The Paradox of Alimony for MenI don't know why this is called a "paradox".
The Supreme Court ruled that alimony is gender neutral in 1979. But, to some, women having to dole out spousal support still comes as a shock. ...
Ms. Clarkson and Brandon Blackstock, an entertainment agent, split in 2020 after seven years of marriage. Despite a prenuptial agreement recently upheld in a Los Angeles court, Mr. Blackstock has been awarded temporary monthly spousal support of nearly $150,000, half of his initial ask. (Though he stated that he planned to exit the entertainment industry to become a full-time rancher on a Montana property owned by Ms. Clarkson, the ranch was awarded to her as per the couple’s prenuptial agreement.)
In addition to the monthly spousal support paid by Ms. Clarkson, Mr. Blackstock also receives child support of around $45,000 per month, despite Ms. Clarkson having been awarded primary physical custody of their two children.
It is an abuse of language to call this "child support". You could not spend that much money on the kids even if you wanted to. The law does not require child support to be spent on children.
The legal system is twisted. I am just posting this as education. The law has created many marriage disincentives.
Taylor Swift is age almost 32, and unmarried. Any man she marries will have the power to walk away at any time, and become a rich man. She probably sees marriage and kids as too risky.
There are many other anti-marriage laws. This is just one example.
Post a Comment