Top positive review
Great source for a research project, on how the principles of divorce court operate.
on September 22, 2015
I read this book as research to prove or disprove a theory. A couple of year's ago I read the book the Matrix as it is. In it David E Robinson explained that as in the case of Van Koten v Van Koten a marriage license is a license issued by the state. That in the case of divorce, all the court cares about is that someone will look after the child and the other will pay for the child. That, that's what the parents will do while they are married and while they are divorced, look after and pay for the child. I thought that reading a book written by a divorce judge would be the way to get proven and reliable facts, on this theory.
So here's what I found. In the first chapter the judge explains, how if you can settle without going to court it will save you mud slinging each other, plenty of time, and plenty of money. In the 2nd chapter the judge explains that there are different ways to go about divorce without a court. However, realistically some people will want to go to court, so the judge goes about explaining some guidelines to go by to get the divorce done in your favor. He talks about the courts rules on alimony and child support. That if the earner can give the custodian of the child enough to live on comfortably, as comfortable as when they were together, with the provider earning enough to live on comfortably than the judge will impose that. However, if doing that would leave the payer, with little disposable income, than the judge will reduce the amount the provider will pay. The alimony and child support rules are based on a formula, based on income, and based on different rules that differ from state to state, but that is the general idea.
He also explains, that if you don't go through court, if you settle out of court and just want the judge to give his or her blessing, the big thing the judge will look at is that the person looking after the child has enough to live on, if possible. I found this principle brought up again and again. So what this means is the theory that the court only cares about the custodian having enough to live on is true from a bottom line point of view. That is the main thing that they care about. However in the case of the USA, their are other things that do matter, they want to make sure that if one partner has been horrible to the other, this will affect how much the horrible person has to pay, or collect if they are the custodian. That in the USA either parent can be given custody of the child.
The reason I did this research is as stated in Van Koten v Van Koten; and here in New Zealand the person looking after the child always gets things their way. In NZ law the person looking after the child is the guardian, so the family court takes what they say at pretty much face value. In America the provider and the custodian are both guardians of the child. So I thought I'd go to the source, and read what a judge has to say. So my hypothesis is proven, with the adjustment that the courts will consider other things, but the main thing is the custodian of the child will get support. One caution about this though, is I'm still a bit fuzzy on how child support and alimony relate to each other, and are different to each other. The amount of alimony someone has to pay, is that inclusive of child support, or is that on top of child support. If he had a written a chapter explaining how those interrelate that would be helpful. But that is the only small drawback.