As a divorced man, I have a permanent burden. It is child support. I, like
many of my divorced brothers, I am solely responsible for the financial
well being of my child. The law in the State of Israel, like other nations,
put this burden on me. A burden that the children's mother does not share
legally.
My story may be a little different, but it shares the same dynamic and the
account of others: I married a showgirl of the Epiphany, which sought a
good supplier beta (with some alpha qualities). I was blue as a smurf, and
have the scars to show it.
That's why I rejoiced momentarily, reading the following news (in July)
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that divorced mothers of children aged
six to 15 will also share the financial burden of support for children with
fathers if their salaries are equal to or more children and the wife are in
shared custody [Israeli ].
The decision issued by an expanded panel of seven judges, was given in
response to a call of two divorced men whose ex-wives earned higher wages
than they did, but were still required to pay a child support even if their
children were in shared custody.
Justice? Will it be?
That seems fair enough. Yet, as we live in the matrix, I decided to read
the verdict for myself. Although I am not a lawyer, I decided to share the
story, good and evil with South Korean players.
The story
The couple, referred to in the verdict, married in 1999. They divorced in
2014, with 3 children. They agreed to an actual joint custody (equal number
of nights, children spend all parents over a period of time). The mother is
also slightly more than the father (it's ~ $ 3,500 / month and made $ 3750
month ~ /). It's close enough to be considered an equal income.
At the end of 2013 (during the divorce), she sued for child support of $
2500 / month. I'm actually mortified at this number. Does she even
understand the implications of asking this? Such as CH states:
When love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.
The Family Court decided against it. The judge said that the principles of
justice and women's equality, we must look at both parental income and
mandating child support based on these. However, since it is not consistent
with previous decisions, the judge decided that it is only for ages 6-15.
If a woman feels that she is entitled to the money, she will not back down
this easy. She appealed to the district court, and in early 2015 a verdict
providing $ 800 / month child support for children. This was because the
verdict was based on Israeli and Jewish law, and the fear that the father
would use joint custody as an excuse to reduce the child support while
not "pulling its weight as a parent" .
It seems that there was a contradiction. On one side is the law, which
requires man, and that man pay support first. On the other side is equality
and justice which requires that both parents share the load.
The father appealed to the Supreme Court and could delay the verdict until
the new verdict (which is final).
Good
1. The court noted that there is a gender bias, and this time it is against
men.
This is good because it pushes the feminist narrative / SJW that "the
oppressor can not be oppressed." You want to fight against SJW story? Here
is a case of application of Equalism ideology in its full extent.
2. The court noticed and mentioned that divorced fathers bear a financial
burden much more than divorced mothers.
Next time she tells you that divorced women have it tough, you can say,
well my darling, the Supreme Court thinks fathers have much more
financially difficult. Do you want to change and the financial burden,
while the man sits at home and collects child support? "
Maybe not that much of a burden
3. The Court cited the UN "Convention on the Rights of the Child" Article
27:
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of
living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and
social.
2. The parent (s) or others responsible for the child have the primary
responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial means, the
conditions of living necessary for the child's development.
This means that lowering the father of the living standard is against the
UN treaty, that most States are members. The next time you are in court,
trying to use it (I doubt, but it's worth a try).
4. Perhaps the most important is the decision: child support is based on
both parents' financial capacity (ages 6-15).
This means that a frivolous divorced woman can not simply claim that
children need "standard of living". In this case, it will take over (at
least) its share. , It also provides custody apart in public education
again.
The bad
1. The Court shared feminist estimated the "wage gap".
Although it proved again as false, the Israeli Supreme Court also cites
feminist literature and articles and believes that women earn less and it
is because they take care of the household. Even our dear Attention-whores
HuffPo know it is wrong. But as we all know, if you repeat a lie often
enough it becomes the truth.
2. The court takes a view that fathers seeking joint custody may be just
trying to reduce their child support.
Sometimes SJW feminists are tangled in its own web. On the one hand, they
want the mothers and fathers are equal parents. On the other hand, if a
father trying to be equal parents (joint custody), then it is automatically
a suspect. This is exactly what my colleague Ryan Campbell recently titled
his recent article, "Men always be considered evil by feminists."
3. The court said it will not provide a formula for child support. This
will be case by case.
If the law is clear and simple, people know what to do. If there is a "case
by case" that the judge (Israel has no jury). This makes the most complex
situations and confusing. He recently said that "constructive ambiguity" is
good for your game, but it is definitely not good to cover risks such as
marriage.
More than that, Article 61 of the Family verdict mandates courts to
determine a mechanism to handle for children "other necessary expenses." It
must be based on one of the parents who will be compensated by the other or
even a joint bank account. This, to me, is somewhat worrying. joint bank
account is what you had when you were married. It does not work that, why
should it work now? Moreover, since women are prone to get into debt, what
happens if it uses this account to a "I had to buy it, you pay now"
spending?
What I feel financially after my divorce
One good thing about the divorce that I noticed is that you can cover your
family's expenses. Child support is known, and unless a disaster happens
(and they usually are not), you have a good idea of how much you'll need
to cough every month.
Final thoughts
The verdict itself can be found here (it's in Hebrew). As I said above,
there is both good and bad. I think the good (this time) outweighs the bad.
Please note that is relevant only for Israel, but the feeling can spread to
other countries.
Sometimes when we apply justice and equality, it can promote the man (at
least compared to what we had so far). We'll see if other developments in
this field will take place. The Israeli DoJ was losing speed or try
(depending on which side of the feminist card sitting) not to change the
law, even after several appointed committees have highlighted some of the
current inequities mentioned in the verdict. I'm semi-optimistic, as Israel
has a relatively low divorce rate of 30%.
Read more: Man must pay $ 30,000 child support to someone else's child
No comments:
Post a Comment