After divorce, Mum gets to pay maintance

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25317529-5001942,00.html

After divorce, Mum gets to pay maintenance

Stacey L. Bradford
April 15, 2009

Article from: The Australian

AMY Williams, 38, never imagined she would end up a single mother of two paying maintenance to a former husband.

Yet that's where the media executive found herself when her 10-year marriage dissolved in 2004.

During the early years of the relationship, Williams (whose name we changed due to privacy concerns) supported her husband while he completed his PhD in history.

The assumption, she says, was that he would find a job in academe. That day never arrived. He was unable to find work but also didn't want to be the primary caregiver for their children. So Williams paid for child care.

When the two decided to part ways, it quickly became clear that Williams wouldn't be able to simply walk away. Why? According to family law, Williams was the primary breadwinner and her husband was viewed as a dependant who needed help getting back on his feet.

With the help of a mediator, the couple reached a financial agreement: in addition to splitting their assets, Williams agreed to give her former husband $US15,000 ($21,000) for a car and pay $US14,000 in financial support spread out through 14months.

"My feeling was that I worked hard while he was trying to figure out a career," says Williams.

"I was penalised for that during the marriage and then after it ended."

You don't have to be as successful as Britney Spears or Reese Witherspoon to fear getting sued for maintenance. Like Williams, more and more women today are obligated to pay their former husbands some form of financial support, says celebrity divorce attorney Raoul Felder.

Wives are the primary breadwinners in one in three marriages, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and therefore at risk of having to pay maintenance should the union fail. "Call it the dark side of the liberation coin," says Felder.

Historically, it was men who were obligated to pay, based on the assumption that women couldn't support themselves, says Alan Feigenbaum, co-author of The Complete Guide to Protecting Your Financial Security When Getting a Divorce. This was indeed the case back in the 1950s and '60s, when most wives were homemakers and cared for the children. In the '70s, however, society and divorce laws shifted. Women entered the workforce in larger numbers and family laws regarding marital support were made gender neutral.

What has not significantly changed, however, is that women are the primary caregivers of the children. So not only are these wives supporting their husbands, they're also caring for the children.

Today, men and women are equally eligible for some form of payment if one is dependent on the other for financial support, regardless of who takes care of the kids.

But here's some good news for women who hold the purse strings: the days when judges would easily grant long-term support are over, says Feigenbaum, especially for marriages that last less than than 10 years.

Typically the dependent spouse is granted temporary maintenance based on the length of the marriage or what's called rehabilitative support until he can get back on his feet. During this time the underemployed spouse may go back to school for another degree or get career training to update outdated skills.

In Williams's case, she desperately wanted her husband to find a job. But the law favours the status quo. In other words, since Williams allowed her husband to stay home while they were together, she was obligated to continue to support him until he could pay his own bills. This situation is not much different than when a woman says she gave up her career for the kids but has a full-time nanny," says Daniel Clement, a New York-based divorce attorney.

Despite gender-neutral laws, women do have at least one thing in their favour. Even when the law says dependent husbands are entitled to financial support, some lawyers say they have seen a stigma facing those who ask for support.

"When judges see a man asking for alimony they think: 'What's wrong with you?"' says Sandra Morgan Little, past chairwoman of the American Bar Association Family Law Section. Some men say they feel the stigma, as well.

When John Bailey (not his real name), a 31-year-old graduate student, got divorced he chose to walk away with nothing. He didn't even take the 50 per cent of the marital assets to which he was entitled.

He felt the assets were his wife's property since she earned them while he studied.

"At the time I had no income," he says. "It was bad. But I didn't want to be that guy who was getting alimony from his ex-wife."

Not all women will get off so easily. Nor should they, lawyers argue. If women want equality in the workforce, they will also have to take on the responsibilities attached to a higher salary, Little says.

In cases of divorce, that responsibility is paying maintenance.

Fight for Mel Gibson's fortune:

Mel Gibson's wife of 28 years has filed for divorce, setting the stage for one of the most expensive marriage break-ups in legal history. Under Californian law, Robyn Gibson could take half of her husband's £640million fortune.

read more | digg story

Judge's injustice is righted—23 years later

The courtroom was silent Wednesday when Circuit Judge Vincent Gaughan acquitted Nathson Fields of murder, a quiet final act for an infamous murder case involving judicial corruption unprecedented even for Chicago's sordid history of graft and greed.

read more | digg story

The Family Court destroys dad's precious daughter!

Happy 6th birthday young girl, welcome to your worse nightmare.

Hi I am your court appointed lawyer and I am the first cousin to the people seeking court protection from your deadbeat dad. Just remember young lady to say 'bad dad' and all will be fine.

Hi I am your court appointed psychologist and we will keep you safe from your evil dad, because you are a 'client' of the Family Court. She protests but I love dad deeply. Never say that young girl, never, never, never because police have put your nasty dad in jail.

Hi and happy 14th birthday teenager says the two faced lying Family Court judge, you are now going to live with your dad, because we can’t control you anymore. We will lift the protection order so he can be awarded custody.

Dad gets the damaged 'client' and no one from the judiciary helps him try and repair the damage done by years of hideous brainwashing.

Hi police it’s d4j again can you put my daughter on the missing list again, as she stole my car last night and do thank Judge Peter Boshier for his wonderful court that makes once decent kids criminals.

Hi John Key, why do you let such orchestrated injustice for children flourish in New Zealand?

Top Lawyers Required To Tackle The Political Busker

http://scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0904/S00074.htm

Top Lawyers Required To Tackle The Political Busker
Wednesday, 8 April 2009, 11:44 am
Press Release: Benjamin Easton

Top Lawyers Required To Tackle The Political Busker

In matters before the Wellington Court of Appeal a change of law firm mid-proceedings appears as if the arguments of an unemployed street busker have registered serious concern with the New Zealand Government.

Unemployed Political Busker, Benjamin Easton of a father's coalition has applied to the Court of Appeal in respect of a decision made by Justice Dobson on a matter of whether or not a broadcast by Radio New Zealand , early in 2008, was unlawful and discriminatory against fatherhood. The decision of the judge stated that there was no ability for Mr Easton to draw the Broadcaster and the Broadcasting Standards Authority, who reviewed the principal complaint, to a faulted responsibility or action beyond their duty. Obviously, because he is appealing, Mr Easton disagrees.


"The matter that has not been fully explored by the Court", says Mr Easton, "is that the broadcast was about domestic violence, including children and that instead of treating the information with a responsible respect, a Family Court lawyer has been allowed and encouraged to abuse fatherhood, when presuming that the only perpetrators of domestic violence are men. This is demonstrably wrong. Yet all political or bureaucratic institutions engaged appear to believe that such false claims are an acceptable and reasonable form of discrimination. If such direct discrimination remains as it is protected, what is the protective purpose or function of our human rights law? It appears to me that fatherhood is taking the bash in New Zealand and is a real victim for whom few care."

The new firm taking over from Bell Gully for the BSA is Luke Cunningham & Clere, who are the Office of the Crown Solicitors. "I'm encouraged", furthers Mr Easton "that the new lawyer appointed to the proceedings is a partner from the firm. This means both of the lawyers respectively from NZ on Air and the BSA are partners of top law firms. No one now can lay claim or consider that my submissions are without merit. The Crown is obviously taking the matter very seriously where they are defending on behalf of the BSA".

Asked if the media have taken any interest in the proceedings Mr Easton responds to the irony . "I've been fully ignored" he muses. "Why would the media publish bad things that are being said on their direct deceit of the public? My claim is that the New Zealand Broadcasting and Crown Entities are the primary vehicles of a propaganda that keeps fatherhood in a social recession and men oppressed as if they are the only body necessary to take the blame for domestic violence. Men and fathers are the ultimate kicking posts of a domestically violent society doing its covert best to root out paternalism. NZ on Air funds much of New Zealand 's programming and for them to be legitimately challenged as acting badly or outside the law is an impossible equation for the media".

The matter before the Court of Appeal now is whether or not Mr Easton can pay to secure the cost of these lawyers and if he has any chance of winning. "I would like to think my chances of winning increased with this signal by the Crown. If I had the cash", he adds," then I'd happily tip their hats." The Court can waiver the security.

ends

Harry Enfield - Women know your limits

Voices from the grave, betrayed by a restraining order

Voices from the grave, betrayed by a restraining order Carey Roberts Carey Roberts April 6, 2009  http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/04/05/voices-from-the-grave-betrayed-by-a-restraining-order/   Debi Olson had three restraining orders taken out against her. But that didn't stop the woman from ambushing ex-husband Mauricio Droguett in an Iowa shopping mall last July, fatally stabbing him in front of shocked mall-goers. Toni Brown of Washington, DC was shot by former girlfriend Raina Johnson on August 12, 2008, leaving the woman paralyzed from her neck down. Johnson is currently serving a 28-year sentence for a crime the judge termed "extraordinarily brutal." A restraining order had been previously issued against the assailant. Karen Allende of New York City was walking to work on a September day in 2006 when she was attacked suddenly by her husband. She died that morning on the sidewalk, a restraining order folded neatly in her purse. Each year 2-3 million domestic restraining orders are issued for the purpose of curbing domestic violence. Simply put, these orders of "protection" are a hoax foisted on unsuspecting victims, all at taxpayer expense. Restraining orders are a travesty for the simple reason that they don't work. Debi Olson had stalked her ex-husband across the country and worked herself into a lather of spiteful rage. Does anyone in their right mind really believe a piece of page will deter a person who is that intent on killing her former partner? And a 1994 study published in the American Journal of Public Health followed 150 women in Houston, Texas who had applied for a restraining order. Eighteen months later the researchers found no difference in abuse levels between women who received the order compared to those who did not. Ruing the lack of benefit, a 2005 report from the Independent Women's Forum noted restraining orders can "lull women into a false sense of security." Some persons would simply shrug their shoulders, saying there's an example of yet another well-intentioned but useless government program. But other research shows restraining orders can actually make a touchy situation worse. One Department of Justice report, "Civil Protection Orders: Victims' Views on Effectiveness," found that six months after issuance of the order, the percentage of persons experiencing repeated physical abuse or stalking had doubled, and the number facing psychological abuse had tripled. So how do restraining orders add fuel to the fire? The reason is restraining orders are often issued on the say-so of the complainant — all she has to do is tell the judge she is "frightened" or "afraid" of her partner — no proof needed. According to a study published in Cost Management last year, 71% of restraining orders are trivial or false. But according to the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research, "nothing is being done to stop frivolous requests for restraining orders." So how would you feel if you were booted from your house and told you couldn't see your kids because your partner happened to be feeling blue that day? Other times a restraining order is part of a calculated effort to gain a tactical edge during a divorce action. A 2005 article in the Illinois Bar Journal revealed restraining orders are "part of the gamesmanship of divorce." Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, once confided, "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply." Tales abound of schemers who violate the terms of the restraining order, heaping even more penalties on the hapless man. Last summer Marshall Crandall of Vassalboro, Maine got into an altercation with his wife. By the woman's own admission the exchange was mutual: "I picked him up three or four times and slammed him on the ground." But when the police arrived, they arrested only the man and a restraining order was taken out against him. Once in jail, she visited him on three occasions. Even though she had initiated the contacts, they were seen as a violation of the restraining order. That unwanted attention earned Mr. Crandall nine months behind bars. By placing the burden of proof on the accused to show his innocence, many worry restraining orders violate fundamental notions of fairness and due process. At one New Jersey seminar, startled judges were told, "Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, 'See ya' around.'" Judge Milton Raphaelson of Massachusetts once opined, "Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders and the arrests and conflicts ensuring therefrom." Each year, the Violence Against Women Act spends up to $75 million to promote restraining orders. That's the kind of wasteful federal program that leaves a bad taste in taxpayers' mouths. Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report. Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant. © Copyright 2009 by Carey Roberts