Would you vote for this divorce law if on your state's ballot?

[Darkius]

Please comment on its holes but vote yes or no as to whether it looks fair outside the holes.

I want to pass this in all 50 states, including the 5 or so that don't let judges award any alimony. Most states also don't award it before 2 years, as my proposal does. I don't like sudden jumps.

Background:
The vast majority of states just let judges decide what is fair. This invites lawyers to fight and run up bills, necessitates having lawyers, and leaves couples worried and uncertain what might happen if they divorce. Even if judges are usually fair, the possibility of unfairness, and the stories of such circulating the internet, especially lifetime alimony after 10 years, has scared many men into abstaining from marriage. Many would gladly marry otherwise. Female news anchors have similar worries.

My proposal is aimed at giving predictable fairness to both sides so people can marry without worry of what some judge or angry ex spouse might do, and awards alimony from 0-10 years in addition to after 10 years. Several men propose zero alimony, which I (a guy) think is unfair. Hopefully there are some centrists here who don't only want permanent.


My proposal:
General:
1. Eliminate fault divorce, since fault is hard to prove by both sides and just invites lawyers causing fights. No fault only.
2. The amount would be 40% of the higher earning spouse's current income (capped at marriage high point)(plus current savings withdrawals rate so he can't just quit and leave you with no income) minus 30% of the lower earning spouse's current income. (current updates monthly after divorce)
3. Whether people remarry or live with someone else afterward should have no effect on either party's payments. That person's income is separate. People need to be able to get on with their life and won't if they are overly penalized for doing so.
4. If one of you put the other through school, or some other lopsided payments or sacrifice, and no contract was written up, nor proof it was a gift, then the judge has discretion there. The best solution is for the new high earner to put the old school payer through school plus interest.
5. Separate property would stay separate, even if a spouse treated the other to some of it during the marriage. They don't have to pay back what was treated to them, though.
6. Common property would be split 50-50 unless a pre-nup says otherwise for amounts above a certain amount, say $200,000.
7. If someone hires a lawyer, that lawyer may only bill to that person's share, not the general pot, so it is not possible for one side to burn the other sides assets.
8. Similarly, if one side deliberately damages common property, he or she must reimburse it, if proven. Total war is not allowed.
9. Marriage does not legalize raiding common or separate assets right before divorce. Judges would have latitude to recognize and correct such raids.

Alimony Formula:
For a person who gave birth to a child of the marriage, alimony length starts at 3 years. For every 3 days of marriage, 2 days of alimony accrues, from day one, and it continues accrue for up to:
* 15 years of marriage, capped at 10 years of alimony, for the primary child raiser, if the lower average earner. (30 year marriage accrued 10 years of alimony)(child bearer gets 3+6 for 9 years of marriage and 10 years for 20);
* 6 years of marriage, capped at 4 years of alimony, for the minimal child raiser, if under employed and lower earner at and after time of divorce;
* 4 years of (extra) alimony to the lower earner if the child raising was about equal (child bearer gets 4+3).
* If either side is disabled, disability alimony can extend longer, but after the above cut off times above it would just be an amount to keep the disabled out of poverty without dragging the worker into poverty. There would be a higher cap for disability being clearly provable, though not working and being poor is sufficient proof to collect $800 per month capped at 20% of the worker's income. Disability is only paid while the disabled is unmarried, temporarily turning off during a new marriage, whereas regular alimony is not affected by new marriages.

Child Custody and Child Support:
Alimony is not affected by child support. It does not go up when the high earner works overtime, but is just based on the income from the first 40 hours per week. Also, I propose a default standard of the minimal caretaker getting the kids 3 weekends per month instead of just 2, and a couple of 4 hour week evenings per month, so he is less of a stranger but income efficiency is still had and the low earner can get out more. A different schedule can be reached by mutual consent, with the default always being there as an option for either side to unilaterally revert to. I agree 50-50 is not a logical default if one parent works more than the other. Child support should be based on income differences too, not just hour differences, so that 50-50 does not eliminate child support. For child support, I think the child bearer should have the flexibility to drop to as low as 20 hours per week of work, whereas the non-bearer should be state obligated to work 40 hours unless mutually agreed otherwise. Child support should be based on current income, not marriage maximum.

Work Conditions:
Neither party may be court ordered to continue working a very hazardous or very stressful job or long hours. Just because they were nice and gave the other a high living standard during marriage does not force them to work over 40 hours after marriage. Should a stripper who made tons of money during marriage be required to continue stripping? No. If they voluntarily work overtime, as many professionals do, and the exact number of hours is clearly and easily provable, then alimony should only be based on income from the first 50 hours per week, unless it is seasonal or sporadic. The judge can put overtime alimony into an account that pays out during time of underemployment, to smooth it, but must give the balance back to the high earner if the overtime over 50 hours lasted the year.


Existing Judgments:
For existing divorce judgments, no money would have to be paid back retroactively. However, payments going forward would be changed in amount and duration to match the new schedule but only to the point that it does not drop them to zero or reduce the remaining payments below 6 years, so there are no sudden changes for anyone. If lump settlements were done, those would be left as is with no payment additions.


Thank you for your time and feedback.

[Darkius]

Yea! Someone voted in my poll, even though the vote was "No." Please state the biggest problems with my proposal.

Running a detailed proposal against vague judicial discretion is not easy. It is far easier to find something wrong with another detailed law. I just need 10% of one sex to think this is an improvement, and then 95% of the other sex to also agree.


Well, I posted a shorter, older version of this on another website. I got many troll responses, but one serious one:

How about if the high earning spouse and low earning spouse varies during the marriage? Under your proposal the high earner for most of the years could become the low earner by retiring, switching jobs or becoming unemployed, and therefore be entitled to alimony from the former low earner who is now the high earner.

I responded to her that alimony is only paid to the low earner of the marriage if said low earnings came from sacrifice and only paid during times after marriage when that person currently makes less. There is one exception: If the high earner becomes unemployed and wants to divorce right then, 6 months of alimony may be needed to find a job. I don't want anyone being trapped in a marriage having to save up to leave.


Well, I'm not getting many responses from this thread. I'll comment on what I read online elsewhere: Most women do not want to pay alimony to a man (same as many men not wanting to pay alimony to a woman). The difference though is the woman has a better excuse for not wanting to pay. 1. She is often carried a baby. 2. She more often was the primary care taker of the kids. 3. Even without a kid, in some marriages, she was making him happier so he could make more. So the question is how to account for that more in the law so women will vote for it.


As for child support:

How about a DNA test is done without him knowing.

If it is his biological child, he gets 3 weekends per month of child custody unless they agree to something else.

If it is not his biological child, the mother could still allow him the 3 weekends, or she could cut him off but at the cost of only getting 3 years of child support. 3 years is enough time to find someone else or a better job, and does not burn him as bad.

[sy2502]

OP you have a lot of spare time in your hands.

[spradish]

Is this some sort of class project?

[Darkius]

OP you have a lot of spare time in your hands.

This is a passing hobby. Although I do hope to get stuff on the ballot in all 50 states. Well, 26 states. Petitions for the other 24.

Is this some sort of class project?

I wish it was. If I were in one of my former classes still, I'm sure the professor would have given me some credit to do this.


I read comments on several articles about alimony. Most men want there to be no alimony or just rehabilitative. Most women are against lifetime alimony but still want to be paid for their sacrifices. I'm OK with them getting a share if their investment if a husband they put through school is making a ton. What bothers me is when he is not allowed to retire, and courts demand that he keep paying the peak amount. That needs to be overturned.

So, I doubt I'll get much opposition to ending lifetime alimony, as long as the amount of rehabilitative and "investment returns" alimony is enough to satisfy most. It is hard finding where the middle is when no one votes.



Are people voting NO because my proposal has too many holes where it breaks down?
Or are people voting no because they want alimony to be smaller?
Or do they want it to be longer?
Or do they want it to only be paid to women?

I'm hoping for some feedback here.



Here is another poll about making social security benefits more fair for primary child raisers in marriage:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=171189491
Maybe it should apply to child raisers outside of marriage, too.

[sy2502]

This is a passing hobby. Although I do hope to get stuff on the ballot in all 50 states. Well, 26 states. Petitions for the other 24.

[EGamComp]

OP, you high on ********?