Another mistake by the SCOC
This decision is ridiculous:
Supreme Court rules in landmark case
The Court is trying to have it both ways. Parliament said divorce was no-fault and specifically instructed the courts not to consider the behaviour of the spouses. This isn't a charter or constitutional case - The Court should not override the wishes of Parliament.
Supreme Court rules in landmark case
The Court is trying to have it both ways. Parliament said divorce was no-fault and specifically instructed the courts not to consider the behaviour of the spouses. This isn't a charter or constitutional case - The Court should not override the wishes of Parliament.
posted by Technical Bard | 09:09
5 Comments:
It is sad that the SCOC now supports Gold Digging. This must make a lot of real women angry.
Once again we see Judges as Social Workers (see my post on Family Court Judges).
The facts, laws, or precedents don't matter if someone feels bad or feels victimized.
Let's do a hypothetical...
Martial Breakdown, Child Custody, Wife wrongly accuses father of child abuse, reputation is ruined. Wife is awarded custody, spousal support and child support. Later evidence total disproves charges. Meanwhile husband's income has disappeared and he is unable to find work in his community.
What then?? Would the Courts have such sympathy for the Father??
My biggest concern with the ruling is that it places a burden on spouses to be responsible not for their actions, but for the consequences of their actions, which might not be foreseeable.
They've effectively built the precautionary principle into divorce law.
This is a huge mistake by the SCOC. All a woman has to do is to state she is and remains 'angry' about the divorce... ( doesn't really matter if he cheated on her or not, the marriage ended, and she can now find all sorts of reasons for being 'angry' ... she can't work cause she is so angry.
After 8 years the dame is STILL angry and this qualifies her to continue to get support?
What about the former husband? He had an affair, quit the marriage, married another woman. Does it really matter WHY the marriage ended? Apparently it does not delve into whether or not the former wife must pay the former husband as well, for making HIM angry he has to pay for a slacker who remains "angry" eight years after the divorce.
I would imagine he is livid. Is there a cost analysis for that the court wishes to entertain??
If this is the way the woman is it might be worth it to be rid of her.
Yet, this ruling means that one is never really divorced doesn't it?
Angry wives, or those just too lazy to seek meaningful work ( she was a bank exec previously) can hang on to the former spouse ( as long as it is a man, mind you) forever , amen.
There is no divorce whatsoever when one or the other partner has to continue to 'pay' forever.
I think the courts have once again run roughshod over Parliament and the will of the people. The act specifically states that marital misconduct shall not be considered. In a feat of subatomic hair splitting between the misconduct and the consequences the court effectively put misconduct back in to consideration.
Divorce, in most cases, is already a difficult, emotionally charged process that leaves much psychological baggage in its wake. The whole point of the no-fault divorce was to reduce the acrimony of adversarial court proceedings by reducing the amount of marital dirty laundry the family courts had to deal with.
Now, by attaching monetary compensation to the consequences of marital misconduct, the Supreme Court has exposed the family courts to claims -- possibly, and very likely, false and inflated claims -- of emotional distress due to the breakup of the marriage. This decision layers more acrimony on an already acrimonious process.
Finally, who do you think is more likely to have their claims of emotional distress validated by the courts - men or women? Guys, we've just been screwed again.
Post a Comment
<< Home