Should Ex-Wives Be Understanding or Red With Rage After Pink Slips Force Alimony Adjustments?
The other day I was speaking to an ex-wife whose husband had lost his job and asked for what is known in the divorce business as a modification. This means the spouse -- usually the husband -- goes back to court to modify the alimony and custody payments that were based on a previous salary.
In the past, judges would make it tough for a spouse to get a modification. The judge would say that even if the spouse doesn't have cash, he could sell property or other assets to make good on his divorce deal.
Not anymore.
With real estate values plummeting, houses gathering dust on the "For Sale" block or foreclosing, salaries dwindling, 401K values collapsing and jobs disappearing, judges realize that modifications are not only necessary but fair.
The modifications are happening both for child support and alimony. Child support payments are usually a percentage of gross income - approximately 17 percent for a child - and alimony is the wild card in divorce settlements which is decided based on lifestyle, employment eligibility and years of marriage.
This week, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers released a survey which stated that 39% of AAML members have seen an increase in child support payment modifications during the current economic downturn and that 42% of the attorneys cited a rise is alimony modifications.
When I mention to this ex-wife that her ex-husband most likely isn't stashing the cash in a Swiss bank account but genuinely compromised and therefore she should compromise, she becomes enraged. Past hurts flare up. The feeling of being as disposable as Kleenex makes her want to cry.
"Let him figure it out," she fumed. "I already am living on less as a divorced woman. It's not my problem."
But it is.
Some wives I'm speaking to are so preoccupied with fear for their own survival -- and their kids -- that they aren't as sensitive to how difficult it is for current paychecks to possibly stretch and support not one but two families. As my colleague Dr. Mark Banschick says, "It takes a big person to see that their husband is also entitled to a quality of life."
To many ex-wives, they are feeling cheated once again. First, they were cheated of the intact marriage and family that maybe broke up because they were cheated on and now cheated by the system in not making their ex-spouse pay. But divorce blinds people sometimes to being clear-eyed.
I thought about this again after reading the New York Times piece the other day on how judges are managing these modification requests that are flooding courtrooms like a financial Katrina.
As Judge Matthew Troy, who has been a Family Court judge in Manhattan since 1999, explained, it's tough for everyone.
In recent weeks, he told the Times, he had a former Lehman Brothers executive whose $7 million in stock had disappeared, leaving him unable to pay his child support as well as a factory worker who went from a decent-paying factory job to working in food service during Mets games in Queens.
Judge Troy lowered the former factory worker's monthly payment for his three teenagers to $50 per month, from $686. Otherwise, he feared, the father would be unable to meet his obligation and face a more drastic punishment: jail.
"It wasn't his fault he lost his job," Judge Troy told the Times. "I don't want to throw a guy like that in the clink."
For many divorcees, these types of modifications are going to continue until the economy improves. Instead of focusing on frustration and anger, perhaps another alternative would be to go to a mediator and have someone help referee a new settlement to reduce expensive legal fees. What most people are forgetting is that these modifications are not always permanent but temporary.
Not only does a percentage of unemployment benefits go to child support but one can work out an agreement that when finances improve, so will the distribution of funds. When discussions take place with understanding and sensitivity, the results are usually better. It is always beneficial to have these talks before battling in court. And even though you may not be married to this person anymore, you will still have a parental partnership worth maintaining for the sake of your children.
So you can be red with rage that the job market tanked but also mindful that few things are forever whether it's a marriage, a mortgage or a mangled economy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think if you aren't willing to put up with a man's crap, you don't deserve his money. Make money for yourself or do without. On the other hand , I think men should feel a MORAL obligation to ensure that their children are provided for (I think it is ethically wrong to LEGALLY enforce such moral choices) . The current system is so grossly abused it's incredible. I am a woman and am very proud to say, I raised two happy, healthy, successful daughters with no help from my ex. (He was in much worse shape than we ever were) We had some pretty tough times during their growing up years, but I don't blame their father for my inadequacy or my bad luck. When I decided to have kids it was the 20th century already.
I can see why he was in worse shape than you were. So many states do not allow mothers to turn down child support now, so what would you have done then? Turned it down. You were damn lucky that's all.
The whole concept of permanent alimony should be brought to an end. I can see rehabilitative for 3 to 4 years while the x-spouse obtains the training or education necessary to support them selves. However, to expect another human being to provide financial support for the remainder of their life is insanity. As an example you are a long time employee of a company and you decide to quit or get laid off. You might receive a severance but they are not going to pay you a percentage of your salary for the remainder of your life. Divorce is nothing more than you either quitting or getting laid off and should be no different from a financial standpoint.
This is all very silly. Alimony should be completely removed. Splitting assets 50/50 should be completely removed. You reap what you sow. If you sat around on your arse for 20 years, why should you be rewarded for it ? Even a full time mom can only use that excuse for 6-7 years before the kids are in school full time. Marriage is a financial trap for men...and some women. The fact that one spouse makes signifcantly more money than the other....h
My father highly recommended marriage. That's because he was married to my mother, who is the nicest person you ever met. She wouldn't divorce him just because times were hard or she thought she could do better with someone else. She was supportive and helpful.
Women like my mother don't exist these days. I recommend that young men avoid marriage and children. It's a trap. Women leave their marriages whenever they feel like it, hire attorneys, take you for everything you got, get the kids, the house, and you're left with paying alimony and child support. And in hard times, you can count on her to get angry, as the last poster stated they have a right to. Somewhere buried in the Constitution is the woman's right to get angry with her ex when he loses his job.
That's the main thing you can count on if you decide to marry- being financially obligated to turn over your paycheck to someone who hates you for years to come. And if you want kids, forget it, she will take them away from you but still get your money. But you can still see them every other weekend when your ex has spent the past two weeks telling them how evil you are due to her Constitutional right to be angry with you, as cited by the poster below.
Gays, you can have the institution of marriage- just take it away from heterosexuals. Like the old joke- take my marriage ---- please.
Child support awards if you want to call them that are predicated on what the non-custodial parent can pay. When hard times hit the non-custodial parent should consider other means of fulfilling this-- to begin with hardly crippling obligation,-- rather than making the children responsible. Why should minor children bear the brunt of the adult's problems? Most parents want to spare their children in some way, but it is a sad fact of life that when there is a divorce, this bond also falls apart. Women, and you are right it is almost always women, have a right to be angry.
because the children would be better off with their father in jail because he lost his job and could not afford to pay the child support? Yes much better than a woman being willing to rework child support so that the children can still receive something from their father.
So you are angry because someone who you no longer have a relationship with is slacking when it comes to supporting you financially, and you feel you have a right to be.
No sunnybunny I worked the entire time. Yes, I did what every parent is capable of doing. My jobs weren't always rewarding, but I finally did have a rewarding career. That is called life. I also was talking child support not about someone who I no longer had a relationship with supporting me. You mean the person I had children with should be a slacker; I did not expect anymore of them than I did myself. Even tho it was visa versa for him. There are very few women looking for alimony anymore. Child obligations yes. Angry when I think of it yes; bitter no I got through it.
Squeezing the life out of the guy because you feel like you might be able to get away with it, and because it makes you feel better about the woman he's with now, or whatever is motivating you - that's all so nasty, and bad, bad, bad for your children.
I guess you don't have to work it out like reasonable people. You can pay a lawyer, forcing your husband to pay a lawyer, both of whom will take it to court where a judge will act as the reasonable person for you. And then the pile of money that goes toward actually solving the problem will be smaller by whatever amount you paid the lawyer. Smart.
What if the husband has a brother who is a lawyer and does not have to pay one red cent to defend himself against what he never considered his responsibility in the first place? And what pile of $$ Puleeze.
The facts puleeze. In Texas 20% for the first child, 5% more for each additional child to max out at 40% of ones net (disposable income). Important sentence overlooked by most, "not to exceed 50% of the disposable income". If you dont do a modification when your salary is reduced then even if they take the 50% you are still in arrearage for the balance plus 12% interest. My case, she waited till I had a good year, took me back to court for a modification, DOUBLED her support (sorry child support) even though at that point I still employeed, but had no job. I was furloughed. After 8mo fighting in court the judge reduced the modification even though it should never have been raised in the first place AND I had to pay all the overage (difference between the original and the modification) back plus interest. All this time she never held a job...soun
Certainly it's always worked the other way - a guy gets a couple of promotions, starts making eighty thousand a year more, and you'd better believe his ex-wife believes in modifications then.
Bottom line is, this is the kind of question where my opinion isn't really relevent, since I'm not an attorney. The law appears to be pretty clear on it; judges are doing it all the time.
If you used to have an eighty thousand dollar salary, and now you've got a twenty thousand dollar salary, then there is only one reason to require the same alimony/divorce payment, and that's old-fashioned spite, maybe sprinkled with greed and fear.
You know a big part of loving your kids is loving their other parent. Maybe you can't love them anymore because they won't let you, or because they were sleeping with the neighbor, or they had a thing for coke and strippers, I don't know. But every ounce of rage you take out on them, you might as well be dumping on your kid. A divorced couple like this has a problem, and divorced or not, they've got to work it out the way they work every thing out - with the interests of the kids first.
It should be so easy
It is when you think of someone besides yourself
My advice,,, get a job.
Everybody needs to take more responsibility for themselves.
This system is sooooo broken.
All you ever hear about is horror stories.
Why do we even still have Alimony? it's a completely antiquated law. should have tossed that out back in the '60s.
Because, there are still marriages where one partner exits the work force to raise children, run the household, support the spouse in their career growth and this to the detriment of their own earning potential if and when the marriage dissolves. It is what it is and most people are aware how it works when they get married and when they make their agreements with each other.
You are absolutely right - great answer.
If these individuals were still married, what would they do? Demand alimony and child support from the company that laid off the worker? Or maybe demand alimony and child support from the government? Divorce makes people blind and often results in the loss of common sense not to mention common decency.
Do you all understand the real reason is to KEEP EX's AND KIDS OFF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Are you in any way familiar with "government assistance?" Do you realize that when there used to be welfare (AFDC) it was like 300.00 a month for a woman and her kids and she can't get it if she has a job at all. So the amount of tax dollars that go to it is miniscule compared to almost all other programs.
Laws should be stricter for allowing divorce. If this were the case, less people would marry in the first place and the divorce rate would plummet. When kids are involved, divorce should only be allowed for practical reasons such as serial adultery or spousal abuse. People get divorced when they start to get bored for godsake! Couldn't we all look into beefing up the education system to reduce narcissistic behavior in people. That's really what's at the heart of most divorce. Change the people from childhood on to be less self centered, calmer and magnanimous towards each other.
"reduce narcissistic behavior in people."
Bingo! People have lost any sense of loyalty, duty and the beauty of sharing...
Your so right. My parents stayed together though thick and thin. But what do you do when a group of 30ish mothers of two get bored and decide they want to be free? (with 2 kids) I thought it was something in the water when it happened in our small town (pop 7000) and her thought process was "You owe me". When she finally woke up, she's in a singlewide with chickens in the yard. Would she give me the kids, did she treat the children fairly, did she get a job. No on all accounts. After the oldest moved out for college, which I paid for along with her car note, insurance, cell phone, and worried about her younger sister, who I had in therapy by this time, the youngest (!4yrs) agreed to come live with me to get some structure in her life. I had an attorney, a notorized doc signed by her stating she wanted to come live with me. I went to court with her therapist and witnesses and she showed up without the child. (Oh, she was supposed to be here) She showed up with a scrap of paper in pencil written by my daughter saying, "I want to live with my mom". The judge said to work it out thru mediation.
100% agree. The nature of life is ups and downs. Marriage was never meant to be just for the ups or until you get bored.
with exception for instances of child abuse, why are children being awarded to a parent that doesn't have the income to support them? Whichever parent has the best means to provide for the child should be awarded custody. As for alimony I'm hard pressed to enumerate any reason why it should continue for more than a few years or until the ex-spouse has a job paying above the poverty level, whichever comes first.
Wow. My kids have become accustomed to having me care for them, volunteer at their school, prepare their meals, put them to bed every night and because my doing so has diminished my earning capabilities, they should go to my soon to be ex spouse who works and travels and has very little time for them because he has more money????
Interesting thought process.
That's not an acceptable answer, for several reasons. Look at my own case when my parents divorced: I chose to go with my father. In addition my parents were mostly equal in income.
Then there's the case of my wife and her ex-husband. She wanted the kids, he didn't. His income was 150% of hers..... Should the court have forced the kids to go with him??
that's how it used to be...the man owned the children
The State of Wisconsin will make a man homeless and NOT care that he can't live on the wage he earns AND support his children. Worse, if he gets behind in his child support, he can be charged with a felony and go to prison -- essentially a debtor's prison -- which only adds to the problems associated with getting and holding a decent paying job when he is released. This sort of thinking is WRONG. I'm a feminist, and an old one at that. But, there's something with a system that denies the economic conditions experienced by millions of other wage earners. As for the ex-wife and the maintenance issue, I was an ex-wife who got "alimony"/
Asinine Law. Courts simply lack common sense. Like it helps anyone to lock up a person.
But then this is the USA, always behind but extremely arrogant.
There are many, many more people in jail for smoking weed. Let's be realistic, men don't pay child support if they can get out of it, and there are no consequences for the lawyered and clever. The courts only act in the state' s (people's) interest , not on the children's behalf, because any social programs for single parents are uncceptable. Think Ann Coulters rant on single mothers. It is a problem that this country cannot and will not deal with due to preconceived notions in regard to marriage, divorce, and the big one sex- which is how these children get here. What holier than thou puritans the majority become when they can judge others based on their prejudices. These poor suffering obligors have no intention of making a deal that when the economy improves they will make it up, they consider the poor economy a home free card. That is the problem. I say let the men go on welfare to make up for the loss in their income.
The State of California (progressive mecca that it is) will yank a man's Law License if he's behind in child support. Now THAT makes sense.....
I think in terms of marriage our country is pathetic. You should be able to marry whomever you please, as long as they are human. Gay or straight - it doesn't matter. Until we truly have equal rights for everyone - which means marriage rights, we will never truly be a land of equality.
I am a divorced mother of three. I negotiated my child support with my ex-husband to ensure I would receive it regularly - and I did, he never missed a payment in 12 years. I knew I couldn't bankrupt him on the child support to the point where he couldn't survive financially. Alimony wasn't provided or requested as I out-earned him during most of the marriage. Alimony should be reserved for very few situations and at best be temporary until the ex-spouse can work their way up the educationa
This is why so many people are just living together. You can split half the costs, and there's no alimony when it is over. Unfortunately, It also explains why home ownership is not in the future for so many young couples. We have a huge shortage of affordable rental housing in this country, and the demand is growing. It can only lead to huge numbers of homeless in the future if this is not fixed.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
