Canadian Professor on Hunger Strike Against 83% Alimony Award

[cardgame]

My name is Santiago Mora and I am a professor at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Today - as a victim of the law - I am forced to start a hunger strike.

I married Claudia Rocha in 1986 in Bogotá, Colombia, and later moved to Canada with three children of ours. In 2008, at my wife’s request, we arranged for a legal separation and a divorce in Colombia. In December 2008, Claudia left the family home in Fredericton for good. She also accepted money representing an equal division of our assets, in conformity with the separation agreement, along with an agreement that frees her from any monetary responsibility with our children; this agreement further stipulates that there would be no demands of alimony between us.

In 2012, Claudia, immediately after having lost her job with the government of the province of New Brunswick, filed a lawsuit against me, ignoring the separation agreement from Colombia, as well as the payments she had already received based on that agreement.

In October 2013, the New Brunswick court ordered that 63% of my salary should be delivered to Claudia Rocha to ensure her maintenance, and another 20% to her attorney. As I can no longer afford to pay mortgage, the alienation of 83% of my salary forces me to put on sale the house where I live with my daughter. It also forces me to live on approximately $800 per month, from which I have to pay $375 for the room of my youngest son, who is attending university out of town.

It is incredible that after working all my life I was without a trial imposed by court a condition under which I cannot pay for my basic needs, let alone hire a lawyer to defend myself.

sauce

Does this seem ridiculous to anybody else?

Spoiler :

By some rough math, it works out that his normal monthly income would be about $4800; if she is receiving 63% of that, that brings her income just over $3,000 per month. Not only is this enough to live off without even having to work, she's actually 'earning' more than he is. In a country that claims gender equality, how is it fair that she receives more money than he does without even working? If women are equal, why can't she find a job or file for unemployment? I'd be more understanding if this was 1950, where a single woman would struggle to find any work that paid enough to be independent, but this is 2013.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Zelig]

How did you manage to find this story?

 

[metatron]

In a country that claims gender equality, how is it fair that she receives more money than he does without even working?

Claims being the operative term.
Gender equality in North America is a joke.

 

[cardgame]

Would you care to elaborate on that?

 

[FriendlyFire]

the divorce was not signed, and she also refused to sign it at the later date

So technically they are still married ?

let alone hire a lawyer to defend myself.

I have a feeling that the previous court agreement was screwed because the wife did not sign the divorce letters and thus is getting this new court order for alimony payments. Should be grounds to appeal to a higher court. Perhaps take out a loan and hire a lawyer.

 

[CavLancer]

I'm glad I'll never have to worry about such an awful situation. I think his answer is good. In the same situation a peaceful protest such as starving myself to death would just speed things up a bit. I mean, if they're going to take my life, I'll go on my own terms. Cudos to this fella, and better luck in the next life.

 

[metatron]

Would you care to elaborate on that?

It goes a bit outside the scope of the thread, doesn't it?
In general Anglosphere "feminists" have this awesome tradition of not getting done what needs doing and opting for doing what they (in their self-inflicted ineffectiveness) can actually do, which typically is of debateable utility.

I have to plead lazyness here since i have not really been all that interested in alimony and would have to do a lot of research merely to comment on one this one anecdote.
Of which i am not entirely convinced anyway - there's probably more to the story (edit: Ah, FF has it), not that that would necessarily make it "right".

Anywho, north American alimony is infected with all sorts of archaic nonsense. In many states in the US it's the notion that ex-spouses should be enabled to continue living in ways they are accustomed to, which is ridiculous on the face of it, marriage being - economically - all about sharing a dividend. Something's got to give when the dividend is lost.
I suppose the most common cause for outrageous alimony awards in Canada would be the notion of "compensatory support". Which is 19th century code for "if she hadn't married this man-pig, she'd be CEO of HP by now".

 

[Yeekim]

Dafuq?

If he is raising their kids, shouldn't he get alimony from her?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Dafuq?
If he is raising their kids, shouldn't he get alimony from her?

In general, if one spouse earns more money than the other spouse, he/she may have to pay spousal support

Officially, alimony is not based on the gender of individuals. Men and women alike have to pay spousal support, although generally more men than women pay spousal support. However, the court will not look at the sex of an individual and base their decision on that factor.

Review orders for alimony are commonly made where one spouse is out of the workforce, but is expected to get back into the work force, particularly after some training or education.

When three children are living with the alimony recipient, the recipient typically receives about 60% of the family’s net disposable income.

I think she might have lied to get so much alimony payment. 63% payment to the mother but the father has to support all 3 children. Unless they had more children which is not mentioned.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think she might have lied to get so much alimony payment. 63% payment to the mother but the father has to support all 3 children. Unless they had more children which is not mentioned.

That may be part of it. The article states that they moved to Canada with "three children of ours." That implies that there may be more than three children, or that one or the other (or both of them) has/have more children.

So... they were married for 22 years, he doesn't say why his wife asked for a divorce, and for some reason he has to pay for his youngest son's university room. I'd be wondering why the kid wouldn't have a student loan for this, but the timing may have been that when he was starting university, his mother hadn't filed for alimony, so the father would be on the hook for the money.

Sounds like she managed to find a lawyer who could spin a good story. If she's not the one supporting the kids (who are not really kids any longer), this is weird. There's not enough information to really go on, to figure out what's reasonable.

I know some courts don't take the man's side of the story very often and there have been other instances of the woman getting outrageous settlements. I can't even go by my own family's case as a reference, since it was my dad who divorced my mother, and they jointly agreed that he would get custody.

 

[cardgame]

I found a perhaps clarifying source, although not exactly great.

http://www.newbrunswickbeacon.ca/35620/i-heard/

I'm pretty sure they were in fact divorced in Colombia; if you got the impression they weren't, it was presumably from the translation. I'm also inferring that they split the assets before the divorce was finalized.

 

[JollyRoger]

Does this seem ridiculous to anybody else?

It seems too ridiculous to believe without seeing the court order.

 

[warpus]

Alimony and child support proceedings are usually stacked in the woman's favour, but it's hard to say what exactly happened here and why. I withhold my judgement until there is more information available.

 

[Kozmos]

It is stuff like this that makes me not wanna marry ever.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's still not going to matter if the woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby.

 

[Kozmos]

Child support is okay, but I ain't splitting my meagre assets in two.

 

[Zelig]

It is stuff like this that makes me not wanna marry ever.

Marry a wealthier woman than you.

 

[warpus]

Genetically engineer your semen to carry the DNA of your worst enemy, and try not to be this guy.

 

[Dachs]

Genetically engineer your semen to carry the DNA of your worst enemy, and try not to be this guy.

You mean, this guy?

 

[CavLancer]

Genetically engineer your semen to carry the DNA of your worst enemy, and try not to be this guy.

I have done my absolute level best to never be taken to the cleaners ever again. In many ways I feel that I have beat the system. No chains for CavLancer!

Those guys deserve the bill for what they haven't sewn for participating in a social system that is set up to make them wage slaves of unscrupulous partners. Particularly if they've done so twice or more. They started out as trusting suckers and they ended up the same, last I heard over half of US marriages end up this way. Now the kids are often not even theirs, perfect. It has been proven that the kids they have been paying for for years were never theirs. Is there in place a system to redress the theft? There is not. Didn't you get the memo? We're here to pay. That's why this guy should give up eating, at this stage its his only way out. Since he hasn't been left enough to look after his kids, or at least the kids he assumes are his, he should get it done with faster rather than slower since that leaves what for himself? Should this guy choose a slow death over a faster one?