Lifetime alimony

If you ever needed an example of the heavy bias towards women in the courts, this is a good one [or a bad one, depending on which side of the fence you are on].

Let’s look at the logic of this, beginning with the divorce. In this, I agree with the wife 100%:

Mrs Malialis levelled accusations that her husband had been ‘having relations with a call girl called Nicky’ and ‘wasted money by gambling in casinos’.

If that was so and she had given him ample notice to get his act together, then it was obvious why she wanted to divorce him and it would be hard not to feel sympathy for that. When any partner invests him or herself in the other and the other just goes off and does that, it is a disgrace and shows weak character on the part of the miscreant. It’s a betrayal of trust.

Mr Malialis countered by alleging that his wife had had an affair.

Equally as bad and all sympathy for her flies out the window if it’s true. However, the court did two things wrong itself:

1. Mrs Justice Parker said [Mr Malialis] had a 31-year-old Ukrainian girlfriend;

2. Mrs Justice Parker declined to investigate those disputed allegations.

Now hang on a minute. This woman judge herself speaks of Mr. Malialis’s infidelity, thereby making it a factor in her prejudice one way or the other but when he alleges the wife’s infidelity, then “Mrs Justice Parker declined to investigate those disputed allegations.”

Interesting, isn’t it? Which is why women judges shouldn’t be allowed  anywhere near family law courts or if they are, there should be an equal number of male judges presiding.

The court heard how the husband and wife had lived all their married lives in north London, having been wed for more than 34 years, and had three grown up children when Mrs Malialis began divorce proceedings in 2007.

That family was based on him being the primary breadwinner and it can be argued that in any such situation, she is abrogating her right and chance of making money in her own right in the interests of the family. It’s a happy situation until one of the parties goes outside the marriage.

He did that and everything else followed on from that. However, there is the quite possible point that she’d become so impossible, she drove him to look for affection elsewhere and thereafter, she looked elsewhere as well. This is the point women rely on being almost impossible to quantify – their own contribution to discord and their reasons for doing it.  According to men, it’s a huge factor.

My mate in Russia speaks of just such a thing. Her demands, her scathing comments, day in day out, became impossible to handle any more.   Yet on the surface, he was 100% at fault.

And then there are the greedy eyes of women these days inside marriages, having parented and increasingly seeing the advantageous bias of courts.   They sue for divorce, get hefty payouts like this by biased female or leftist judges and she’s on clover for the rest of her days, based on his efforts in making that money in the first place.   She can bring in her toyboy as and when she wants.

Gravy train.

Judges at London’s Appeal Court, pictured, ruled that Justice Judith Parker’s original divorce ruling was ‘unsupportable and not fair’

Lord Justice Thorpe, delivering the court’s main judgement, said: ‘The history is unfortunate. The husband has described these proceedings as a disaster and I have some sympathy with that view.

I have no sympathy for his infidelity.   If he wanted this Nicky, then either it was his dalliance or she drove him to it.  He should at least have warned his wife that she was entering dangerous territory in their marriage and demanded she understood this.  There had to have been some discussion of the matter and the nature of that discussion should be quite admissible in court.

If it was his dalliance and nothing else, I have little sympathy for him.    If, however, it was in the back of her mind for some time to ditch him and she was creating the preconditions for it – women are not innocents in this respect – then susbstantially alters the equation.   It needs investigation as it is a mitigating factor.   Just what was the state of relations and why?

We, the public, will never know in Mrs M’s specific case. It is possible she was a dutiful wife for 34 years and then his infidelity turned her into a “hell hath no fury” type. We’ll never know that – the comments above were about what is increasingly happening in society, not specifically about her.


As for settlements, there is no reason, as far as I can see, for lifetime alimony. It’s a ridiculous concept, especially in this day and age.

Let’s leave child support out of this for now – I’m looking only at lifetime alimony.  Any father who loves his children and has a say in how they are brought up would wish to contribute financially to them and if he is a loving father, it would go well beyond 18 years.   Always assuming he makes the decisions on them jointly.   No decision-making power – no child support payout.

As one anti-alimony site said:

It is our contention that if you procreate a child, you are responsible for its support. This support requirement goes for both spouses as well. It is the responsibility for both of you to equally take care of and raise the child you brought into this world.

But as for her – not a penny, not even a farthing in lifetime alimony:

As a mother in today’s society, how would you feel if your son were to get married and then divorced only to face a lifetime of servitude in an ongoing “lifetime alimony marriage” where there would be no closure to his life and little likelihood of his ever being able to remarry again?

To me, the critical factors are:

1.  Who was unfaithful or otherwise at fault;
2.  Who sued;
3.  What the respective incomes were.

Some scenarios:

He sues for divorce but she was happy in the marriage and had done nothing wrong.  IMHO, he has at least some responsibility for her over a reasonable time, maybe five years, to get herself back on her feet. Plus the children covered of course, as a separate matter.

If he was unfaithful in this, then his commitment increases accordingly, maybe doubles.

If he sues for divorce, however, on grounds of her infidelity,  it is morally right for the income to now be considered.  If he is earning £50 000 and she is earning £15 000 at that point, then there is clearly a short term discrepancy in her ability to meet bills and ongoing overheads.

In that situation, the reasonable thing regarding her [let’s leave the children out of it for now], is that he covers his part of their current commitments for one year and a reducing amount after that for say three years.

And no alimony to her whatever beyond that.

Let’s say she earns more than him, then she has that diminishing commitment over three years to him, in the same proportion as their respective incomes.   That is – she pays time-capped alimony.

If she sues though on no substantive grounds, e.g. incompatibility, then she gets nothing but their children under 18 do.   Incompatibility is no grounds, given that they were officially compatible when they married.   If he changes over time and is not what she took on at the beginning, and provided she kept records of her concerns about that and how they impacted the family, e.g. his drunkenness, and if it cuts both ways in that her changing and drunkenness is a factor, then whoever sues on that basis is entitled to at least some payback.

As for the feminazi CSA or whatever it calls itself now should be dismantled henceforth, with no further ado.   It has no place in these matters – the family court is the only arbiter and only with equal representation male and female, left and right.


This factor of the changing spouse is quite critical in the process and should not be ignored.   If he gave no promises to change and they marry on that basis, then his failure to change to her satisfaction is no grounds.   If she was on at him before marriage and he agrees to change, and he then doesn’t, then she has grounds.

If his or her increasing “natural attrition”, e.g. age and diminished capacity due to that over some decades is cited, then that is no grounds.   If however, one of them lets himself or herself go, then this was not the reasonable expectation and the other has grounds with a caveat.

Example – wife goes to fat and becomes a slipper slob, which was most certainly what the husband thought he was getting.   Or husband becomes physically abusive and/or goes to drink – then these are grounds with a caveat.

That caveat is that it was deliberately done, i.e. they had second thoughts after marriage and tried to rid themselves of the other by doing this.   Everything has to come into it.    For example, her nagging is a huge factor, not to condone physical violence but in his mindset towards her.    If she has another in the wings, if he has – this counts.

No-fault divorce played right into women’s hands because of alimony provisions and the feminist dominated CSA.   It’s iniquitous.

Fault, relative financial position and who sued are very much factors and should be the criteria.

4 comments for “Lifetime alimony

  1. amfortas
    October 30, 2012 at 13:02

    A few points:

    When one party is the breadwinner, the other is a dependant. Usually the man is the breadwinner, but increasingly not always. The dependant then, whilst earning less or nothing is living well beyond their own means and ‘off’ the other. She (or he) has done little or nothing to deserve future ‘assistance’, whether of one or three years in duration, let alone forever. Indeed, one could argue that they ‘owe’ a debt for past grace and favour to the other and that debt should be repaid, perhaps over the one or three years.

    Now let us look at the Child Maintenance issues

    We moan and criticise with good cause about a range of issues. But rarely are positive solutions proposed.

    I would like to make such a proposal. I have done it before in various responses elsewhere, but here I want to put it as an ‘Opener’ for POSITIVE, constructive discussion.

    The concept of Child Maintenance is operationalised in various western countries, through Government agencies which purport to act as a ‘middle-thing’ between separated or divorced parents.

    In practice it turns into a huge bureaucratic machine driven by an anti-male agenda which takes monies from men and gives it to women. The benefit to the children is not even considered.

    Fathers are ‘blamed’ for desertion even when they are driven away. Real deserters are hidden in a crowd of innocents; selfish, demanding mothers are praised for being stoic self-sacrificers. Men are jailed; women get a taxpayer stipend and a huge range of ‘benefits’.

    The practice replaces the father, stripping him of all responsibility apart from money and often forcing him into penury.

    So, what should the situation be like?

    How can we make a system that is fair to both the mother and the father and to the benefit of the child? How can we ensure that the State or a random bunch of clerks and Department Heads of various hat size do not take over to the detriment of parental rights?

    I propose several quite clear and explicit positions to take that ought to underpin any solution. The fine detail of enforcement or Institutionalised facilitation we can bring into discussion.

    First: it needs to be established that BOTH parents are Totally, Wholly, Individually, Jointly & Severally, Responsible and Accountable for the complete Financial, Mental, Emotional, Physical, Spiritual, Health, Education and Wellbeing of the children they produce together.

    This means that Each is wholly Responsible; neither can prevent the other from the necessary participation and obligation. The failure or impediment of one (death or injury, say) puts the onus on the other. Neither can ‘withdraw’ or force the other away from the child.

    It can be a matter of social ‘organisation’ or ‘law’, to determine the mechanisms of Accountability, but that accountability is to the Child, via a third-Party social instrumentality which is to ‘aid’ the child rather than dispossess the child of its own interests. In event of separation / divorce, BOTH parties MUST draw up a Plan to fulfill their obligations. Both must contribute, particulalry financially, which underpins most other provisions.

    Secondly: it needs to be established that Interference with the obligations and rights of either or both Parents in relation to the Child is to be punishable, ‘by Law’. This includes interference by one parent in the rights and obligations of the other parent.

    Just what might constitute ‘interference’ might be determined in discussion – here?, for instance- but ought not encompass the normal day to day distinctive views of men and women, fathers and mothers in jointly deciding matters.

    It would encompass outside individuals or ‘agencies’ who are currently geared toward busy-body, judgemental and often arbitrary punitive actions. For example there was a case last year of a child taken from her parents because a police ‘raid’ initiated by some animal welfare’ snoopers acting on a complaint against them having a commercial Kennel business, accidently let the dogs out and used that as an excuse for the child being in danger. Such arbitrary action should carry a criminal charge.

    Thirdly: Either or both of the parents may seek aid and assistance in fulfilling their obligations toward the child. This aid should have the agreement and approval of the other parent, where possible. Such ‘aid’ provided by State or non-State agencies must NOT subvert the rights and obligations of the parents. Such aid may be ‘contingent’ on specified factors and may carry contingencies in provision.

    It must be sought. A third party might suggest it. No one can impose it without say, a Court Order. Aid provision may be limited so as not to ‘replace’ the parental obligation. It may carry an obligation to ‘repay’ in part, in some way. It may be ‘time’ limited. It would NOT reduce the obligation on a capable parent.

    Overall, the care and maintenance of the children should be the obligation of both parents, individually, ‘jointly and severally’ (in contract jargon). Indeed all aspects of the child’s welfare should be Totally and Wholly the obligation of both parents, regardless of their current ‘custody’.

    The financial inputs should not be organised on the basis of ‘earnings’ as no-ones earnings are guaranteed. ‘Adequacy’ should be the only measure of what is enough rather than as current which is more along the lines of lifestyle maintenance.

  2. October 30, 2012 at 14:42

    I notice some areas of difference:

    1. I concentrated almost entirely on lifetime alimony, which I’m dead against, to the point I refuse to pay it, even on pain of incarceration. You concentrated almost entirely on child support.

    2. You don’t concede the non”working” partner as contributing whereas I do concede that in traditional families, this one has put in a lot. In other words, I count the housewife as working,

    I’m writing a second post for tomorrow with child support included and the idea of housework as having a monetary value.

    The bottom line is what we wish to see across society. If we wish to see the male breadwinner, the wife working part-time outside and part-time domestically, then we have to provide incentives for that to happen.

    Or rather, we have to remove dissuasion. If I were a woman and a man put it to me to marry him and be a housewife, there are things I need in that:

    1. I need a small stream of independent income, a portion of my part-time remuneration and in terms of any future settlements, my housework counts, albeit in a smaller way than is made out in the courts.

    My alternative is to go my own way and not marry him and I’m in an uncertain job market and facing what millions face.

    2. Whatever property he brings to the marriage is his, whatever I bring is mine if there was ever a split up. In the meantime, we jointly enjoy whatever it is.

    3. Whatever we jointly created from then on, e.g. the refurbishments, the new shed, the patio, are split according to the income formula.

    I can’t see what’s unfair about that.

    Now, as for how much the housework is worth, let’s make it £7 an hour in England [not London]. Let’s call it 30 hours a week but that would have to be established. Labour saving devices, hired help etc. cut into that.

    That’s the income in the domestic area. What I bring in part-time outside, minus expenses might come to £160 a week all up, unless I was a professional working from home.

    OK, come the unfortunate split. My total income is put against his and let’s say it comes to 60% to him, 40% to me. I therefore am entitled to 40% of the estate which we jointly created over and above what we came in with.

    So, let’s say he had a house of £60 000, a car of £20 000 [both in different states of being paid off] and £10 000 in the bank and I had £7 000 and a paying job, plus a wardrobe and jewellery.

    We walk away with that as a minimum. If we were wise and bought a bigger home, that alters the picture because we go into that jointly but again, it depends how much he puts in to the payments and how much I do.

    Seems to me that is not hard to establish and a family court would get agreement there because if they didn’t, one party would never let it rest. So it has to be equitable.

    OK, in the split [two children to feed], my part-time job and artificial domestic worth do not cover the bills. Inevitably it comes down to who gets the home and what proportion of its equity.

    Let’s say I get the home and am looking after the children, [he has full access]. He owns 60% say of the home but I can live in it with the children but not on my own. I can gradually buy him out or if there is a new man, he can buy him out.

    All other property was divided according to the formula above. We have school fees, repayments, many things coming up until I can find an alternative – obviously my lifestyle will suffer and so will his.

    The fault and who sued whom comes into it now. A certain amount is his obligation to pay for some time though.

    At the end of that time frame, his obligations to the children continue but his obligations to me cease.

    The new boyfriend is the problem and I was in this situation [it’s me JH again]. I was the boyfriend and she told me I was officially only a friend. If I’d been officially living with her or her with me, she would have lost her claim on him.

    This is a tricky one I haven’t thought out yet.

  3. Amfortas
    October 31, 2012 at 01:45

    I am sympathetic to most of the points and suggestions you raise, James, especially the issues regarding what is ‘brought to’ the relationship and what is ‘jointly’ developed. I deliberately did not attempt to put a figure on the ‘housewife’ contribution or recompense for ‘work’ in the home, as we are all regularly (annually?) informed by women/feminists telling us just how much that contribution is, which is usually in excess of James Packers net wealth. All would snort at the idea of 160 squids a week and make claims to ‘mediators’ / counsellors / doctors / celebrity chefs / taxi drivers getting that per hour.

    Those same feminists/women are very quick to claim that women are independant, empowered and fully capable of providing for themselves and their lives. So why do they want paying for looking after their own home? Should a single woman, living alone in a flat not be entitled to someone else’s pay packet for sweeping her own floors and putting her own dishes in the dishwasher? It would need the broom for one as well as four people walking on it.

    I made the firm point that such ‘financials’ were not to be established at all, especially in the case of child maintenance for which I put the term ‘adequate’.

  4. Amfortas
    October 31, 2012 at 04:02

    Further consideration of your arguement, James. The ‘form’ of the arguement (in part) suggests that as the housewife was actually working, so after a divorce she should be maintained for some period of time. Were such a concept valid then it would also be the case for a person employed in a business and then laid-off. Shirley?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *