If it is such a duh, why are there so many vehement accusations that alimony/spousal support is biased against men?
Because it really hurts. Often, men will go from living in a house to a small apartment because that's all they can afford. They see a significant portion of their paycheck going to the ex and understandably feel screwed. However, what they'll often forget to mention is that the order is temporary due to a step down order/Gavron warning (in California) where that amount is not permanent, but rather will decrease over time. Or part of what they're paying for is for the kids to remain in the family home until a certain age. Then, the home is to be sold and the equity distributed according to an agreed upon formula that results in an even share. Still though, going from living a certain lifestyle and seeing yourself as a homeowner, successful Whatever, etc. is pretty jarring and it takes a while to get over. Some never get over it.
People going through dissolution are highly emotional. You can lay the numbers out for them, tell them why the numbers say what they do, advise them how to behave and how to communicate, etc. and it still won't matter to them. They'll believe they got screwed and that the laws are unfairly biased, blahblahblah.
But California is a community property state, and our laws are pretty tight and well set, which makes a majority of matters relatively predictable. I can almost always know just how a case is going to go and what the general outcome is going to be with just a half hour conversation with a prospective client. It's different in equitable distribution states though. From what I understand, you can get pretty wide swings in outcomes depending on the judge. Some states still have jury trials for family law matters (e.g. Georgia). What a salacious circus those trials must be.
Anyway, I would imagine that people get screwed in equitable distribution states on a much more frequent basis than in community property states.
A couple things in this thread I've noticed and that I'll briefly comment on.
1. You can't just appeal a case if you don't like the outcome. It's expensive, complicated, time consuming, and generally not worth it and generally won't result in the outcome you want. You can try, but an appellate court will tell you to pound sand if your issue isn't worthwhile--and in family law, the vast, overwhelming majority of issues are not going to be viable on appeal.
2. Women are just as evil as men when it comes to this shit. The only serious marital fraud case where the matter was litigated at trial that I've worked on so far involved Wife committing fraud in order to steal the family home from Husband. This one may end up in a personal injury suit involving Wells Fargo, but that's up in the air right now.
3.
EVERYONE LOSES IN DIVORCE. Well, unless you're Jeff Bezos's wife. Outside of rare situations like that, there are few winners in dissolution matters. There are clear cut winners when a spouse is made to pay back child or spousal support, or when a parent wants to move away with the kids and succeeds, or conversely, when the opposing parent prevents the move from happening. But in an initial dissolution, both sides are gonna lose something. Ideally, the losses are equitable.
4. Thinking about a Do It Yourself divorce? Don't, unless you have no kids, few to no assets, and your debt is such that you can handle it on your own if your ex flakes on the agreement.
