You're viewing a single thread.
Just for some pretext here: I'm not trying to defend this woman because I know nothing about her.
That being said and just for everyone's information, there is a scenario in which what she said is logical and fair.
It used to be that women were not allowed to have careers and some people still choose to practice that. So the women agree when entering into the marriage that they'll be homemakers and the husband will earn money and take care of her. If the husband doesn't keep up his end of the duties in that arrangement and they wind up being divorced then she now has no means to provide for herself. This is why alimony was initially created, so that women who were forced (or in the modern day chose) to be homemakers weren't absolutely fucked in the case of divorce.
Again, I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I have no idea, but I just wanted to provide some potential context because I find a lot of talk about alimony and divorce online often just dumps on women as being greedy and that's just not fair in every situation.
I gotta say though, it sure looks that way in this situation, especially with her talking about cheating on her husband, but again, who knows, maybe he's not holding up his end, maybe he's physically or emotionally abusive, we just don't know.
Alimony is off the table when infidelity can be proved in court. This was the case even when alimony was super common back in the 80s and 90s.
If you were a homemaker seeking divorce you could get alimony without being a perfect person, but infidelity was one of the few instant "no"s in divorce court.
That is entirely untrue for divorce in Ontario, and probably other parts of Canada. Spousal support and divorce settlements in general have nothing to do with infidelity. No-fault divorce is available after 1 year of separation. For the financials the court uses a formula based on length of marriage and relative incomes as their guideline.
Good for Ontario for learning from the clusterfuck down South.
Bad for Ontario for creating a strict formula with no caps that doesn't consider the possibility that the man might not be making as money later in his career. Dave Foley got a divorce when he was at the top of his career, but since he's not on TV anymore and not making anywhere near the money he was getting when he was on TV. His alimony payments are higher than his income now, the judge admitted this, but the law didn't consider this as a possibility. Last I heard he can't return to Canada or he'll be arrested.
So it's a poorly written law.
It's pretty obvious she has a career writing magazine articles complaining about her life, so she should have some sort of income, and alimony shouldn't count. Never mind all of the infidelity that everyone else is mentioning.
If writing on medium is a career then I'm a professional lemming
She's a published author. That's called having a career.
Just for some pretext here:
LOL, "pretext" is right.
Even if she was a stay-at-home wife, then she would get half the husband's assets. So she shouldn't be dirt poor
Unless all he had was dirt
Its sad that your perfectly logical and objective comment got downvoted. Thanks for speaking truth that people dont want to hear.
I cheated on my spouse
There's really just no way of knowing what could have happened to end their relationship. Truly one of the worlds biggest puzzles.
Except it's perfectly clear that she has a career as a published author.
We are totally ok with that truth. It just isn't relevant here. Especially given the 4th headline "I divorced my husband because I couldn't trust him with my money". It seems like her financial troubles and his lack of financial troubles had nothing to do with the state of their finances during the marriage. And if alimony is involved at all, it would be a contributor to her post divorce financial problems, as it sounds like she would be the one paying if there is any.