatening.

For an unlucky few, fighting with a parting spouse over alimony (due to the current vague statues and confusing case law) ruins relations between parting spouses, creates a hostile home environment for the children and drains the family bank account to pay the divorce attorneys.

I have made significant contribution to this section, but I need and would appreciate you help. Thank you.

PTiger1985 (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

13:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical Context of Origins of Divorce

Slp1

To understand the origins of alimony law in 16th and 17th century England, it is important to understand the dependent relationship of the wife on the husband that, unlike to day, did not end at the dissolution of the marriage. This point is misssing from our History section. From divorcenet.com

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/nevada/alimony_weakest_link

"History of Alimony

The origins of alimony, as we know it in the United States, can be traced back to the ecclesiastical courts in England.1 Because the husband was the property owner, and the wife depended upon him to provide for her sustenance, the English ecclesiastical courts consistently ruled that the husband had the duty to provide for the wife after divorce.2

Even though the courts in America continued that tradition, there were some critical distinctions between American society and society in England. England, at that time, only granted divorces "a mensa et thoro," while the American courts granted absolute divorces.3 A divorce "a mensa et thoro" (from bed and board) allowed a husband and wife to live apart, due perhaps to abuse or danger inflicted by the husband, but the two parties were still tied together in the bond of marriage.4 At common law, a single woman was considered a whole person with rights as such, but once married, a woman could not enter contracts or be sued.5 The rights of a woman to personal property and profits from realty were vested in her husband by law after the marriage.6 The husband was seen as the ruler of the family and responsible for management of the marital property. Therefore, to protect the wife, a common law duty of support from the husband arose.7

Consequently, an English divorce meant that the woman was still married, but separated from her husband; the rights of a single woman were not restored to her; and she was forever dependent upon her husband for support.

Obviously, in America, the divorce is absolute, but we have carried with it the ecclesiastical court's policy of assisting with the support of the wife after the marriage is dissolved through what we call "alimony".8

I think we should add some of this historical context.

Will you work with me on that?

PTiger1985 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is similar historical context to alimony law. This time from CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/05/grossman.adultery.alimony/index.html

Alimony and fault: The historical origins Alimony -- the periodic payments one spouse might be ordered to pay another following dissolution of their marriage -- is an old concept. Historically, women who separated from their husbands for cause (or were abandoned) could be awarded alimony based on the assumption, usually true, that they lacked the ability to provide for themselves. (Married women - even separated ones -- suffered from legal disabilities that made it difficult or impossible for them to earn money or own property.)

The concept of alimony reflected the reality that most women were economically dependent on their husbands. It also served the conception of marriage as a lifetime commitment. A husband's duty to support his wife continued for life, even if the couple ceased cohabitating.

But only "innocent" wives had a right of support. So if a wife left her husband without cause, she had no right to collect alimony. And later, when alimony was used following divorce as well as separation, the same principle applied. Divorces, historically, had to be premised on the innocence of one party and the fault of the other. To collect alimony, then, the wife had to be the plaintiff.

Alimony and no-fault: The modern era The 1970s and 80s saw the end to fault-based divorce in most jurisdictions. Today, every state makes available at least one no-fault ground for divorce - a substantive standard like "irreconcilable differences" or a period of separation.

The revolution that produced this new approach to divorce came with significant practical changes to divorce litigation. Parties could now obtain "uncontested" divorces, which were notably quicker, cheaper, and less messy. The level of acrimony in many cases dropped because spouses were not asked to prove either other's failings.

Along with these practical changes came new theoretical conceptions about marriage and life after its dissolution. The idea that couples should be able to escape a failed marriage, go their separate ways, and, perhaps, find happiness in a better marriage emerged. For this to happen, though, couples had to be given a clean break from the failed marriage.

The idea of a clean break was, of course, inconsistent with the historical conception of alimony - which envisioned marital commitments extending for the life of the parties, whether they remained married or not. At the same time, the legal rules that justified a presumption of wives' dependency had also disappeared.

As a result, courts increasing displayed their dislike for the concept of alimony. Some felt it was wrong to require divorced spouses to have continued, regular contact; others felt it was based on an outdated conception of the status of husbands and wives.

Courts and legislators also developed a particularized dislike for fault considerations in alimony awards, given the development and widespread adoption of no-fault divorce laws.

The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, first promulgated in 1970, reflects both of these trends. It says alimony should be awarded only if one spouse "lacks sufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs" and, then, it should be awarded "without regard to marital misconduct."

According to the American Law Institute's Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution ("ALI Principles"), published in 2002, twenty states follow this model by refusing to consider marital misconduct when making alimony determinations, while another eight consider it only in rare cases.

Twenty-two states, however, continue to permit full consideration of fault when deciding whether to award alimony and in what amount. North Carolina, for example, bars alimony to a dependent spouse who has committed adultery, and requires that alimony be awarded if a provider spouse has done so. And in every case in which one spouse is eligible for alimony, marital misconduct of all kinds can affect the amount of the award.