PDA

View Full Version : 'Radical' proposal would change the way retired pay is divided in divorce cases



Bos Mutus
08-01-2016, 10:30 PM
Former spouses might get a smaller share of a military member's monthly retirement pay if Congress passes legislation that some are describing as a “radical rewrite” of the law regarding the division of marital assets when military couples divorce.
It would require state courts to award payments to ex-spouses of service members based on the rank and years of service at the time of divorce — not the rank and years of service at the time of retirement, as is currently the case. In some cases, it will mean the spouse will get a smaller share of the service member’s monthly retirement.


read more: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2016/08/01/radical-proposal-would-change-way-retired-pay-divided-divorce-cases/87913902/

Seems like more of a relatively minor tweak than a radical change...but could make a big difference for individual people for sure.


One quote


this proposal would cause great harm to spouses and former spouses going through separation and divorce, people that have sacrificed their careers and their own retirement, with the hope of sharing the military member’s final retired pay — or, upon divorce — of getting a fair share of that actual retired pay, not a benefit frozen in time for years before,” Sullivan said.


...Sullivan needs to remember that the former spouses 'sacrificing of their own careers and own retirement...' is also frozen at the time of divorce...why should they continue to gain benefit from the servicemembers future advancement...or conversely, be harmed by the servicemembers future misconduct?

I've long thought that the fairest way to divide military retirement would be devise some sort of actuarial table that converts rank/years to an approximate cash value and give the spouse half that amount and be done...let the servicemembers future advancement, lack thereof, or demotion, etc. be their's alone.

Rusty Jones
08-01-2016, 10:35 PM
Seems like more of a relatively minor tweak than a radical change...but could make a big difference for individual people for sure.


One quote




...Sullivan needs to remember that the former spouses 'sacrificing of their own careers and own retirement...' is also frozen at the time of divorce...why should they continue to gain benefit from the servicemembers future advancement...or conversely, be harmed by the servicemembers future misconduct?

I've long thought that the fairest way to divide military retirement would be devise some sort of actuarial table that converts rank/years to an approximate cash value and give the spouse half that amount and be done...let the servicemembers future advancement, lack thereof, or demotion, etc. be their's alone.

It could definitely be worse. There's no ten year minimum, or any minimum at all, for federal civilians.

Bos Mutus
08-01-2016, 10:48 PM
It could definitely be worse. There's no ten year minimum, or any minimum at all, for federal civilians.

The so-called 10-year rule is an often misunderstood provision. There is no minimum for the court to divide military retiree pay.

The only thing the 10-year rule does...is if the marriage was more than 10-years, the former spouse can get their own check directly from DFAS rather having to get it from the servicemember.

garhkal
08-02-2016, 04:28 AM
Seems like more of a relatively minor tweak than a radical change...but could make a big difference for individual people for sure.

One quote

people that have sacrificed their careers and their own retirement,


Funny. Quite a lot of those i know the spouse didn't even have a career to sacrifice when they married, let alone 'retirement' the gave up. And often when they are married they do get jobs of their own (except those who become dependapottomouses..)



...Sullivan needs to remember that the former spouses 'sacrificing of their own careers and own retirement...' is also frozen at the time of divorce...why should they continue to gain benefit from the servicemembers future advancement...or conversely, be harmed by the servicemembers future misconduct?

Personally if they are no longer part of the mil service man(woman)'s life, and they go on to re-enlist 2-3 more times before retiring, i don't see why they should even GET any of said service member's pay.. let alone any of his retirement.

Mjölnir
08-02-2016, 10:39 AM
Funny. Quite a lot of those i know the spouse didn't even have a career to sacrifice when they married, let alone 'retirement' the gave up. And often when they are married they do get jobs of their own (except those who become dependapottomouses..)

Keep in mind, a job isn't necessarily a career. It may not be that they had a career, if not there is the difficulty in establishing a career on the civilian side when you are moving every 2-4 years & if they had a career they are now possibly having to leave it to follow their spouse. Yes it is a choice, one done in support of the family which is part of the reason I don't have an issue with the pension being eligible for consideration as community property.

I know a lot of spouses (& former spouses) who work and have to change jobs every time the family PCS's to a new duty station while the military member's career continues on without interruption. If the military member is able to homestead in one area it isn't as much of an impact, but if you can't it can be an issue. I have been really lucky, my wife's employer has transferred her every time we had to relocate so this wasn't an issue for us and we are now homesteaded in this area (likely until I retire), but for many I know this is a persistent problem that impacts the spouse's ability to establish, maintain or improve a career.

Bos Mutus
08-02-2016, 02:48 PM
Funny. Quite a lot of those i know the spouse didn't even have a career to sacrifice when they married, let alone 'retirement' the gave up.

Some do, some don't.


And often when they are married they do get jobs of their own (except those who become dependapottomouses..)

Some do, some don't.


Personally if they are no longer part of the mil service man(woman)'s life, and they go on to re-enlist 2-3 more times before retiring, i don't see why they should even GET any of said service member's pay.. let alone any of his retirement.

I'm not aware that they get any of the pay...except maybe if the court orders alimony or something...the retirement bit is trying to equate it to civilian divorce, sort of. If you are in a civilian job with a 401K and get divorced...the 401K normally gets divided. Pensions also...military members like to pretend they are some kind of special victim because of the USFSPA, but they aren't. They are just like everyone else, pretty much. You get married, you enter into a joint financial agreement...

That said, this adjustment makes sense to me...in the sense that it seems fair, but it might be a bit of federal overreach. Divorces are state court business and should probably be left there.

Of course, state legislators/courts are already free to do this if they choose...not sure why this guy is saying he was unable to do it as a state legislator due to conflicts with federal law...the federal law just allows states to deal with the federal pension how they want..it doesn't tell them how they should do it.

Rainmaker
08-02-2016, 02:49 PM
Keep in mind, a job isn't necessarily a career. It may not be that they had a career, if not there is the difficulty in establishing a career on the civilian side when you are moving every 2-4 years & if they had a career they are now possibly having to leave it to follow their spouse. Yes it is a choice, one done in support of the family which is part of the reason I don't have an issue with the pension being eligible for consideration as community property.

I know a lot of spouses (& former spouses) who work and have to change jobs every time the family PCS's to a new duty station while the military member's career continues on without interruption. If the military member is able to homestead in one area it isn't as much of an impact, but if you can't it can be an issue. I have been really lucky, my wife's employer has transferred her every time we had to relocate so this wasn't an issue for us and we are now homesteaded in this area (likely until I retire), but for many I know this is a persistent problem that impacts the spouse's ability to establish, maintain or improve a career.


USFSPA was originally pitched as a way to prevent these General Officer scumbags from dumping their old hag wives for younger trophies and leaving them destitute, after a lifetime of service. It's a noble sounding idea and There'd probably be no problem with this law, if not for the fact that all 50 states now have 'NO FAULT DIVORCE' laws (which prevent people from being held accountable for their actions).

USFSPA needs more than just a radical change. It should be repealed immediately. It's sponsor was the radical feminist CONgresswoman Pat Schroeder (that hated both men and the male dominated Military).

In Rainmaker's experience, More often than not, USFSPA just allows Psycho bitch ex-wives to fuck over the G.I's for the rest of their lives.

garhkal
08-02-2016, 06:26 PM
Keep in mind, a job isn't necessarily a career. It may not be that they had a career, if not there is the difficulty in establishing a career on the civilian side when you are moving every 2-4 years & if they had a career they are now possibly having to leave it to follow their spouse. Yes it is a choice, one done in support of the family which is part of the reason I don't have an issue with the pension being eligible for consideration as community property.


Point taken, a job is not necessarily a career, but they still work..



I'm not aware that they get any of the pay...except maybe if the court orders alimony or something...the retirement bit is trying to equate it to civilian divorce, sort of. If you are in a civilian job with a 401K and get divorced...the 401K normally gets divided. Pensions also...military members like to pretend they are some kind of special victim because of the USFSPA, but they aren't. They are just like everyone else, pretty much. You get married, you enter into a joint financial agreement...

But where a lot of people see the difference between the civilians 401K and the military members retirement, is that Said mil member can technically be recalled. Whether to active service as needed by the CIC, or cause of gross violations of the UCMJ, so he can face courts martial (i have seen it happen twice)..

Bos Mutus
08-02-2016, 06:48 PM
Point taken, a job is not necessarily a career, but they still work..

But where a lot of people see the difference between the civilians 401K and the military members retirement, is that Said mil member can technically be recalled. Whether to active service as needed by the CIC, or cause of gross violations of the UCMJ, so he can face courts martial (i have seen it happen twice)..

Yes...I would assume that once recalled, they go back on active duty pay.

..there are differences between 401K and IRAs, differences between 401Ks and defined pension plans...differences between the State of Texas retirement plans for state workers and Federal govt. FERS....differences between military retirement plans and astronaut application forms.

No two things are alike...and basically everyone wants to show how "the difference between my plan and other plans means the rules should be different on mine to benefit me more."

Bottom line principle is that when you get married, you agree to share EVERYTHING. If you don't like that deal, you're just not ready for marriage.

Meh...

Rainmaker
08-02-2016, 07:19 PM
Another key difference is that a 401K has a known present value, at the time of the divorce. A lot of times what happens is that court requires the man to cash out his 401K and pay the entitled cheating bitch a % (of what's left after taxes/ penalties and fees). The state sponsored prostitute doesn't get to stake claim to his future contributions and continue financially raping his earnings for the rest of his life.

It's also important to note that the concept of "No fault Divorce" first originated in Bolshevik Russia, In order to destroy the traditional family structure and allow the Communist State to Manage the population.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

"The earliest precedent[citation needed] in no-fault divorce laws was originally enacted in Russia shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. The 1918 Decree on Divorce allowed divorce "by mutual consent declared at the Registry Office, or upon the application of one spouse to the court."[3] The purpose of the Soviet no-fault divorce laws was ideological, intended to revolutionize society at every level.[3][4]"

Hello McFly? Are we seeing the trend here yet? It's always The Same.... Fucking..... Agenda....... Every.....Fucking..... Time.....

Bos Mutus
08-02-2016, 07:34 PM
Another key difference is that a 401K has a known present value, at the time of the divorce.

Yes...which is why I think an actuarial table could be made to find an equivalent value of a typical military retirement for X grade, X years of service, etc. Wouldn't be perfect, but it would be pretty fair, I think...and would get it over and done with.


A lot of times what happens is that court requires the man to cash out his 401K and pay the entitled cheating bitch a % (of what's left after taxes/ penalties and fees). The state sponsored prostitute doesn't get to stake claim to his future contributions and continue financially raping his earnings for the rest of his life.

It's also important to note that the concept of "No fault Divorce" first originated in Bolshevik Russia, In order to destroy the traditional family structure and allow the Communist State to Manage the population.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

"The earliest precedent[citation needed] in no-fault divorce laws was originally enacted in Russia shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. The 1918 Decree on Divorce allowed divorce "by mutual consent declared at the Registry Office, or upon the application of one spouse to the court."[3] The purpose of the Soviet no-fault divorce laws was ideological, intended to revolutionize society at every level.[3][4]"

Hello McFly? Are we seeing the trend here yet? It's always The Same.... Fucking..... Agenda....... Every.....Fucking..... Time.....



United States[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-fault_divorce&action=edit&section=14)]

See also: Divorce in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States)
California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) was the first U.S. state to pass a no-fault divorce law. Its law was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) and came into effect on January 1, 1970.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce#cite_note-Jaworski-18) New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York) was the last state to pass a no-fault divorce law; that law was passed in 2010.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce#cite_note-blogs.consumerreports.org-19)[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce#cite_note-Bird-20)
Before no-fault divorce was available, it was common for spouses seeking divorce to allege false grounds for divorce. Removing the incentive to perjury was one motivation for the no-fault movement.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce#cite_note-Jaworski-18)

Mjölnir
08-02-2016, 08:23 PM
Of course, state legislators/courts are already free to do this if they choose...not sure why this guy is saying he was unable to do it as a state legislator due to conflicts with federal law...the federal law just allows states to deal with the federal pension how they want..it doesn't tell them how they should do it.

That was my understanding as well ... USFSPA simply told the states they were allowed to look at the federal pension as community property ... if and how they did it was really in their court (court ... get it?).


USFSPA was originally pitched as a way to prevent these General Officer scumbags from dumping their old hag wives for younger trophies and leaving them destitute, after a lifetime of service. It's a noble sounding idea and There'd probably be no problem with this law, if not for the fact that all 50 states now have 'NO FAULT DIVORCE' laws (which prevent people from being held accountable for their actions).

USFSPA needs more than just a radical change. It should be repealed immediately. It's sponsor was the radical feminist CONgresswoman Pat Schroeder (that hated both men and the male dominated Military).

In Rainmaker's experience, More often than not, USFSPA just allows Psycho bitch ex-wives to fuck over the G.I's for the rest of their lives.

I don't know if it was designed to target FOGO's or not. I don't agree with repealing it ... it just tells states they can consider retired pay as community property.

Mjölnir
08-02-2016, 08:25 PM
Of course, state legislators/courts are already free to do this if they choose...not sure why this guy is saying he was unable to do it as a state legislator due to conflicts with federal law...the federal law just allows states to deal with the federal pension how they want..it doesn't tell them how they should do it.

That was my understanding as well ... USFSPA simply told the states they were allowed to look at the federal pension as community property ... if and how they did it was really in their court (court ... get it?).


USFSPA was originally pitched as a way to prevent these General Officer scumbags from dumping their old hag wives for younger trophies and leaving them destitute, after a lifetime of service. It's a noble sounding idea and There'd probably be no problem with this law, if not for the fact that all 50 states now have 'NO FAULT DIVORCE' laws (which prevent people from being held accountable for their actions).

USFSPA needs more than just a radical change. It should be repealed immediately. It's sponsor was the radical feminist CONgresswoman Pat Schroeder (that hated both men and the male dominated Military).

In Rainmaker's experience, More often than not, USFSPA just allows Psycho bitch ex-wives to fuck over the G.I's for the rest of their lives.

I don't know if it was designed to target FOGO's or not. I don't agree with repealing it ... it just tells states they can consider retired pay as community property.

Rainmaker
08-02-2016, 08:32 PM
See also: Divorce in the United States
California was the first U.S. state to pass a no-fault divorce law. Its law was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan and came into effect on January 1, 1970.[18] New York was the last state to pass a no-fault divorce law; that law was passed in 2010.[19][20]
Before no-fault divorce was available, it was common for spouses seeking divorce to allege false grounds for divorce. Removing the incentive to perjury was one motivation for the no-fault movement.[18]


Welcome back. Rainmaker hopes you have enjoyed your holiday. So Anyway, does that response mean that you think 'no-fault divorce' laws are a good thing for a society?

Or is it simply that, you'd prefer to deflect attention away from Its Marxist, Judeo-Bolshevik origins and their stated purpose in the commie revolution, by pointing it out that 'Saint Reagan' was the first Governor of a state to sign it into law? Which BTW, he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life ( & there were quite a few) .

http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce

Mjölnir
08-02-2016, 08:35 PM
Point taken, a job is not necessarily a career, but they still work...

They do. I have seen spouses with college degrees and certified as teachers who worked at the PX because they were still in the process of getting certified in the new state they lived in, have seen a lawyer who was in the process of passing the bar in the new state who worked as a secretary ... not unemployed ... but definitely under-employed ... far from helpful for a career or personal edification.

Bos Mutus
08-02-2016, 08:43 PM
Welcome back. Rainmaker hopes you have enjoyed your holiday. So Anyway, does that response mean that you think 'no-fault divorce' laws are a good thing for a society?

No, it doesn't mean that...

Rainmaker
08-02-2016, 09:05 PM
No, it doesn't mean that...

Rainmaker figured it had to be one or the other!

Rainmaker
08-02-2016, 09:06 PM
That was my understanding as well ... USFSPA simply told the states they were allowed to look at the federal pension as community property ... if and how they did it was really in their court (court ... get it?).



I don't know if it was designed to target FOGO's or not. I don't agree with repealing it ... it just tells states they can consider retired pay as community property.

The biggest problem is that courts don't take fault into account. Since the advent of no-fault divorce laws, 70% of divorces are initiated by women (a significant % are for no reason or no fault of the husband). Why should the military member be forced into supporting some non-hacker, dead-beat spouse for the rest of their life?

In 24+ years Rainmaker saw this bullshit happen more times than he could count (and to women too). And (unlike alimony) the transfer payments never stop, Even when the initiating party remarries.

It's a Morale killer and Huge Readiness issue and if we had any real Generals, that were worth a shit, they'd spend some time speaking out about this injustice, instead of playing email footsie & getting themselves honey- trapped by their Mossad double agent, girlfriends back in Tampa.

Bos Mutus
08-02-2016, 10:17 PM
Rainmaker figured it had to be one or the other!

Rainmaker figures lots of stuff that's bullshit...why change now.


The biggest problem is that courts don't take fault into account. Since the advent of no-fault divorce laws, 70% of divorces are initiated by women (a significant % are for no reason or no fault of the husband). Why should the military member be forced into supporting some non-hacker, dead-beat spouse for the rest of their life?

In 24+ years Rainmaker saw this bullshit happen more times than he could count (and to women too). And (unlike alimony) the transfer payments never stop, Even when the initiating party remarries.

It's a Morale killer and Huge Readiness issue and if we had any real Generals, that were worth a shit, they'd spend some time speaking out about this injustice, instead of playing email footsie & getting themselves honey- trapped by their Mossad double agent, girlfriends back in Tampa.

Dividing military retirement is not about "supporting her for life", but rather splitting the portion of retirement earned during the marriage.. just so happens military retirement is a benefit that pays for life...and again, it's the states and courts that do it, not the USFSPA.

Your argument is with the state of divorce, not with the USFSPA...really kind of beyond the scope of Generals, though the experience of servicemembers could certainly be used to illustrate the point.

Mjölnir
08-03-2016, 12:15 AM
The biggest problem is that courts don't take fault into account. Since the advent of no-fault divorce laws, 70% of divorces are initiated by women (a significant % are for no reason or no fault of the husband).

I will agree, fault should play a part in the division of marital property. I have not really thought about it, but not sure at what point / level of fault that someone should surrender 100% of marital property to the other ... even in the case of adultery etc. especially when the one at fault was still contributing (monetary or otherwise).


Why should the military member be forced into supporting some non-hacker, dead-beat spouse for the rest of their life?

Assuming that the former spouse was 100% deadbeat ... that may be a reason for the court to consider not awarding them a portion of the retirement. However, a spouse who was a stay-at-home care giver to the family's kids for 5 or 10 years, doing the laundry, cooking, cleaning etc. is far from a dead beat; neither is the spouse who took a job / any job to help financially support the family and the service member's career. I have seen a few truly 'dead beat' spouses / former spouses ... they aren't really the majority (IMO).


In 24+ years Rainmaker saw this bullshit happen more times than he could count (and to women too). And (unlike alimony) the transfer payments never stop, Even when the initiating party remarries.

Probably you see so many more military men than women impacted because the military is overwhelmingly male, especially once you go past first term personnel. The sample size is pretty skewed in favor of males, especially for those who go all the way to retirement.

The transfer payments don't stop since the pension doesn't stop. It is community property, that the former spouse is entitled to a portion of.


It's a Morale killer and Huge Readiness issue and if we had any real Generals, that were worth a shit, they'd spend some time speaking out about this injustice, instead of playing email footsie & getting themselves honey- trapped by their Mossad double agent, girlfriends back in Tampa.

Morale killer, yes. Readiness issue, not sure. I am sure there are those who will decide to separate vice ANYTHING going to the former spouse ... not sure if those numbers are sufficient to call it a real readiness issue or not.

garhkal
08-03-2016, 04:47 AM
United States[edit]

See also: Divorce in the United States
California was the first U.S. state to pass a no-fault divorce law. Its law was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan and came into effect on January 1, 1970.[18] New York was the last state to pass a no-fault divorce law; that law was passed in 2010.[19][20]
Before no-fault divorce was available, it was common for spouses seeking divorce to allege false grounds for divorce. Removing the incentive to perjury was one motivation for the no-fault movement.[18]


What the F.. So they passed a law for no fault divorces cause they KNEW people were perjuring themselves, and wanted to make it so they had no incentive to do so??
Why not just PUNISH the ones perjurying?


Rainmaker figures lots of stuff that's bullshit...why change now.



Dividing military retirement is not about "supporting her for life", but rather splitting the portion of retirement earned during the marriage.. just so happens military retirement is a benefit that pays for life...and again, it's the states and courts that do it, not the USFSPA.


But how is she 'earning part of that retirement' especially if they divorced BEFORE the retirement comes into play (say at year 14 of a members service stint), or came into it way into his time in (say at year 12)?


Assuming that the former spouse was 100% deadbeat ... that may be a reason for the court to consider not awarding them a portion of the retirement. However, a spouse who was a stay-at-home care giver to the family's kids for 5 or 10 years, doing the laundry, cooking, cleaning etc. is far from a dead beat;

BUT how is working for 5-10 years, when the mil member had to work for 20 years, sometimes doing some really shitty service spots, 'her earning' part of his or her retirement??
THAT'S what i have never understood about this whole BS.
Especially when a GOOD chunk of the divorces i have seen in the mil, was cause wifey said to hubby (and very rarely hubby to wife) "IF YOU re-up for another 4 year stint i am divorcing your ass, taking the kids and you won't see them again." How is THAT showing she *or he* supported the service person?


Morale killer, yes. Readiness issue, not sure. I am sure there are those who will decide to separate vice ANYTHING going to the former spouse ... not sure if those numbers are sufficient to call it a real readiness issue or not.

I certainly would call that a readiness issue, someone rather getting OUT, than stay in so he/she hits retirement after another 5-8 years, and then having to pay the leech 50% or so of the earned retirement.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 05:16 AM
But how is she 'earning part of that retirement' especially if they divorced BEFORE the retirement comes into play (say at year 14 of a members service stint), or came into it way into his time in (say at year 12)?


They are married...it's comes with the territory. When you choose to marry another person...you enter into a joint situation where all that is earned by one is earned by both.

Next time your wife spends some of YOUR paycheck, ask her how exactly she earned that money?

Same deal.

IN the situation of married at 12 and divorced at 14...she will probably only get half of 2 years worth...or about 5% of a 20 year retirement, if anything at all. Yes there are stories where the servicemember got screwed, also stories where the former spouse got screwed. Neither are unique to the military.


BUT how is working for 5-10 years, when the mil member had to work for 20 years, sometimes doing some really shitty service spots, 'her earning' part of his or her retirement??
THAT'S what i have never understood about this whole BS.
Especially when a GOOD chunk of the divorces i have seen in the mil, was cause wifey said to hubby (and very rarely hubby to wife) "IF YOU re-up for another 4 year stint i am divorcing your ass, taking the kids and you won't see them again." How is THAT showing she *or he* supported the service person?

Joint, community property...if you're not willing to bring her into what you earn, don't get married...or get a pre-nup that states otherwise...even that may not hold up though...so perpetual long-term dating might be more for you.




I certainly would call that a readiness issue, someone rather getting OUT, than stay in so he/she hits retirement after another 5-8 years, and then having to pay the leech 50% or so of the earned retirement.[/QUOTE]

Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 05:20 AM
I will agree, fault should play a part in the division of marital property. I have not really thought about it, but not sure at what point / level of fault that someone should surrender 100% of marital property to the other ... even in the case of adultery etc. especially when the one at fault was still contributing (monetary or otherwise).


What if the servicmember is 100% at fault? Should the former spouse be able to get all the retirement?

I've seen many more cheating male servicemembers than I have spouses...what goes TDY stays TDY?

Mjölnir
08-03-2016, 10:32 AM
What the F.. So they passed a law for no fault divorces cause they KNEW people were perjuring themselves, and wanted to make it so they had no incentive to do so??
Why not just PUNISH the ones perjurying?

Not exactly. Prior to no fault divorce, requests to dissolve a marriage were not always granted. In particularly non-secular societies divorce wasn't allowed ... period. The burden of proof on why the divorce should be granted was pretty high. No fault divorce basically allowed divorce for 'irreconcilable differences' where before just not able to get along any longer wasn't grounds to divorce, so yes ... some people (mostly women) would exaggerate the bad situation to be allowed a divorce. Think about a period where outside of a very small population of very rich people who would essentially live separate lives with the (usually) wife taken care of by her rich husband. For the majority the husband just left, and in this time period most women had no appreciable skills or ability to work ... it was largely a deck stacked against females.

Granted, no fault divorce can be attributed to the rise in divorce rates because rather than couples working through tough times, the easy answer is to just get divorced. Whether or not one spouse or the other violates the accepted terms of a marriage (adultery, abuse, neglect etc.) is not relevant to seeking dissolution.


But how is she 'earning part of that retirement' especially if they divorced BEFORE the retirement comes into play (say at year 14 of a members service stint), or came into it way into his time in (say at year 12)?

It is generally interpreted that the former spouse is entitled to a portion of the retirement pension based on the length of time they were married during the military member's service, because it is considered community property (same as a 401K or IRA could be considered community property). Basically, 20 years minimum to qualify for retirement at 50% of base pay. Based on how long the couple was married the former spouse qualifies for a portion of the pension for that period.


BUT how is working for 5-10 years, when the mil member had to work for 20 years, sometimes doing some really shitty service spots, 'her earning' part of his or her retirement??
THAT'S what i have never understood about this whole BS.

Community property. Also, it sounds like you are underscoring the non-military spouse's contributions to the home, family. Not saying that the non-military spouse is always the aggrieved party ... but I don't think most are just sitting around on their ass.


Especially when a GOOD chunk of the divorces i have seen in the mil, was cause wifey said to hubby (and very rarely hubby to wife) "IF YOU re-up for another 4 year stint i am divorcing your ass, taking the kids and you won't see them again." How is THAT showing she *or he* supported the service person?

It probably depends on what happened up to that point ... not just at the breaking point. It is all about work-life balance ... which unfortunately many people don't understand.

Now to play Devil's advocate: if the spouse did say "it is the military or me" I would take that as asking "what is more important, career or marriage?". If the service member chooses career, how is that supporting or standing by their marriage vows? Obviously it takes two to tango, but I think if people in general took marriage (the commitment required and the consequences of it going foul) you would see fewer military marriages by junior / young people that likely aren't really ready to be married.



I certainly would call that a readiness issue, someone rather getting OUT, than stay in so he/she hits retirement after another 5-8 years, and then having to pay the leech 50% or so of the earned retirement.

I would agree if it happened in large numbers. I don't really think that happens in significant enough numbers to measurably impact readiness.

Mjölnir
08-03-2016, 10:42 AM
What if the servicmember is 100% at fault? Should the former spouse be able to get all the retirement?

Not sure. IMO probably not except in very rare and extremely eggregious circumstances.


I've seen many more cheating male servicemembers than I have spouses...what goes TDY stays TDY?

Same here. I think the perception that the military member is always screwed over by a conniving spouse / former spouse is grossly over inflated. There are two sides to every story, and the truth likely somewhere in the middle; and if only looking at the moment that one person or the the other has finally had enough it would be easy to interpret that someone is off their rocker ... it is almost always the road that got there that tells the better / more accurate story.

garhkal
08-04-2016, 01:29 AM
What if the servicmember is 100% at fault? Should the former spouse be able to get all the retirement?

I've seen many more cheating male servicemembers than I have spouses...what goes TDY stays TDY?

True, i have hear of quite a few married servicemen getting it on when TDY or on deployment, however i hear a LOT more stories about spouses trolling the local bars (especially in norfolk and little creek).


so yes ... some people (mostly women) would exaggerate the bad situation to be allowed a divorce.


And why weren't they being punished for known perjury?


It is generally interpreted that the former spouse is entitled to a portion of the retirement pension based on the length of time they were married during the military member's service, because it is considered community property (same as a 401K or IRA could be considered community property). Basically, 20 years minimum to qualify for retirement at 50% of base pay. Based on how long the couple was married the former spouse qualifies for a portion of the pension for that period.


Which is imo wrong. A mil retirement i NOTHING like a 401k or IRA.. I've yet to meet a civvy who ges an IRA, who still had to adhere to the 'law of the company' once they are out unlike military who technically still are held to the UCMJ..
Nor someone being reactivated into the company..


Community property. Also, it sounds like you are underscoring the non-military spouse's contributions to the home, family. Not saying that the non-military spouse is always the aggrieved party ... but I don't think most are just sitting around on their ass.


I am certainly not trying to diminish what they do, but i don't see "Suzie q home maker's effort at home (even with the kids if there are any)" a being equal to the serviceman's service, and potential life ending situations many of us military have to go into..


Now to play Devil's advocate: if the spouse did say "it is the military or me" I would take that as asking "what is more important, career or marriage?". If the service member chooses career, how is that supporting or standing by their marriage vows? Obviously it takes two to tango, but I think if people in general took marriage (the commitment required and the consequences of it going foul) you would see fewer military marriages by junior / young people that likely aren't really ready to be married.


Then why is it mostly mil wives we hear those sorts of 'comment's coming from. Heck i have never heard of a story of a mil hubby saying it to his serving wife..
Its the same as i have heard in regards to friends who gamed a lot, got hitched then were forced into giving up damn near all their gaming stuff cause wifey said 'its them or me'. Even though wifey knew THAT' what the guy was like before hand..


I would agree if it happened in large numbers. I don't really think that happens in significant enough numbers to measurably impact readiness.


Heck, is it even tracked, to see if there's a measurable # of them happening?