Posted on Sep 30, 2015
Do you think it is fair that a woman be required to pay half of her military retirement to an ex-husband convicted of child molestation?
15.8K
128
71
1
1
0
I wasn't aware this was an "Arizona" law, and I got my divorce here... I thought it was part of Federal Law? In fact, I've seen some (here) keep most/all of their retirement thanks to good lawyers and what the spouse is willing to "settle for". My lawyer wanted to do the same for me, but I opted out as I felt she was entitled, but I did have a choice/option and I think, in this veterans rush to get the divorce, she may have screwed herself, so I'm a bit confused by this Can anyone out there shed a little light on this subject?
The fact that he is a child molester and has been sentenced to life in prison, should this have bearing as to whether he is entitled to receive the spouse's retirement? Please share your justification/rationale! :)
The fact that he is a child molester and has been sentenced to life in prison, should this have bearing as to whether he is entitled to receive the spouse's retirement? Please share your justification/rationale! :)
Posted in these groups: 
Divorce
Divorce
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 30
12
12
0
MSgt Curtis Ellis - While, as the article points out, she may be required to pay because of the state's community property law, absent that, she would also be required to pay under The Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act, which is a Federal law, unless that law has provisions for incarcerated persons.
I do not think it fair and think that, with a good lawyer, she could possibly get some relief. Of course, the best thing would be for the incarcerated husband to waive his right to the money or establish a trust account for the kids, where all the money is deposited.
I do not think it fair and think that, with a good lawyer, she could possibly get some relief. Of course, the best thing would be for the incarcerated husband to waive his right to the money or establish a trust account for the kids, where all the money is deposited.
(12)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
COL Jean (John) F. B., it appears that USFSPA only requires dispensation of pension funds to former spouses pursuant to a court order under state law. http://www.dfas.mil/dfas/garnishment/usfspa/legal.html
(4)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
LTC (Join to see) Definitely good info to know, Sir, and thanks for sharing the link!
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
LTC (Join to see) - Thanks good info. Was not aware of that (although I hope never to be in a situation where I need the info)... :-)
When I was still on active duty, a co-worker and I were at lunch one day when a very nice looking young lady sat down at the table next to us. My friend commented on the young lady and joked that he would love to "take her home" with him. I told him to "go for it", to which he replied that he could not afford to because his wife would get 50% of his money. I told him that was a bargain, as she was getting 100% of it now. :-)
When I was still on active duty, a co-worker and I were at lunch one day when a very nice looking young lady sat down at the table next to us. My friend commented on the young lady and joked that he would love to "take her home" with him. I told him to "go for it", to which he replied that he could not afford to because his wife would get 50% of his money. I told him that was a bargain, as she was getting 100% of it now. :-)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
There's more to this story. [Joanna Gulli · Tucson, Arizona
Unfortunately, all too often, only one side of the story is reported. If all the facts were investigated it would be discovered the judge's decision was for him to receive only $100 of his half of THEIR pension, the rest going to her for child support. The judge's decision was an equitable distribution not 50/50. She received every thing else including their house, two vehicles, furnishings, all items pertaining to their home and property and bank accounts. There is no reason why her children can't go to college and live a comfortable life if she spends her money wisely.]
Unfortunately, all too often, only one side of the story is reported. If all the facts were investigated it would be discovered the judge's decision was for him to receive only $100 of his half of THEIR pension, the rest going to her for child support. The judge's decision was an equitable distribution not 50/50. She received every thing else including their house, two vehicles, furnishings, all items pertaining to their home and property and bank accounts. There is no reason why her children can't go to college and live a comfortable life if she spends her money wisely.]
(6)
(0)
SSG Michael Patton
MSgt Curtis Ellis - I used the link you provided in the original posting and read the comments.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
SSG Michael Patton - I checked with her, Joanna Gull's, response and she didn't have a link to her comment for this information. Will do some research later on today with KVOA, who originally reported it, and see if there were any changes, Thanks again!
(0)
(0)
SSG Michael Patton
I assumed, due to her surname, that she is related to the couple in the article and had additional insight. I know what assuming does, however. If you do find out more please update us all.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Under the USFSPA, the local judge is not allowed to give the non-military spouse less than what the DFAS formula comes up with. If you are wondering, the formula is A/B*50% where:
A = # months married while in service
B = # of months credited for retirement
If A>120 months the spouse files directly with DFAS for direct payment and doesn't even need the court.
Biggest crock of shit in the world.
A = # months married while in service
B = # of months credited for retirement
If A>120 months the spouse files directly with DFAS for direct payment and doesn't even need the court.
Biggest crock of shit in the world.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
I think women are going to have a hard time getting sympathy from most men. Simply because of the ways the laws are.
When divorce occurs, women can take your kids, use them against you, and take all your money and everything you've worked for........Whatever the circumstances behind THIS particular matter, it doesn't matter. There are hundreds of thousands of circumstances where men have been brought to ruin because of divorce and the courts stealing from men and giving it to the wife.
When divorce occurs, women can take your kids, use them against you, and take all your money and everything you've worked for........Whatever the circumstances behind THIS particular matter, it doesn't matter. There are hundreds of thousands of circumstances where men have been brought to ruin because of divorce and the courts stealing from men and giving it to the wife.
(5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Cpl Robert Masi
Yes, I don't agree with who he is as a person, but that's a distraction from the issue. I don't care about his personal proclivities here because it has no bearing on this matter.
The focus is that, for whatever reason, the judge decided she has to pay alimony. And I can bet that if the roles were reversed where she was in jail for being a Serial Killer and her husband had to pay alimony, I can bet you would have never heard of it.
The focus is that, for whatever reason, the judge decided she has to pay alimony. And I can bet that if the roles were reversed where she was in jail for being a Serial Killer and her husband had to pay alimony, I can bet you would have never heard of it.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Let's see, I came back from Iraq, wife was having an affair, we got divorced and I have been paying 48.9 % of every check for the past 8 years. Complete BS...Maybe now that women make a career out of the military, people will start listening how jacked up this law really is....I worked hard fory retirement, my ex does not deserve 1/2 of anything!
(4)
(0)
MSG John Delmonico
Hello Sir,
Might be in Colonial Heights next week for a Data management IPT....I will look you up if that would be ok....
I will keep you posted.
John
Might be in Colonial Heights next week for a Data management IPT....I will look you up if that would be ok....
I will keep you posted.
John
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Sad as it is, she is suffering as many men have over the years. His legal troubles and his divorce is two different court issues and probably will not effect each other. She needs a good lawyer. But in today's world with the crazy rights of the the criminals there is no telling how it will turn out. I can just say welcome to a mans world.
(4)
(0)
TSgt Wanda Nagy
My ex and I divorced after 16 yrs of marriage. We put in our divorce decree that neither of us can claim each others retirement. I retired TSgt he retired MSgt. I earned mine and he earned his.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Federal law does not control family law (including marriage and divorce). Before people get uppity, Obergefell was not a family law case, it was a constitutional Fourteenth Amendment case, and that Amendment trumps State law by design.
This is a "victory" for anyone opposed to so-called judicial activism.
Is this justice? What powers would you have the courts invoke to do justice in this case where the legislature has spoken so clearly?
This is a "victory" for anyone opposed to so-called judicial activism.
Is this justice? What powers would you have the courts invoke to do justice in this case where the legislature has spoken so clearly?
(3)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
LTC (Join to see) Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.... Could you clarify a bit more for our readers the application of this case to the post?
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSgt Curtis Ellis, my remark was aimed at the misconception that the Obergefell case is an instance of the federal government getting involved in the law of marriage. While the decision necessarily affects all would-be same sex spouses, it was not a decision made on the basis of federal family law or federal marriage law (neither of which exist).
My overall point is that a great deal of people want less "judicial activism" like we supposedly saw in Obergefell; i.e. the Judiciary getting involved in law-making. The alternative is exactly what you get in the pension funds case above. Either the courts have independent power to say what the law is and dispense justice within the confines of statutory and common law (i.e. some amount of judicial discretion), or the courts simply parrot the state or federal legislatures (which is useless). When the legislatures mandate (more or less) judicial outcomes (See mandatory minimum sentences and the pension dispensation guidelines above) we get strange outcomes, such as a convicted sex predator becoming entitled to half of his ex-spouses retirement monies. The court followed the strict letter of the legislature, but is it what we would consider "justice"?
My overall point is that a great deal of people want less "judicial activism" like we supposedly saw in Obergefell; i.e. the Judiciary getting involved in law-making. The alternative is exactly what you get in the pension funds case above. Either the courts have independent power to say what the law is and dispense justice within the confines of statutory and common law (i.e. some amount of judicial discretion), or the courts simply parrot the state or federal legislatures (which is useless). When the legislatures mandate (more or less) judicial outcomes (See mandatory minimum sentences and the pension dispensation guidelines above) we get strange outcomes, such as a convicted sex predator becoming entitled to half of his ex-spouses retirement monies. The court followed the strict letter of the legislature, but is it what we would consider "justice"?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I agree that it's crappy, but I don't recall a 'morals clause' in the act. IF there was one a WHOLE lot less spouses would be collecting half the veterans retirement.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Why would this be fair? He committed the crime, and will be there for a long time. She, on the other hand, served her country. Why should she be punished for her commitment, and reward him for his crime?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google