A while back I was in court with my female client defending a request by her husband that she be ordered to pay him spousal support. My client was irate over the fact that her husband would even think to make such a request, notwithstanding the fact that her net worth and earnings significantly outgrossed his. As we argued the case to the judge, my client kept telling me that this was ridiculous, a man should not be seeking spousal support from a woman. I told her that in my view, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander and while as a principal I, myself, was opposed to spousal support, if one spouse could get it from the other, it had to go both ways.
This conversation reminded me of a similar one I had at an earlier time with a female colleague of mine. Her husband sought spousal support from her and she was equally outraged over it. As she put it "it's not something you bargain for when you get married". I reminded her that most people did not bargain for divorce at all, and that, while I was sympathetic to the fact that she did not want to pay the support, there had to be equal treatment under the law. If she could get it, why shouldn't he also be able to?
In my more than 23 years of practicing family law I have heard just about all there is to hear when someone comes into my office. These were not the first times I have heard this complaint from women about spousal support. It also is not the first time I have heard similar statements when it comes to custody. Just last week a female client told me that she did not understand why her husband had a right to share equal time with their children when she was the mother. She complained to me that if they were still married, he wouldn't have equal time, he never spent that much time with the kids before. I told her that this is one of the consequences of divorce, if you want to get divorced, you have to understand that the other party has rights just like you do and that one of those rights, is the right to spend equal time with the children if their father is willing and able to do so.
These talks in my office really emphasize the double-standard that seems to exist in the minds of many women caught in the midst of a divorce. It is totally acceptable to have the man pay spousal support, but not the woman. It is totally acceptable to have the mother raise the kids, but not the father. All of this makes me wonder, what was the point of the battle for equal rights? In this day and age, these women are the daughters of some of the same women who I remember burning their brassieres in the 60s, the daughters of women who stopped being stay at home mothers so they could go out and work, the daughters of women who went back to school to get advanced degrees. In many cases, these women themselves are the embodiment of the example that their mothers set for them. Some of them are overachievers, who can and have accomplished major feats in the business world, but somehow still see it as appropriate to be treated differently in the arena of the family law court. In the context of a child support dispute, one of my female clients lamented that "so I went out and built this successful business and my reward is I have to pay child support to him?".
For years men bore the brunt of fallout of a divorce proceeding. They built businesses and professional practices and then had to buy their wives out of those businesses, or trade their homes for the businesses in the property settlement. They had to pay spousal and child support on top of it. And, to add insult to injury, many of them were relegated to visits with their children on alternating weekends and one night per week. This situation was commonplace in the days when men were the primary breadwinners and women stayed at home with children. However, times have changed. It has taken years of lobbying by father's rights organizations to the state legislatures, lots of time spent educating judges about the benefits that fathers can provide to their children if given the time to spend with them, and yet, it seems, that to a large percentage of the female population, this change to a more egalitarian legal system is somehow unjust. Society has changed and the family has changed. The traditional role models are not what they used to be. Women are out in the workforce, are often the breadwinners, and provide the same function in many families and in society that were primarily the province of men up until recent decades. It is only appropriate, therefore, that women and men be treated in an equal manner when it comes to the painful subjects of support and child custody that arise in divorce proceedings.
Follow Fred Silberberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fredsilberberg
Thank you Mr. Silberberg for addressing this issue. Perhaps in a future post you would like to also address parental alienation . While primarily a mental health issue, judges, attorneys and court-appointed mental health professionals often enable one parent to damage, and sometimes destroy, a normal healthy relationship between a child and the child's other parent during the course of divorce and child custody litigation. An excellent resource on this subject is A Family's Heartbreak: A Parent's Introduction to Parental Alienation by Mike Jeffries and Dr. Joel Davies.
You are seeing women who are angry and resentful over being required to pay "spousal support" to their ex-husbands. Drop all of your preconceptions. Close your eyes. Clear your mind.
And then honestly describe the last client of either gender who was happy to be required to pay alimony.
As for the unhappiness over "shared custody", at the point that you are dealing with your clients, you know or should know, that neither male nor female clients are particuliarly happy to share anything. But you, also, know very well that women are far more likely to be more involved with the care of children.
One last word about "liberated women." Yes, it sounded good, but it did not quite work out as planned. Most women who are married, with children, have given up at least some of their professional or financial self-security. While they have made this choice of their free will (sometimes grudgingly), if marriages are made in heaven, they are made fruitful and multiplied for society. When they fail, it is only fair that the partner who has maintained the highest earning power and steadiest career should subsidize the partner who contributed more to the nurturing of the family.
Right now, across the country, any woman can get a man kicked out of his own house and thrown in jail and lose his job, with no due process, no trial, no right to cross-examine witnesses, no lawyer, etc.
I had a client who picked up a woman at a party, brought her home and slept with her and in the morning, she called the police and had him locked up for alleged abuse. There is a mandatory jail period and she knew this.
Then, she cleaned him out, took his money, stole his tools that he needed for work and pawned them to buy drugs and drove off in his truck. She left the area and was never caught, and he had to go to the pawn shop and try to buy back his tools and appear in court. The case was eventually dismissed because she didn't show up after he was locked up and lost thousands of dollars and spent a couple days in jail.
After 7 years we separated (my choice), we were still friends but communication strained (her family influence) and after a trip to Dallas I found the hard way all of our credit cards were canceled, the bank account emptied, the door locks changed and a notice to stay away from our apartment was delivered. Our stocks all changed to her name and all but the bank account closed.
The separation wasnt due to infidelity or one arguement or me kicking her mother in the crotch. It was a slow trickle of mental anguish dripping month after month of not meeting her mothers expectations on her calendar and not going to church with her family every Sunday.
It took me many years to recover from that financial collapse. She pretty much stalled my future for about 6 years. Thank God we didnt have children. What a nightmare. But in the end her true colors came out and I made the right decision.
None of it was necessary, I had no illwill and no harmful intent and I gave her and her family 6 of the best years I had basically for nothing.
So be warmed my lil cohorts and comrades. Your turtle dove is just lovely until its over then POOF fang toothed harpy.
could have been very well that you had a bad attorney and/or bad CPA. That happens in business matters as well as family law matters.
This article talks about men having to sell their businesses, but what about the women who worked so their husbands could finish college only to find themselves left out in the cold with children to support alone while their now established ex-partner prospers and moves on with the young secretary/dental assistant, et al? Divorce is never a happy occasion. It is painful, difficult, sometimes necessary for survival. The rancor and circus of courts and bickering only compounds the pain. And it's the Lawyers, not the hurt parties, that always win out. Talk about an amoral occupation!
Are you freaking kidding me? If there are kids in the house, I do believe -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that THEY bear the brunt of fallout of a divorce proceeding.
He's also right about the hypocrisy of some women in this situation. As a woman, I'm appalled at the dishonorable behavior I've seen. One woman hounded her ex for her cheques; she's since been ordered to pay him child support and hasn't paid a cent for 7 years. Other women friends have talked about abusing the system to their advantage.
I agree with his opposition to spousal support. Why is income sharing the only aspect of a spousal relationship that continues after divorce? Financial assets, including pensions and IRA/401k funds, acquired during the marriage are split equally in many states. I can see some spousal support for a transitional period, but the current system of lifetime cash transfers can be ruinous to both parties. The payor is essentially chained to his/her job for the income and benefits, and if the income decreases, has to fork out thousands to request an adjustment. The recipient in requesting lifetime support is declaring, "I can't support myself; I'm a loser with entitlement issues."
Certainly, children bear the brunt of the emotional devastation of a divorce.
A significant majority of the social workers and others who make the evaluations of the parents are women. Women who carry precisely the same prejudices you mention. Men are routinely disadvantaged, or gender profiled, in the system.