Is This The End of Alimony As We Know It?

Reblogged from U.S.:

For probably as long as it has existed, alimony has been a man vs. woman thing. Men get ordered to pay, women get alimony and men get bitter. But as women have become more economically powerful, the game has changed.

In 2012, a new law came into effect in Massachusetts that abolished permanent alimony and set up a formula for future payments.

Read more… 226 more words

Permanent alimony? Still? In this day and age? Here is a great comment: "In the face of the obvious injustices around alimony, regardless of who pays, the Colorado Legislature passed, and the Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, just signed on May 10, a bill to force people divorcing in Colorado to pay the highest amounts of alimony for the longest periods of time in the history of mankind. Try this on: Guaranteed alimony in any marriage of 3 years or longer, guaranteed LIFETIME alimony in any marriage over 20 years, alimony amounts that are the highest on the planet, calculated using a formula that can award up to 40% of the payer's GROSS income (not net income, GROSS income!), overtime income of the payer can be considered when plugging into the formula, mandatory life insurance payable to the recipient of alimony, but paid for by the alimony payer, all divorces are absolutely no fault with marital conduct explicitly prohibited from being considered when alimony is awarded, punitive enforcement that throws indigent alimony payers in jail even if they are provably broke, and on and on and on. Yes, these statutes apply to civil unions, also. The number of women paying alimony in Colorado is expected to skyrocket. Since alimony is now a guaranteed formula, judges can't arbitrarily deny alimony to men any longer. Since women are the higher earners in over 30% of marriages now, we should expect 30 % of alimony payments to be made by women in Colorado going forward. Fair is fair, right? This law will be repealed as soon as a few single moms or lesbians with no kids are ordered to pay onerous alimony payments to their cheating ex-spouses. Somehow the ultra left-wing Colorado state government missed the memo that women are going to be the most negatively impacted by this bill. This is 2013, not 1953. There is NO WAY a ballot initiative with these terms would pass if put before voters."

Danielle Crittenden Says Feminists Have A Lot To Answer For

If I repeat the same words you hear from the woman in the video below, I’m called a sexist. If a she says it she is a…..?

Men and women are not the same. We think differently, we behave differently, we want different things in life, our sex drives are different, what we want from our work is different, what we might want out of life is different….I could go on and on. The idea that we are equal is misleading and is a sham. I cringe every time I read the word ‘equality’ in discussions about men and women. We will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be the same. NEVER!

Do I think there should be equal access to opportunity in our country? Of course! Do I feel there should be equal outcome? Absolutely NOT!

I suggest you check out Danielle Crittenden’s book “What Our Mother’s Didn’t Tell Us,” or better yet, read THIS BLOG POST for a summary.

Yes, it will enrage radical feminists and those who are sadly hanging on to an idea that was never true. It just might wake up a few of those who don’t know why so many of their friends are not married yet, can’t find a mate, think all men are dogs, are unhappy with their career and life choices, hate dating, or all of the above.

Men and women complement one another. We need each other to get through this life. I am a huge advocate for fatherhood and cannot stand to see so many men walking away from their children, although it is more likely that they were forced out by our horrible domestic relations laws and family courts…read THIS BLOG POST, or THIS ONE and you might understand why.

I also don’t like when I hear so many people say they don’t need a man. I don’t think you are being honest with yourself. Especially if you are a heterosexual. It’s even worse when these same people say those they don’t need a man to raise their children? Hmmm. Ok, you might not need your children’s father, but your children certainly do.

Listen to her closely and pay attention. She might make you think differently about the past 50 years.

Oxytocin

Interesting stuff…if you don’t already know:

Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that acts as a hormone. Often considered a major player in the regulation of trust and morality, its study is revealing fascinating information about human behavior and relationships. Oxytocin is released in the body when we feel safe and connected and tells the brain, “Everything is all right.” Dr. Paul Zak has determined that the human brain naturally produces oxytocin during breast-feeding, orgasm, hugs, snuggling, holding hands, partner dance, massage, bodywork, and prayer.

Humans have evolved as hyper-social creatures. Oxytocin helps us navigate our world of complex social relationships by rewarding positive social behavior with feelings of contentment and relaxation. As discovered by Zak and Theodoridou, oxytocin thus motivates a variety of pro-social behaviors such as generosity, compassion, and forgiveness. In other words, its presence in the brain helps us to trust and bond with strangers.

Oxytocin and Trust

This finding is related to another study orchestrated by Zak, in which he found that oxytocin increases a person’s likelihood to trust strangers and to give them money. In this study, participants were asked to give away a portion of $10 they had been given by researchers. The researchers found that participants who had been dosed with oxytocin were 80% more generous than control group participants. Participants in the oxytocin condition were more trusting of the strangers they encountered.

Oxytocin and Relationships

Ditzen and colleagues designed a study using couples and found that those treated with synthetic oxytocin had far lower stress levels. Participating couples were asked to discuss a topic that was stressful and had consistently triggered conflict between them in the past. Then, researchers measured the presence of stress hormones within their bodies. They found that oxytocin improved positive communication between couples and was also related to a decrease in the presence of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress and with our flight-or-fight reflex. According to Grewen, partners with higher naturally occurring oxytocin rates also score higher on measures of partner support.

Learning about oxytocin has given me insight into my interactions with other people. One of my friends often jokes about my poor taste in men. When we are out together and I point out someone mildly attractive or “cute,” she always disagrees and voices how unappealing he is to her. We also have very different personalities. Where I am very affectionate with people I am close to, she is more reserved. Research by Theodoridou and colleagues showed that participants who were given synthetic oxytocin were more likely to perceive strangers as attractive and trustworthy when compared to control participants not dosed with oxytocin. I often wonder if the differences in personality and dating preferences between us may be governed by differences in the levels of oxytocin pumping through our bodies.

Read more here: http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/emiliya-zhivotovskaya/2012032321636

by Emiliya Zhivotovskaya, MAPP ’07, is the founder of Flourish, an organization dedicated to using research based tools to enable individuals and organizations to flourish. Emiliya fuses the best of Eastern philosophy with Western science to provide people with holistic tools to increase their happiness, well-being, and sense of flourishing

Does Modern Matrimonial Law Represent “The Best Interests Of The Children?”

I found this on a site recently and had to re-post. A great commentary on the reality we live in.

Why do we allow 1960′s laws to exist in 2013?

Paternity Law. Does One Size Fit the Best Interest of Children?

Posted by: Jason Brown on the Star Tribune - http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvoices/204388701.html

Jason Brown is the founding and managing attorney with Brown Family Law, a Twin Cities divorce and family law firm with offices in Minneapolis and Champlin. His Minnesota Divorce and Family Law Blog has been recognized as a “Top 25” by the Minnesota State Bar Association. Follow Jason on Twitter @brownfamilylaw.

We’re less married than we’ve ever been. Yet, more unwed couples live together than ever before. More children born out of wedlock. Minnesota’s paternity laws are rather traditional, in what is evolving into a less traditional society. Has the law kept pace with reality?

The answer, of course, is “no.” Not because the law has targeted paternity in isolation. But, rather, because the law inherently reacts to the world around it. As norms change, so does the law. Is it time to tweak the law concerning unwed fathers?

As a family law attorney, I often see one of two types of unwed fathers in my work.

The first involves the stereotypical unwed father – you know, the one who cheated and wants nothing to do with their new son or daughter. This seems to be the fellow that the paternity statutes are geared toward…denying the father any right to see the child in the absence of a court order.

Naturally, there are legitimate concerns addressed by the present law.

What if this father showed up four years after the child was born, demanding to take the child for his weekend parenting time? How might that impact the child? The law seems to protect the child in this instance. Certainly, the court can deal with father in a manner that slowly facilitates a parent/child relationship, assuming paternity is established.

The second situation involves the opposite – someone in a committed relationship with the child’s mother, even living together, as a family, following the birth of the child.

Let’s suppose that this father works days, and mother works nights. When dad works, mom watches the baby. When mom works, dad watches the baby. Weekends are special family time together. This couple signed a Recognition of Parentage at the hospital, without any dispute about dad being “dad.” The child is, in fact, bonded to both parents and recognizes both parents as significant caregivers.

Suppose mom and dad reach a rocky point a year after the child is born, and split up. Mom is, by default, afforded sole legal and physical custody of the child. Dad is not entitled to anything. In fact mom can (and often does) pull the plug on dad’s parenting time, forcing him into court.

The trouble is that dad may not (and often does not) get a hearing date for three or four months.

Is the law protecting the child in this scenario? Or, does the law actually harm the child by depriving the child of time with a significant caregiver? Experts agree that there is a small window of opportunity for critical bonding between an infant and parent.

Forget the father. The question really isn’t geared toward the “father’s rights” crowd.

The issue is whether the present law really serves the best interest of the child in the second scenario?

Now that I’ve offended every mother and father in the Twin Cities, I am interested in your perspective.

45 women’s colleges vs. 3 for men?

I feel this exchange says everything about modern feminism.

What happens when a political movement becomes the very thing it fought against? When the movement is part of the establishment, then what?

MARTIN: Speaking of Simmons – and if you’re just joining us, I’m speaking with the president of Simmons College, Helen Drinan. They are kicking off their annual leadership conference today. It’s the 34th annual conference that’s been held at Simmons. Why do you think it is that there are, what, 45 women’s colleges remaining in the United States and only three for men? Why do you think that is?

DRINAN: Because men have as many opportunities as they want and women do not yet. A day may come when educating women for power and their own empowerment, in particular, as well as for leadership, is something that happens in coed environments. Today, that is a very, very big challenge for coed environments.

MARTIN: And yet, though, a lot of the data shows that women are attaining – what is it – for the first time, women have the majority or are getting the majority of advanced degrees and that…

DRINAN: Yes, they are.

MARTIN: …they are the majority of undergraduates, as well, aren’t they?

DRINAN: Yes, they are. Yes, they are.

MARTIN: So what do you think that says?

DRINAN: A lot of us as women have learned how to be extremely successful in school. We know how to do our assignments. We know how to participate in class. We know how to produce high caliber research. When you go into the workforce, that is necessary, but far from sufficient, and if you haven’t developed the leadership skills, the personal confidence, the networking capability and, frankly, the ability to work as a member of a team – all those things that men tend to learn as a byproduct of their simple growing up – women are at a significant advantage when you put them in the competitive environment of a workplace.

listen to the audio HERE

True Dads

“True Dads” featuring Joe Jones & CFUF from Center For Urban Families on Vimeo.

Joseph T. Jones, Jr.

Mr. Joseph T. Jones, Jr. is president and founder of the Center For Urban Families. Prior to founding CFUF, Mr. Jones developed and directed the Men’s Services program for the federally funded Baltimore Healthy Start initiative and replicated the Baltimore affiliate of the nationally recognized STRIVE employment services program.

His ability to engage and provide hands-on services to fathers garnered him the reputation of trailblazer in the field. Mr. Jones is now a national leader in workforce development, fatherhood and family services programming, and through his professional and civic involvement influences policy direction nationwide.

As a lifelong resident of Baltimore City, Mr. Jones firmly believes that families can rise out of poverty if provided the appropriate foundation and information to maintain a cohesive family unit.

Learn more HERE: http://www.cfuf.org/index.php

Debtors Prisons Are Alive And Well

Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed – US news – Crime & courts | NBC News

It may not be a crime to be poor, but it can land you behind bars if you also are behind on your child-support payments.

Thousands of so-called “deadbeat” parents are jailed each year in the U.S. after failing to pay court-ordered child support — the vast majority of them for withholding or hiding money out of spite or a feeling that they’ve been unfairly gouged by the courts.

But in what might seem like an un-American plot twist from a Charles Dickens’ novel, advocates for the poor say, some parents are wrongly being locked away without any regard for their ability to pay — sometimes without the benefit of legal representation.

Randy Miller, a 39-year-old Iraqi war vet, found himself in that situation in November, when a judge in Floyd County, Ga., sent him to jail for violating a court order to pay child support.

He said he was stunned when the judge rebuffed his argument that he had made regular payments for more than a decade before losing his job in July 2009 and had recently resumed working.

“I felt that with my payment history and that I had just started working, maybe I would be able to convince the judge to give me another month and a half to start making the payments again,” he told msnbc.com. “… But that didn’t sit too well with him because he went ahead and decided to lock me up.”

Miller, who spent three months in jail before being released, is one of six plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed in March that seeks to force the state of Georgia to provide lawyers for poor non-custodial parents facing the loss of their freedom for failing to pay child support.

‘Debtors’ prisons’?
“Languishing in jail for weeks, months, and sometimes over a year, these parents share one trait … besides their poverty: They went to jail without ever talking to an attorney,” according to the lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Southern Center of Human Rights in Atlanta.

While jailing non-paying parents — the vast majority of them men — does lead to payment in many cases, critics say that it unfairly penalizes poor and unemployed parents who have no ability to pay, even though federal law stipulates that they must have “willfully” violated a court order before being incarcerated.

They compare the plight of such parents to the poor people consigned to infamous “debtors’ prisons” before such institutions were outlawed in the early 1800s.

“I try very carefully not to exaggerate, but I do think that’s an apt comparison,” said Sarah Geraghty, the attorney handling the Georgia case for the Southern Center for Human Rights.

“And I think anyone who went down and watched one of these proceedings would agree with me. … You see a room full of indigent parents — most of them African-American — and you have a judge and attorney general, both of whom are white. The hearings often take only 15 seconds. The judge asks, ‘Do you have any money to pay?’ the person pleads and the judge says, ‘OK you’re going to jail,’” she added.

The threat of jailing delinquent parents is intended to coerce them to pay, but in rare cases it can have tragic results.

In June, a New Hampshire father and military veteran, Thomas Ball, died after dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself ablaze in front of the Cheshire County Court House.

In a long, rambling letter to the local Sentinel newspaper, the 58-year-old Ball stated that he did so to focus attention on what he considered unfair domestic violence laws and because he expected to be jailed at an upcoming hearing on his failure to pay up to $3,000 in delinquent child support, even though he had been out of work for two years.

The ability of judges to jail parents without a trial is possible because failure to pay child support is usually handled as a civil matter, meaning that the non-custodial parent — or the “contemnor” in legal terms — is found guilty of contempt of court and ordered to appear at a hearing.

He or she is not entitled to some constitutional protections that criminal defendants receive, including the presumption of innocence. And in five states — Florida, Georgia, Maine, South Carolina and Ohio — one of the omitted protections is the right to an attorney.

Randall Kessler, a family law attorney in Atlanta and chairman of the American Bar Association’s family law division, said states have a great deal of leeway in family law, which includes child support cases.

“The main reason states are patchwork is because family law is a local idea,” he said. “It’s very infrequent that the federal government gets into family law, except for international custody every now and then and violence against women. … Each community’s laws are different in the way they treat child support collection, and the right to a lawyer and the right to a jury trial varies.”

He noted, however, that the ABA last year approved a resolution urging “federal, state, and territorial governments to provide legal counsel as a matter of right at public expense to low-income persons in … adversarial proceedings where basic human needs are at stake, such as those involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody.”

Supreme Court: No right to a lawyer

The child support program currently serves approximately 17 million U.S. children, or nearly a quarter of the nation’s minors, according to a recent study by Elaine Sorensen, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.

Critics of incarceration without representation had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would end the practice in its ruling in Turner v. Rogers, a case involving a South Carolina man who was repeatedly jailed for up to a year after failing to pay child support.

But the court ruled 5-4 in June that poor parents are not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer when facing jail for non-payment of child support. Instead, the justices said, states should use “substantial procedural safeguards” to ensure that those who have no means to pay are not locked up.

That is likely to force the states that don’t guarantee the right to an attorney to tighten their policies, said Colleen Eubanks, executive director of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, which represents state agencies. “Obviously they’re going to have to look at changing the rules,” she said.

Ken Wolfe, a spokesman for the federal Administration for Children and Families, which imposes some rules on state child support enforcement agencies in exchange for funding, said the agency expects to issue guidance to the states next month regarding the Turner case. He declined to provide any details.
The original is here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/#.UWszDL-bLTR

The truth hurts

Why Liberals Are Wrong on Teen Pregnancy

by Keli Goff- posted on The Root March 12, 2013

There’s a scene in the wildly popular TV show Downton Abbey in which a single mother working as a prostitute to support her son is torn between giving him up for adoption by his wealthy grandparents or raising him herself. A well-heeled, well-meaning social activist encourages her to keep the child, saying that while he might not have the same opportunities with his biological mother that he would with the other family, he would have a decent life with her all the same.

Of course, then the child’s mother makes the kind of observation that makes most limousine liberals uncomfortable, whether on a television show set in England or in real-life American politics. The mother acknowledges that, yes, her son would have a life with her — but not the kind of life the nosy social activist’s son had growing up, filled with a quality education and plentiful professional opportunities. (Spoiler coming if you watch the show.) The mother decides that her son deserves the same quality of life that this rich woman’s son enjoyed, and she is selfless enough to give him to a family who can give that life to him.

I was reminded of this scene as I read the ridiculous criticism being lobbed by a bunch of well-meaning privileged people at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his support of an ad campaign aimed at curbing teen pregnancy in that city. The campaign pulls no punches, featuring infant children surrounded by quotes about how their lives, and the lives of their families, are likely to turn out in households headed by teen parents……

…..Apparently some liberal critics publicly object to the campaign (including a few of my well-intentioned but misguided friends in media and politics, who won’t care for this piece and will probably tell me so). But they don’t object to the campaign on the basis of fact, because, of course, the campaign is factually accurate. A child is statistically more likely to have access to greater financial and academic opportunity if not raised by a teen mother. So just what is it about the campaign that has critics so riled up?

Well, according to Planned Parenthood, “The latest NYC ad campaign creates stigma, hostility and negative public opinions about teen pregnancy and parenthood rather than offering alternative aspirations for young people.” I’m not sure where to start with this lunacy. First off, I thought that as one of the nation’s leading sexual-health organizations, Planned Parenthood would focus on decreasing the number of unplanned pregnancies, not celebrating and encouraging them. Did I miss something?

Second, I’m much less concerned about the stigma teen parents may face than about the lifetime stigma their children face as they miss out on one opportunity after another because their parents weren’t ready to realize their full potential as parents while raising them. (As I’ve mentioned in previous pieces, one of my parents was once a teen parent — and attests to the challenges it brings and therefore applauds the campaign.)….

…….Studies show that becoming famous is a greater priority to the millennial generation than to preceding generations. So when you have teenagers becoming famous on reality shows just for becoming pregnant, and the most famous reality-TV family in history shows the glamour of having multiple “baby daddies” in the family (here’s looking at you, Kim and Kourtney Kardashian), where exactly is the average teen supposed to get the memo that his kid is unlikely to enjoy the upbringing that Kanye West’s kid will? And that they are unlikely to enjoy 15 minutes of fame like the Teen Mom stars?…
….I just wonder if the women of privilege running Planned Parenthood, which has struggled with diversity in the past, realize that children born in poor communities deserve the same opportunities their kids do — which means not just randomly distributing birth control but actually giving poor women the same information, incentives and life goals that women who grow up in privilege often take for granted. That includes providing accurate information about why when you choose to become a parent matters.

Read more HERE: http://www.theroot.com/blogs/why-liberals-are-wrong-teen-pregnancy

Equality? Not with sentencing to prisons

 

If you’re a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.

Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

 

read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

Save your marriage by cheating?

More than 18 million people in 26 countries frequent AshleyMadison.com, a dating site for married people looking to have affairs.

But while unsatisfied marrieds browse the site looking to hookup, the man behind the site — creator Noel Biderman — has been happily married for nearly 10 years. HuffPost Divorce spoke to Noel and his wife, Amanda — who’s featured on the company’s new billboard campaign — in separate phone conversations to discuss the secret to their relationship success, how Amanda reacted when Noel initially told her about his idea for the site, and why Noel believes cheating actually saves marriages.

Noel, you’ve said that your website saves marriage and that an affair can serve as a “marriage preservation device.” Can you talk a little more about that?

Noel: I definitely believe that. For me, I’m a married man now — 10 years later, two children later, a really good economic success later, and with an extended family I love, I would be a fool if I said sex was the most important thing in my marriage –- it’s not. [But] it’s important to me, I’m not a priest and I didn’t sign up for a life of celibacy. If I woke up today in some kind of sexless marriage like so many Americans do, I would be genuinely upset by that. I would try to change it with my partner, but if I couldn’t change it, I don’t know if I would just walk out the door. I believe the social science, I’ve seen it firsthand, how children raised in single-parent households have more trouble with drugs and alcohol, have fewer educational opportunities, and get in trouble with the law. I don’t want to do that to my family and I certainly don’t want to do that because everything else I have going for me is great. I like my lifestyle, so why would I give it all up because the number five or six thing on my list -– my sex life -– is not where it should be?

So yes, if my brother came to me and said I can’t take it anymore, I’m either leaving or I’m having an affair, I would encourage him to have an affair first.

Amanda, would you stay in a marriage where you knew your husband was being unfaithful for the sake of keeping your family together?

Amanda: I wouldn’t just walk into divorce. But, I mean, I also wouldn’t deal with a relationship where I knew there were interpersonal relations going on without me. We definitely differ on that point. I get that some people are doing this to fulfill a need and to make themselves more fulfilled and happier. I’m not here to judge those people. Personally, that’s not how I live my life. That’s not how I live my life and how I define my relationship and what I would accept moving forward.

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/ashley-madison-creator_n_2993008.html