What a surprise that a sexist feminist like you would agree with a court forcing a man to support his ex-girlfriend even after they break up.
But he introduced her as his wife, according to the OP. He wanted to marry her. They simply did not agree on terms.
If the circumstances were reversed and she was the one earning the money and he was the one managing their homes, children (each had children of their own), lives, etc. and gave up his career to serve her needs, I would think that she should pay him alimony.
Bullshit. They did not even live together.
That's not necessary for a couple to be married. As I mentioned in the post you are responding to, my former next door neighbor and her second husband never lived together. It was a second marriage for both. They each maintained their own separate residences. I know other couples who have similar relationships, where one owns say, a condo or something similar and spends months there at a time, leaving the other to manage the other home and join them if they choose.
And besides, even if they were married, a woman should have to get her own job and support herself after a break-up. A man should not have to support a woman just because he is a man.
I most certainly agree that women are wise to maintain their own careers regardless of their marital status. I know too many women whose ex hubands walk out on them and their children, neglecting to even paying court ordered child support or to spend time with the children during the agreed upon visitations. In the cases I'm thinking off the top of my head, there was no doubt as to paternity of the children. The husbands simply wanted out so that they could pursue new relationships (as it happens, those relationships also did not work out) and didn't want to be bothered with child support or spending time with their children. It's so awful and was so damaging that it's hard to imagine but unfortunately, it's true. One of the husbands did start to spend some time with his child at his new girlfriend's insistence. It was a horrible situation and unfortunately, it was the kid who got hurt the most. In those cases, fortunately, the women maintained their careers so they were able to pay bills and raise their children, burdened only by the damage done by dead beat, negligent fathers. I know too many other women who were abandoned by husbands or boyfriends, left to care for and provide for children on their own.
I also know the stresses and strains of maintaining a two career marriage with kids. It is almost always the case that one person cuts back on their career aspirations--and thus, their earnings and earning potential.
However, they WERE NOT EVEN MARRIED. They merely dated.
Under Canadian law, the court determined they were common law spouses.
It is also apparent that he was very conscious of laws governing marital assets (he kept presenting her with drafts of a pre-nup, which she refused to sign.). It seems impossible to believe that he was unaware that under Canadian law, they would be considered in a common law marriage. In other words, it seems as though he knew what he was getting into--and wanted even more of a commitment while maintaining all the financial freedoms HE decided he wanted. In other words, he wanted control. She demurred. Good for her.
It's NOT GOOD FOR HER.
It's his money. He should be able to have control over it. It is obvious that he did not want their finances to be combined and for the court to rule that he has to support her after breakup is ridiculous.
I don't see how you can say that he didn't want their finances combined. She quit her job. He gave her thousands of dollars a month, supporting her and her children 'lavishly,' I believe the court found. He paid off her mortgage, took her and children on vacations with him, introduced her using his last name. It seems very much as though they combined their financial assets and as though they presented themselves as a married couple.
We don't know why she quit her job or what kind of job she held previously. It could easily be the fact that she left her job at his request or insistence: he wanted her available when he wanted her available and work tends to interfere with that.
"It could easily be" is not something a court should base a decision to rob a man of his hard-earned money and hand it to a woman so she can continue not to work even after their relationship ended.
We have no idea how 'hard' he had to work to earn his money. The court obviously had at hand many more facts about finances of both parties before and during the relationship than were contained within the article. It is likely that she was not only a companion who acted as a spouse in the relationship but also enhanced his earnings. That often happens. And the court found it to be the case that she acted as his spouse.
It'a a bullshit decision based on a law that violates every principle of justice or gender equality. But you applaud it because it benefits women and gives them an unearned benefit and a legal privilege over the men they exploit.
I don't know that it is a bullshit decision. We don't have enough information about the particulars and I'm not familiar with Canadian case law. As I've stated before, I think that it is a gender neutral issue. If a man gives up his career to support his partner and the relationship fails, his non-monetary contributions and the status of the relationship should be considered in the division of any assets or in terms of monthly support.
We don't know how much care she provided to his three children or to what extent she behaved as his wife and presumably step mother to his children, and mother to her own. We don't know to what extent he acted as a father to her children or his own.
You don't know a lot and yet you still support the decison?
The COURT surely did know all of that information, even if it was not included in the article in the OP.
And even if she took care of his kids while they were dating - she enjoyed financial advantages WHILE THEY WERE DATING.
1. The court determined that they were not 'dating' but were in a common law marriage.
After the break-up she is not doing anything for him. So why should he be forced to continue to support her? It's very one sided - he is forced to support her, but she is not being forced to do anything for him. And that's just how you want it. Feminists want women to get continued advantages over men.
You have no idea what she is or is not doing for him after the relationship has ended. This issue is actually a gender neutral issue. Any partner who gives up their career to further the interests of the relationship, family and career of the other party should have that sacrifice recognized in any financial settlement after the break up.
I realize that this is a foreign concept to you as all of your relationships with women involve an exchange of money.
But after nearly 20 years out of the job market at about 58 years of age, it is unlikely that she would be able to find a decent job to support herself.
She can get some job. Instead of living in luxury doing nothing just because she used to date a man that the sexist, corrupt courts decided has to be a serf to a woman just because they used to date.
Again, they did not just date. He presented her as his wife, provided her with income and other assets. This was a relationship, not a job.
The bigger question to me is whether anyone should have a monthly income of $50K, even if it is only $50K Canadian. I find it impossible to feel sorry for him or to feel that an injustice was done with regards to the financials just as I find it impossible to feel sorry for Bezos or the financial settlement upon his ex.
Of course a grave injustice was done. Whatever his income is, he is working for it. She is getting $50k/month JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS BORN WITH A VAGINA and a sexist decided that a man should be forced to provide her with a luxurious income for doing nothiing.
You have no idea what she did or did not contribute to the relationship or what she did or did not do to enhance his career. You hate women and hate the notion of them ever having any rights whatsoeve.
Edited to add: My former next door neighbor and her husband (2nd marriages for each) maintained separate residences throughout their marriage. I know of other married couples that do as well. That is no indication that it wasn't a 'real' marriage.
These two people never got married. And even if they were married, alimony is unjust even in those cases. To pretend two unmarried people who are dating should be treated as married people for the purposes of alimony is an even graver injustice, but alimony in itself is robbery.
Alimony is not robbery. In fact, alimony is quite rare. In my own family, my father divorced my mother after 25 years of marriage, 4 children, after she became too disabled to work. During the bulk of their marriage, she did not hold a job outside of the home AT MY FATHER'S INSISTENCE. He bitterly resented the fact that he had to pay her a dime after he decided to divorce her. But what were her options? She was unable to get or hold a job. The state has an interest in ensuring that citizens do not end up on welfare and disability if they can. But hell, what he was forced to pay was insufficient to pay the bills on the extremely modest family home. If my sibling had not decided to move in to help both parents out, I have no idea what would have become of my mother. So please, don't give me all that bullshit about how women steal from men.
I hate to say it, but this poor guy could have saved himself a lot of humiliation and money just by hiring a good hitman. And given how much money this vile, lazy piece of shit feminazi is robbing from him, use of lethal force to prevent it would be justified. Bring on the jury nullification!
No one believes you hate to say that and no one is surprised that you think hiring someone to kill her would be a good solution to 'his problem.'
The case went to appeals which reduced the alimony to 10 years.
She's hardly a feminist. Very few feminists, if any, would have given up their careers or expected alimony.
Following your logic, she should have married him, hired a hit man and taken the whole enchilada.
, just to laugh at how riled up they get!!!
