As a divorced man, I have an ongoing burden. It is child support. I, like many of my divorced brothers, am the sole person responsible for my kid’s financial welfare. The law in the state of Israel, much like other nations, puts that burden on me. A burden which the kids’ mother does not share legally.
My story is maybe somewhat different, yet it shares the same dynamic and narrative of others: I married an epiphany stage girl, who sought out a good beta provider (with some alpha qualities). I was blue as a smurf, and have the scars to show it.
That is why I momentarily rejoiced, upon reading the following news (on July):
The [Israeli] Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that divorced mothers of children aged six to 15 will have to share equally the financial burden of child support with the fathers if their salaries are equal or the woman’s is higher and children are in joint custody.
The ruling, issued by an expanded panel of seven justices, was given in response to an appeal by two divorced men whose ex-wives earned higher salaries than they did but who were still required to pay child support even though their children were in joint custody.
This sounds fair enough. Yet as we live in the matrix, I decided to read the verdict for myself. Even though I’m not a lawyer, I decided to share the story, the good, and the bad with ROK readers.
The couple, to which the verdict refers, married in 1999. They divorced in 2014, having 3 kids. They agreed to an actual joint custody (equal number of nights the kids spend at any parents over a time period). The mother also makes up slightly more than the father (he makes ~3500$/month and she makes ~3750$/month). That is close enough to be considered equal income.
In late 2013 (during the divorce procedure), she sued him for child support of 2500$/month. I was actually mortified at that number. Does she even understand the consequences of her asking that? As CH states:
When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.
The family court ruled against her. The female judge stated that the principles of justice and equality requires looking at both parents income and mandating child support based on those. However, since it is not according to previous rulings, the judge decided that it is only for the ages of 6-15.
If a female feels that she is entitled to money, she won’t back off that easy. She appealed to the district court, and at the beginning of 2015 a verdict providing her with 800$/month of child support. That was because that verdict was based on the Israeli and Jewish law, as well as fear that father would use joint custody as an excuse for reduction of child support while not “pulling his weight as a parent”.
It seems that there was a contradiction. On one side is the law, which requires the man, and only the man, pay child support first. On the other side is equality and justice which require that both parent share the burden.
The father appealed to the Supreme Court and was able to hold off the verdict until the new verdict (which is final).
1. The court noticed that there is a gender bias, and this time it’s against men.
That is a good thing as it pushes back on the feminist/SJW narrative that “the oppressor cannot be oppressed”. You want to fight against SJW narrative? Here is a case of applying equalism ideology to its full extent.
2. The court noticed and mentioned that divorced fathers carry a financial burden much greater than divorced mothers.
Next time she tells you that divorced women have it tough, you can say, “Well sweetie, the Supreme Court thinks fathers have it much harder financially. Would you like to switch and carry the financial burden, while the man sits at home and collects child support?”
3. The court quoted the UN “Convention on the Rights of the Child” article 27:
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.
This means that lowering the father’s standard of living is against the UN treaty, that most states are part of. Next time you are in court, try using it (I doubt it, but it’s worth a try).
4. Maybe the most important is the ruling: child support is based on both parents financial ability (ages 6-15).
This means that a frivolous divorcee cannot just claim that the kids need “their high standard of living”. In this case she will need to take ownership of (at least) her part in it. Also, this brings the share custody into the public awareness again.
1. The court adopted the common feminist view of the “wage gap”.
Even though it has proven time and again as false, the Israeli Supreme Court still quotes feminist literature and articles and believes that women earn less and it is because they take care of the household. Even our dear attention-whores from Huffpo know it’s false. But as we all know, If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
2. The court adopts a view that fathers seeking joint custody maybe just trying to lower their child support.
Sometime the SJW feminists are tangled in their own web. On one side they want mothers and fathers to be equal parents. On the other side, if a father tries to be an equal parent (joint custody), then he is automatically a suspect. This is exactly what my colleague Ryan Campbell recently titled his recent article: “Men Will Always Be Seen As Evil By Feminists” .
3. The court says it will not provide a formula for child support. It will be on a case by case basis.
If the law is clear and simple, people know what to do. If it is a “case by case” than it is up to the judge (Israel does not have jury). This makes situations more complicated and creates confusion. It was recently stated that ‘constructive ambiguity’ is good for your game, but it is certainly not good for hedging risks such as marriage.
More than that, article 61 of the verdict mandates family courts to determine a mechanism to handle “other required expenditures” for the kids. It is to be based on one parent who will be compensated by the other or even a joint bank account. This, to me, is somewhat disturbing. Joint bank account is what you had when you were married. It didn’t work than, why should it work now? Also, since women are prone to get into debt, what happens if she uses that account for an “I had to buy it, now you pay it” expenditure?
One good thing about divorce that I noticed is that you can hedge your family expenses. Child support is known, and unless a catastrophe happens (and they usually don’t), you have a good idea how much you will need to cough up every month.
The verdict itself can be found here (it’s in Hebrew). As I state above, there is both good and bad. I believe that the good (this time) outweighs the bad. Please note that is is relevant only to Israel, but the sentiment may spread to other countries.
Sometimes, when one applies justice and equality, it can favor man (at least compared to what we had until now). We will have to see if other developments in this area will take place. The Israeli DoJ has been stalling or trying (depends on which side of the feminist map you sit) not to change the law, even after several appointed committees pointed out some of the current injustices named in the verdict. I’m semi-optimistic, as Israel has a relatively low divorce rate of 30%.