Women's Rights

[Grace]

I feel I need to speak out on behalf of all the female member's that have either PM or e-mailed me. We are all deeply offended that the thread containing spousal support referred to as "free money" has been shut down. I was the last one to post on that, and quite frankly I did not find my post insulting or offensive, nor did any of the other members that contacted me.

Obviously Sean you have your own agenda. And you are a Moderator and have the ability to control the forum. There is now no doubt in my mind or in minds of the majority of the female members that you want our voices "locked". And you have your own agenda.

Jeff, Lindsay & LV, your voice of reason would be truly appreciated now.

[Jenny]

I have also pm'ed you among others like Jeff about this.

I find it especially weird that Jeff had commented how" everyone has been remarkably well behaved" in this thread. I guess Sean felt otherwise....

Grace I do believe you or really anyone said in that thread offensive - save Sean's words and closing the thread in general.

I also might be paranoid about this but I also ask... What other powers do the moderators have? I know they can edit posts, can they read our private messages? This gives me pause and really makes me question my faith in this forum.

[beltane]

I am concerned too... seems fishy to me.

[Divorcemanagement]

I will defer to Jeff's wisdom on this subject - he is the administrator of this forum. It should be noted that I have only received on private message on the topic.

As I said in the previous forum - the reason I closed it is because it had morphed beyond a discussion about child support into spousal support. If I am wrong for applying a judgement call as a moderator, then I would suggest that I will defer to Jeff.

I encourage anyone to continue a thread about how they feel about my comments. Debate is always healthy. I also started a thread on why spousal support matters including my own belief system on the topic. I hope this clarifies things.

[Grace]

"There are solutions to the challenges of divorce..." that is Sean motto, and I no doubt that this post will be edited by one of the moderators. But I will go out on a limb anyway. I know that going through a divorce is challenging for both sides but to stop one sides voice is not appropriate. Each side needs to be heard. Perhaps I need to change my stance of mediate instead of litigate as a Judge may be less biased based on the law than a mediator who is biased.

To be on the safe side, want to vent your frustration e-mail me as opposed to PM me.

[Jenny]

Originally Posted by Divorcemanagement

I will defer to Jeff's wisdom on this subject - he is the administrator of this forum. It should be noted that I have only received on private message on the topic.

and I suppose that would be mine.... trust me there have been many other pm's about this.... between us members. I guess most of the people who were offended were thinking you wouldn't really listen anyway.

[Jenny]

again the idea of Sean shutting down a thread where we challenge him on something I would think would be akin to him trying to mediate his own divorce. Or a judge trying to rule on his own case. Doesn't seem quite right.

[logicalvelocity]

I have my own opinion on spousal support.

I don't see spousal support as "Free Money". It is taxable to the recipient and tax deductible to the payer.

I am all for spousal support if one has needs and the other has means. To me the concept is in place and it is law to assist one spouse after a relationship breakdown to become self sufficient and to avoid a spouse from becoming a public charge. Self sufficiency may never happen if the the relationship was a long term marriage and a significant amount of time was devoted to the home and to the caring of children. The age and health is a significant factor of a spouse. It is most difficult to retrain and enter the workforce in a person's later years in life.

Moreover, It also equalizes both parties to a position to support their children.

There are several criteria that are considered and are given equal weight and each spousal support order or agreement is fact driven.


LV

[Jeff]

Hi Grace,

I've mostly commented on this in other threads - just check around. I hope that I've addressed your concerns.

[workingthruit]

Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

I have my own opinion on spousal support.

I don't see spousal support as "Free Money". It is taxable to the recipient and tax deductible to the payer.

I am all for spousal support if one has needs and the other has means. To me the concept is in place and it is law to assist one spouse after a relationship breakdown to become self sufficient and to avoid a spouse from becoming a public charge. Self sufficiency may never happen if the the relationship was a long term marriage and a significant amount of time was devoted to the home and to the caring of children. The age and health is a significant factor of a spouse. It is most difficult to retrain and enter the workforce in a person's later years in life.

Moreover, It also equalizes both parties to a position to support their children.

There are several criteria that are considered and are given equal weight and each spousal support order or agreement is fact driven.


LV

I am all for spousal support as a stop-gap measure - but I am not convinced 'needs and means' is really always given equal consideration. It seems to me that if there are means, need can always be created.

More important, I believe, is the test of self-sufficency - and the requirement that effort at such is put forward. Particularly in short-term relationships, economic disadvantage is difficult to prove, but even if one accepts that it exists, for how long, and to what degree should the now ex-partner be responsible for supporting another adult?

In our jurisdiction, the trend is toward indefinite orders, therefore essentially handcuffing the payor for life. This hardly seems like incentive to the recipient to become self-sufficent.
I understand completely that there are situations where a SAHM will never be able to equal the standard of living that existed within the relationship, so how about a graduated approach?
Why are higher income earners seemingly punished for being successful, while their ex-spouses aren't even asked to support themselves?