'Radical' proposal would change the way retired pay is divided in divorce cases

[garhkal]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?