Comments on: Should mother who killed child get alimony?

By: Gilbert Tieszen

Gilbert Tieszen — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:07:48 +0000

Alcohol Addiction has a genetic facet. Distinct aspects of your inherited composition can make you more or less liable to any variety of dependencies, including alcoholism. In other words, if your mother or father suffered from alcoholism, it’s more probable you have the proclivity to become a sufferer, as well.

By: cpusrvc

cpusrvc — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:04:56 +0000

From my experience (7 yr. highly active divorce, pro se 4 of them) what I’ve found is about 1/3 of judgments are in error, 1/3 corrupt, and 1/3 proper application of the law.

I believe it is impossible for lawmakers to anticipate every possible permutation of personal behavior. Had you or I been involved in writing this law, I doubt we would have included the provision that if you kill your child you lose alimony. What about maiming them? If the law covered every possible event or situation, each law would require its own hard-cover book. Then we’d complain it was too complex to understand. I think this was a very unlikely and rare situation, and you can’t anticipate everything. A perfect legal system is impossible.

This is no excuse for all the genuinely bad and self-serving laws that our lawmakers hand down. There’s enough under that category to keep us all busy forever!

By: ANCPR

ANCPR — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:08:03 +0000

Your comments are correct. The judges were essentially just following the law. What many people don’t understand is that the law is the problem. The laws are written by idiots. The laws are pushed by extremely powerful and manipulative people and groups.

Many people, over the years, have written ANCPR claiming that their case was unique, and that there was some kind of mistake, or the judge did something egregious. What I’ve always had to say is, no, your case is not unique, the law was specifically written so that what happened in your case would happen.

Once in a while, there is corruption, i.e., a judge does something illegally biased, possibly for money (bribe). however, mostly it’s just a guy applying the law.

Getting the laws changed is the key, but that is next to impossible in today’s environment.

All that said, I still feel the outrage that was expressed by Eden in his comments. In a just world, the woman would have been sent to prison, and she would have been stripped of any help. Period. Automatic. End of show. Don’t like it? Don’t kill your child!

By: cpusrvc

cpusrvc — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:42:48 +0000

I also was appalled when I started reading Beden’s comments. Reading the opinion, however, changed my mind. To me, it appears that the court recognized the egregiousness of the situation and tried to follow the law. If they actually believed she was fully entitled to the alimony on issues of fairness, they wouldn’t have suggested what they did:

1. suggest that the legislature consider changing the law,
2. suspended the alimony while she is incarcerated,
3. reversed the family court’s award of arrearages,
4. stated that she may make application for alimony when she gets out of prison (possibly to allow for the law to be changed)
5. when she applies for alimony, her present needs and efforts to support herself, as well as the ex-husband’s ability to pay, will be considered.

What would also be interesting, is if she is released on probation, if she is entitled to alimony, because on probation you are still serving your sentence and under the jurisdiction of the corrections dept.