Disfellowshipped but still forced to pay maintenance or alimony

by Markw1509 65 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  jam

  That was years ago, I laugh about it now. The good thing about

  that time, the kids was old enough to see what was going on. I never

  abandoned the kids. Too often the kids are caught up in the mess.

  Wow, what a period in my life. DF, divorce my life a mess, but I got

  much better.

  The guys in the neighborhood (guys can be cruel) we all became friends,

  weekend BBQ, drinking beer in the backyard, having a good time. After

  the divorce and I moved out they made it their to business to inform me

  who was coming and going at my ex.LOL

  Jam there is some guy coming over late at nite, in your house. I thought

  she was a JW. Then after she got married, jam how do you deal with another

  man living in your house, spending your money. You working your butt off

  and he is reaping all the benefits. We see him on the streets with those mags,

  no need for him to work. They would go on and on, just giving me a hard time.

  One guy told me, when he divorce his wife and another man moved in, he tried

  burning down the house with them in it, maybe that is what you need need to do.

  I told him are you crazy. He said ,well maybe not a good idea, I spent some time

  in jail for that. But that was the worst part.

  Sorry folks for rambling, the op stirred up old memories.
• 

  Markw1509

  Judges rarely award alimony; this holds true for the U.S. and Canada. If a judge chooses to award alimony, it usually means that the judge has determined that there is not enough marital property to award to the wife to compensate her for contributions to the marriage. If there were enough marital property, the judge would have likely just awarded her that, and you two could be done with each other. Therefore, she is recieving what a judge felt she was economically due, again, for her contributions during the marriage.

  Thanks Justitia.

  The judge stated the amount I had to pay (common here in the UK).

  I wanted to walk away from a loveless JW marriage and the WTB&TS. Hence, I gave her everything from the 25 year marriage. The house, the furniture, everything. I left with my clothes, books and car. I paid the mortgage for another 2 years, hoping that my daughter would still have something to do with me.

  I'm grateful for your thoughts, but, seriously, her contributions to the marriage can't really justify me having to pay her £10,000 ($16,000) per year for the rest of my life. Even though she and my grown-up daughter won't have anything to do with me. And she lives in a 5-bedroomed house fully-paid-for --- on her own!

  I will still pay. Caesar tells me to. But I can't stand the hypocrisy of the organisation that says 'yes, punish him for life for being an apostate!'

  No, I'm not bitter, really!
• 

  blondie

  So why does the court feel she needs support. I live in the US and if a women can support herself and doesn't have any disabilities, it is a division of assets. Child support is something else, since your daughter is over 18, you must not be paying child support any longer unless you got behind. Why not petition the court again to be released from the support if she is able to work and support herself? If your daughter is an adult, then it is your daughter's decision whether you see her or not.

  Abusive parents aren't allowed to see their children but have to pay child support, not that I am saying you were an abusive parent. So the matter of seeing the child is not tied to paying child support.

  ----

  After years of making regular alimony payments to their ex-spouses, many divorcees want to find ways to avoid paying alimony in the future. Depending on the terms of the divorce and recent circumstances, changes to the alimony arrangements may be possible.

  There are several types of alimony, sometimes called spousal support or maintenance. Some are designed to be temporary, such as support payments that give the recipient spouse time to train or get educated for a new job. Some are more permanent in nature. If paying spouses want to find ways to avoid paying alimony of any type, however, they will have to go back to court.

  According to the American Bar Association, the national professional organization for attorneys, only 15 percent of all divorce cases include alimony payments. Overwhelmingly, they flow from the ex-husband to the ex-wife, although they can be awarded the other way around.

  "All states allow courts to order alimony, although some states are more reluctant to order alimony than others," the ABA writes in a guidebook about family law.

  If, in dividing up the couples property, a spouse agrees (or is ordered by a judge) to make payments to the other spouse in one lump sum, this payment is not eligible for a reduction or elimination. In fact, this type of alimony (sometimes referred to as alimony in gross) is one of the few types of alimony that would still be owed after the recipient spouse dies. (In that case, the payment is then sent to the estate of the deceased spouse.)

  Permanent alimony is often awarded to an older divorcing spouse, or one who has limited earning potential because of an illness or health condition, according to the ABA. In addition, permanent alimony may be awarded to a spouse who will never have the same earning power as a more prosperous spouse.

  If the conditions under which alimony payments can be changed or eliminated are not already spelled out in the divorce agreement (or court order), the paying spouse will have to show that circumstances have changed to support such a request.

  Common Ways to Reduce or End Alimony

  Among the more successful arguments to reduce or eliminate alimony are:

  • The paying spouse is suddenly and involuntarily unemployed
  • An illness makes it harder for the paying spouse to work
  • The recipient spouse is living with someone as a couple, not roommates (needs to be of a permanent nature with the ex-spouse and new partner sharing living expenses)

  Except for the case of lump sum alimony described above, most alimony payments end when either the ex-spouse dies or the recipient spouse remarries.

  Less Successful Ways to Reduce or End Alimony

  The following events are not likely to sway a judge to eliminate alimony:

  • Declaring bankruptcy
  • Inflation or an increase in the cost of living
  • The paying spouse voluntarily or deliberately loses a job or sees a reduction in income

  But you may think to yourself, "What if I stop paying alimony?" That would not be advisable, as you would be in direct violation of your court order. Rules governing whether alimony can be reduced or terminated vary from state to state. You can get more details from your attorney.
• 

  Markw1509

  Thanks Blondie. Great post.

  the law is similar in the UK regarding alimony and child maintenance. I definitely take on board your thoughts of taking it back to court, although there have been no changes in circumstances since the court order was made.

  Naturally, I understand that my grown daughter has every right to shun me. She's still a JW. She has to shun me. She has no choice.

  Similarly my ex-wife. She shuns me to the extent that I was not even told about my daughter's wedding until 10 months after the event.

  My original question still stands. How hypocritical is it for my ex to shun every contact from me, but still accept my money?

  i will still continue to pay, because the law tells me to. But I can't help but see the double standards of this religion.

  everyone's thoughts here have been very useful; thank you all.
• 

  blondie

  I don't see why she is obligated to see you; you are no longer married, as I understand it, and no longer related. The court did not make it a requirement that she see you to receive the money, did they? This is a financial arrangement/obligation not an emotional relationship. The only obligation emotionally you had was to try to see your daughter when she was a minor and where I live that is not dependent on paying child support. But I would think that a loving father would want to support his daughter financially if he could and not mix that up with any relationship with the mother.

  Unless you feel that paying a financial obligation means companionship is required, it starts looking like prostitution.

  I suggest you get some advice from a legal person in your area and see what could reduce the support. Now if you can afford it financially and are not stressed by paying it, just pay it. I guarantee that if you make this an issue, you might confirm any negative view your daughter has of you. Let her see a milder side of you.

  (BTW I have worked in child support and alimony issues for 15 years in my area. I have heard many complaints from mothers and fathers about child support and the child almost always was ignored in the situation. They were too concerned about the ex-spouse not being deserving even when they had the money. They would hurt the ex-spouse by hurting the child. I would ask this question would your ex-wife have anything to do with you if you were a jw in good standing?)
• 

  Markw1509

  Thanks, Blondie.

  Your points are well made, and as you have experience in this field, your advice is pertinent.

  You say that a loving father would want to support his daughter financially. Of course I would, and I did. She was 17 when I left the religion, and the courts only asked me to pay maintenance to my ex. I am continuing to pay my ex (have done for the passed 11 years) and I'm not wanting to make an issue out of it now. I won't stop paying, as my ex would take me back to court if I did.

  no, the issue has nothing to do with my daughter. She's grown up, married, living her own life.

  I suppose I just wanted to vent my frustration about someone who is told by the GB to shun her ex husband and have nothing to do with him, yet still take his money each month. Am I wrong to think of this as double standards? I KNOW I have to pay, and the issues about law and morality are separate, but it just frustrates the hell out of me that the religion says have nothing to do with him, but still take his money.

  I suppose the deeper question here is 'How far does shunning go? Does shunning mean a complete cut-off, or only as far as you want it to be.'

  It just seems over-convenient to allow someone to except money from a shunned relative. My ex lives in a 5 bedroomed house on her own, completely paid for. She's not in poverty or struggling. She works and still takes my money.

  maybe it's just me being hard. Maybe I'm just weary. Maybe I shouldn't even raise it as an issue, as I'm out of it all and living a very happy, fulfilled, blessed life away from the controlling forces of the WT.

  Of course, I could start a new thread...exactly what does shunning mean? No contact whatsoever? Make out that the shunned one is dead? Or only shun up to the point where it affects you financially?

  Again, thanks to all who have given advice on this thread.
• 

  sammielee24

  In a way I do understand what you are saying.

  Yes you are legally obligated to pay your ex because the courts determined you have to.

  The morality of taking money off of someone who repulses you to the point that you shun them aka those who are dead to you - is pretty clear. It's kind of like people who profess to hate anyone on welfare and who call them losers or lazy fat slobs, but who quietly put their hand out for any free government money they can get..there's a disconnect they have where they don't see their attitude on one side in relation to their actions on the other.

  Let's face it.

  If you remarry or are remarried and your worldly wife contributes to the household income, that income is often combined for both of you to live on and meet your financial obligations. A great many ex-JW spouses become further enraged when their previous partners end up in worldly relationships because that is seen as repulsive and further proof of how far you have gone to the dark side. Despite that revulsion and disgust they feel - they don't have a problem keeping their hand out for the cash no matter where it comes from. If you lost your job and your 'worldly' spouse was paying the alimony for you to keep current, would your ex take it or would she be willing to suspend the alimony until you were back on your feet? If she would take it from the worldly spouse - that's your answer. Their moraliy rests inside the religion - once you leave - you yourself are no longer a moral person and so since you really don't exist in any measure to them, they don't see it as a personal issue.

  This is the same issue that comes up all the time - those who were in the army and receive pensions do so willingly despite the Society attitude toward military engagement. The same for any job that is with any part of the government - the Society proclaims to remain separate from the world - teach your kids not to salute the flag, not to sing, not to honor anything but the Society - and yet, you have public school teachers getting paid by the government, postal workers and a whole host of others who work for, are engaged in and take money from the government without blinking an eye.

  sammiesiwfe
• 

  jgnat

  I think it is high time to revisit the alimony amount. One circumstance that has changed is that your daughter is now grown up.

  I think you will sleep better if you separate the sting of alimony payments, your wife, and your daughter's shunning.

  Shunning is stupid and cruel. I suggest you reach out to your daughter on a regular basis, even if it is not reciprocated. What about a monthly or bi-monthly card? Thinking of you, loving you. Remind her of warm memories of your time together. Young adults change their perspective over time, and it is possible she may soften.
• 

  tenyearsafter

  Justitia Themis - In California, if you have been married over 10 years, you are still subject to open-ended spousal support, regardless of who filed. It is based on income, and the higher earner will pay the the lower or non-earner. CA uses a progam, called Dissomaster, that calculates support in a dispassionate, automated way. This spousal support typically doesn't end until the the receiving spouse re-marries or dies. This is in addition to the 50-50 property split that is automatic in a community property state like CA. You might be able to exclude property you brought in to the marriage, but good luck with that...CA is such a liberal state they will typically rule co-mingling of property after a period of time, and include it as community property. I know this from personal experience, and I am not unique. My best friend's wife cheated on him, divorced him, and he ended up paying her $7000 a month in alimony and child support. After taxes and support payments, he was left to live on less than $1000 a month...love the fairness there! I was in a similar boat, but my ex had the decency to remarry and that stopped the alimony. My child support was half of my total payments, and I gladly paid that for my kids and more.

  MikeW - I am sorry I digressed, but I am still a bit bitter over the divorce laws here in CA. My ex had no problem taking my money, and in fact, wanted more! The only time she talked to me was when she wanted something. I don't think that type of behavior is unique to JW's...most estranged couples have that type of relationship. Even though I have tremendous empathy for you, I don't see where being DF'ed and shunned has any bearing on whether your ex should accept your money. I would have fought the withholding of contact with your daughter...that is despicable on your ex's part, and I would have gone to court to fight any effort to keep my kids from me. I hope things improve for you, and you can get this behind you and reconcile with your daughter. I never even think of the ex any longer, and my kids and I have a great relationship, so there is hope!
• 

  Band on the Run

  Justitia speaks the truth. When you married, you became an economic unit. This is marriage- not teenage lovefest.If she did not work outside the home, she worked within the home. Do a Google search for the market value of coordinator, 24 hr. nanny, general cleaning, chef, etc. You admit that you did well financially.The courts conducted a neutral analysis and decided that the.award was fair. You did not seek a change in terms.

  Under the common law system in most states, alimony wad extremely rare. I clerked at t he NOW Legal Defense Fund during the transition from title to equitable distribution. The change came so rapidly that it shocked the advocates themselves. Less than 10 per cent of ex-wives ever received alimony even during the 50s. A few celebrity cases gave a false impression. Hard economic data detailing the actual dollars and cents convinced mostly male legislators to abandon the old system. With mandatory disclosure, the impact of your former spouse is measured. You owe morally.

  When people marry, the govt should make clear the financial consequences. Marriage was a financial state for most of history. Emotional consequences or who was to blame present a different challenge. You are reimbursing her for services rendered during the marriage. Alimony is not charity. JWs do not have a damn thing to do with this situation. Itappears .that the record indicated she was richly deserving of the award. Your remedy is in the courts-if your view has merit. She was never yours to own even during the marriage.