To wit: I am the spouse of a military member. Our marriage has not worked out and we will soon be seeking a divorce. I had no job and did not accumulate any personal savings during our marriage, and I now wonder with some concern whether I will leave the marriage with virtually no assets whatsoever.
For the purpose of today's post discussion, we tie that age-focused nomenclature to the baby boomer demographic, most specifically to someone who is on the verge or retirement or already in the post-career, empty-nester phase of life.
An online overview of an important yet seldom addressed family law topic refers to an "ideal world" in which post-divorce friction between ex-spouses is essentially contained, with resulting salutary effects visited on the children created through their marriage.
Although that world does in fact exist for some families, of course, it is far from being the reality for others. It is simply the case in some instances that much of the discord that existed during marriage endures following marital dissolution, with children suffering adverse effects that flow from parental animosities.
That article, from Private Wealth Magazine, states that many such families -- for purposes of this blog, think billionaires and people who are consistently in the public eye -- are often focused on establishing and preserving a family legacy. Private Wealth notes that, "Nothing can derail plans for the future faster or more profoundly" than a marital dissolution.
Many aspects of family law are assuredly quite singular when compared with the issues and concerns that feature in other legal realms.
Take divorce, for example. It's hard to imagine another matter that can so centrally involve myriad considerations ranging from the custody of children and the disposition of property to valuations of family-owned businesses and alimony particulars.
Many people might not realize it, but the way in which courts here in the U.S. currently treat child custody arrangements is the product of a fundamental transformation that occurred roughly 50 years ago.
Specifically, the prevailing view adhered to by the courts during the last century was known as the "tender years" doctrine, which dictated that children -- especially infants and toddlers -- benefited the most by being close to their mothers.
Our immediately preceding blog post noted a media report positing some fundamental shortcomings in the child support paradigm that has been long operative in the United States. As described in our April 21 entry, that opinion piece pointed most centrally to the adverse consequences stemming from the inability of many noncustodial fathers to remain consistently timely with the child support payments that are desperately needed by custodial mothers.
Many American states routinely punish nonperforming fathers by garnishing their pay, revoking various licenses, taking passports and, in some instances, incarcerating them.
Arguably, everyone involved by such a decision is adversely impacted. The father obviously forgoes any opportunity to earn money to provide for his children while locked behind bars. Moreover, the criminal record that attaches to nonpayment of his support duties stigmatizes him in the eyes of many potential employers who might view his job resume in the future.
We broached the topic of so-called "financial infidelity" in our immediately preceding blog post, noting therein that its commission by one spouse during marriage can have a detrimental effect on an innocent partner following divorce (please see our April 15 entry).