.
In your scenario, the spouse has an affair, but somehow the non-cheating spouse gets drug through the mud and has to pay alimony? I'm not sure how that would be.
For my sake and well being, I wouldn't. I would do anything for my kids, though. I would do some serious soul searching to see what I thought would be less damaging to them. Here in Arizona, an affair doesn't matter. We're a no-fault state, so it's tough for me to envision what that situation would be like.
I have forgiven infidelity for the sake of forgiveness, but that's totally different than doing it because I feel like my back is against the wall. When someone tries to push me into doing something, it's almost guaranteed I will do the opposite.
i'd only forgive someone who loved me and i still loved as well. if the love was gone, i'd submit to equitable distribution of the marital assets.
I don't understand what forgiveness has to do with this.
The 2 parties need a third-party moderator to sort out rights. This has nothing to do with pretending to let it go. I would try and settle these differences out of court, divide what is fair and move on. Stay out of court if possible except to finalize matters, or you will indeed get hit with a lot more aggravation than is necessary just to be RIGHT.
If you are only letting it go because there is ammo against you, then nothing is being let go. Don't use the word forgiveness here. Rather say it like it is. You cannot win. You want to embarrass without being embarrassed yourself. That is not going to happen. You are attacking and the person you are attacking is certainly going to hire someone that can defend her agressively if she cannot manage that herself. That would be wise on her part and foolhardy for the one who has to pay all the court costs.
You want that person to lose and you want to come out on top. This is a power struggle and you sound as guilty as the person who's finger you are pointing at. That is how the Judge will see it. They don't take sides. They hate that.
Forgive her? Hardly. I think you are miles away from that mind-set.
I used to be a legal secretary for a Divorce Attorney. The more you dispute, the more money comes out of the money you two could keep for yourselves. Court costs mount over silly nonsense that will not matter after the money is spent. Just take a deep breath and see what you can salvage here. Who cares what caused the divorce, the courts really do not. They want to see what is legal and how much they can rake off the top.
Very nice reply.
Amor vincit omniae. Love conquers all, including rage and anger.
My question was prompted by a recent case in which a man, a grandfather, was granted a divorce for his wife's infidelity of some years ago, and yet had to pay her a heavy alimony. There was talk at the office whether he could have been much better off financially by simply "forgiving" his wife's transgression.
It was a very messy fight with the wife washing a lot of dirty linen about her husband in public to justify her adultery.
I love the last paragraph of your answer.
What's a no-fault state?
Hell...I don't give a crap if she screws around...I'm not getting any.
My question was prompted by a recent case in which a man, a grandfather, was granted a divorce for his wife's infidelity of some years ago, and yet had to pay her a heavy alimony. There was talk at the office whether he could have been much better off financially by simply "forgiving" his wife's transgression.
It was a very messy fight with the wife washing a lot of dirty linen about her husband in public to justify her adultery,
I'm so sorry to hear that, Element; I really am.
Perhaps I should have put forgive in inverted commas, or use the word "ignore" instead.
danke. =)
good stuff. =)
The way that divorce proceedings work in the majority of jurisdictions in the US, even if and when the woman* is the person in the wrong, she can still clean up financially. For instance, if a married man walks into his house and finds his wife in bed having sex with his best friend or his own brother, and he is entitled to a pension and other retirement benefits based on the 20+ years he's put in at his company, in a divorce decree the courts can award her 50% (sometimes more) of his current earnings plus his pension/benefits when he retires. Furthermore, in certain cases, alimony/spousal support can be awarded to her, often for as long as she remains unmarried, even if that means the rest of her life.
Some of these factors make it barely forgivable.
~
*The caveat is that this covers male-female marriages. I do not know how same-gender marriages are handled in divorce courts.
No-fault divorce is partially what I referred to in my answer also, Neelie. It's a legal concept wherein neither party has to prove that the other party did anything wrong, anyone can file for divorce without blaming the other party for any wrongdoing. It results in many divorces being filed for "irreconcilable differences" or "we just don't like each other any more".
Many states in America have no-fault divorce as the only option or the main (easiest) option when seeking to dissolve a marriage.
~
With the legal system providing such an easy way out, doesn't marriage lose its sanctity?
Does this hold even if the wife is employed?
Is there no similar relief for the husband in case he is retired but the wife is still in employment, with, perhaps, a few years still to go?
The courts usually determine that the party who has been or is currently the primary breadwinner pays the other party, or in the case of future retirement assets, the party who will earn the most. If one party is already retired and the other is still employed but not as financially well-off as the other party, then a "forensic audit" of the combined finances over the course of the marriage may be ordered, and the court decides based on primary earner.
Taken into consideration are many factors, such as the length of time married, ages of both parties, community assets, net worth, potential future earnings, who has been the principal caretaker of the children, if any, debts owed jointly, etc, etc, etc.
~
Complicated, Complicated, Complicated.
Apt appraisal.
~
That's EXACTLY one of the (unintended? unforeseen?) consequences of making divorce a no-fault legal concept.
~
There's no such thing as an "easy" divorce. Nobody wins regardless.
In the case you mentioned, yes, the man would have probably been better off financially if he had stayed married, but why?
Just looking at the basics, married couples have lifestyles built around supporting one household. When the court splits assets, it's 50/50. Now, you're dividing that single pool of money between two households and that pool wasn't designed to do that. Both parties have to reduce their lifestyle to be able to support themselves. When you add kids into the mix, the courts use that same pool of income and decides that the kids would have received a certain dollar amount based on the pool. So, they take a proportionate amount out from the parents to account for the funds. When you have a breadwinner, the breadwinner may wind up paying 75 or 80% of the kids' expenses as well. It doesn't enrich the other parent's life because the money goes to the care of the kids, but it does diminish the lifestyle of the breadwinner. Had the family stayed together, there would have been one mortgage, one power bill, one phone bill, etc... now there are two of everything, but the pool of money hasn't changed.
Has marriage lost its sanctity? That's another matter entirely. Sadly, I think it mostly has, but I don't think it's related to easy divorces.
