What if the government forced you to turn over a generous portion of your paycheck to someone else? What if this money that has been taken away from you and forcefully given to this other person left them with little need to ever work; even if they were perfectly capable of working and could earn a solid income, themselves, to make a living? What if your income increased and you were forced to pay even more to this person? What if your income decreased but in order to pay less to this person you must thoroughly prove legitimate reason to the court for its approval first?
In many ways, this is what our tax laws accomplish, except the redistribution of money is disseminated to more than one individual. What I’m referring to here is the increasing result of modern day, litigious, divorce.
Now, I know that not all pegs fit into the same hole, but when it comes to divorce, I don’t believe there should, typically, ever be a “winner.” But, more and more, this seems to be the rising outcome where one party triumphs over the other. There are many very good people out there who, undeservingly, are being forced, as the result of a court’s decision, to persevere from the short end of the stick; while those on the prosperous end of the same stick are subject to withstand very little.
First of all, most everyone gets together without the assistance of the law and/or attorneys. These legal outlets and entities were not around during the courtship, the planning of the wedding or when the decision was made to start a family. Of course, there are those marriages that only take place after the execution of a prenuptial agreement, but there are, otherwise, no legal questions asked or hoops of law to jump through in order to get married (certain states require a blood test, proof of citizenship and/or something else of a fairly minor nature). Two people fall in love and they, together, get married. Two people fall out of love and they, together (plus attorneys and the state), battle through a divorce.
Up until somewhat recently, one party had to be at fault to be granted a divorce. Nowadays, there are no-fault divorces, but still, unless the two parties are highly agreeable, the exorbitant attorney fees, court costs, time spent and unnecessary public degradation have been allowed to become the standard.
Normally, each party, by direction of their respective attorneys, begins the divorce process by seeking to be awarded everything obtained throughout the couple’s combined lives together and then some (and, usually, even much more). I think most attorneys love this because it is a means to prolong the entire process by slowly fighting through each and every element of two lives that otherwise have nothing to do with them. It’s just that more time equals more money. For some reason, I have this picture in my mind of both attorneys meeting after hours at the local bar toasting each other over the many hours spent in court at the expense of all these many unfortunate couples.
In many cases, who is to blame for the dissolution of the marriage or who is the more responsible of the two parties, doesn’t always transfer over to who gets the lion’s share of the property in dispute. A lot of times this division of property is skewed based on the slyness of the attorneys, the vindictiveness of the parties involved and, unfortunately, even the sex of the parties and their comparative incomes at the time come into play. None of which is a truly fair and balanced way to determine the division of property.
There needs to be a balanced system that allows for divorce without needing evidence of wrong doing and one that is fair and equal in the division of property and finances (regardless as to the skewing points listed above) while also addressing the child custody and support factors in a nondiscriminatory way as well. I understand there are deadbeat parents out there, of both genders, which go through divorces where I agree there is definitely more of a need for legal intervention. I don’t believe, however, in the case of two loving and involved parents, that one parent should benefit more from a child (or children) being encompassed in a divorce process where the court, neglectfully, awards unequal custody which benefits one parent more so than the other. This lopsided decision making isn’t good for anyone involved, especially the child. Well, that’s not entirely true – these decisions are highly beneficial to the party for which it has been awarded. In divorces between loving and involved parents, if one parent uses their children as leverage to gain an advantage over the other parent, they should, automatically, face a penalty of some sort.
I know there are all sorts of varying circumstances out there, but in many cases, I do not believe it should be lawful for a court to legally bind any one person, financially, for an overly-extended period of time, to another individual who is physically and mentally capable of earning their own way.
At least, that’s my opinion.
[If you enjoyed this post, please feel free to share on Twitter, Facebook or other social media!]
Leave a Reply