You are here

Gavron warning ???

Yourstruly's picture

Anyone had any involvement with a Gavron Warning?  We want to request to reduce/terminate spousal support since BM has not followed through with Garvron warning.  

ESMOD's picture

Not sure about your state but there usually are guidelines like if you were married under 10 years the period of support will only be up to half the years you were married. So married 8 years... up to 4 years of support. Etc...

You cant just decide...well it's been 2 years...we think this is long enough... usually it's kind of standard

Yourstruly's picture

 she hasn't made any attempt to secure employment in 2 years that shows she is not eager to seek employment. I cant imagine they allow the gavron warning to be in effect for the duration of the support, that would make it useless. 

ESMOD's picture

Again.. they often give it at the time support is ordered.. your state or agreement should give you an idea of her time limit.  

How long was she married to your dh?

 

Your profile says ca. That is a state that gives her half the time they were married if they were married fewer than 10 years. I expect she will intend to collect that full amt of time and legally she can... doesnt matter what your opinion is on her efforts really until the end of that period is reached. 

Yourstruly's picture

Her Gavron warning was issued along w/SS. She is supposed to show being able to support herself & children while she is receiving the SS not at the end of the support.  Cause then what is she gonna do?? 

She has no reason not to work. 

ESMOD's picture

apparently it is fairly standard for this order to be given at the same time as spousal support is ordered.  and.. as I have said several times.. in CA that marriages up to 10 years.. it's 50% of the time they were married that is considered the standard.  If they were married LONGER than 10 years.. I would consider that it's not likely that they would consider LESS than 5 years time as being reasonable..so you are looking at a minimum of FIVE years that he will be paying SS if they were married more than 10 years.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that the gavron warning is as litteral and as "urgently" expected to be a solution to your spouse not paying SS.  

Consult with your husband's atty.. he will be the best person to tell you exactly what to expect given your own situation.. but on the face of it... I don't think you will have a reason to get it cut off yet.. unless they were only married 4 years. (2 years of him paying so far).

ESMOD's picture

The court gives the supported spouse a “reasonable period of time” to become self-supporting.  What is considered a reasonable period of time  may differ depending on the length of the particular marriage. California Family Code Section 4320 defines that for marriages lasting less than 10 years, a supported spouse will have half of the length of the marriage to become self supporting.  

note.. found this on a law site... again.. take your legal advice online with a grain of salt.. lol.  consult a real life atty.

Yourstruly's picture

we have a real attorney...I was just asking if anyone has had any experience with this type of situation. basically for more info. 

Reasonable period of time differs depending on the age of the children in the home, the length of time not employeed etc....we are talking someone who used to get paid everymonth by my husband by money orders and go and collect state $$$ then try to say she never recieved $$ from him...theres a little bit of background to this "Gavron Warning" but thank you 

bananaseedo's picture

I think spousal support DOES have it's place at times- likely not many cases today, but there are times.

I do think if a woman OR man gives up their life to support the other persons career/run the home and then gets dumped for the 20yr old secretary?  Yeah well, then she needs spousal support to get on her feet, get an education, etc...keep in mind women aren't always making out.  If a man leaves his sahm wife after kids are over 18- there would be no CS and there is BLATANT age discrimination in the workplace, not many people hiring 40plus year old women out there (or men).

There are times couples DO agree to have somebody at home- and a lot of times these same people will go on to say they never agreed to make the other look lazy/bad.  There are all kinds of scenarios. I've seen it all to be honest.  I've seen women wait the 10 yr mark to get alimony and REFUSED to even get a part time job even when their spouses asked.  I've also seen couples AGREE to have someone at home all the time w/the kids later blame the spouse for staying home.

Nobody gets married thinking of divorce.  I think it's sad- because 'divorce' culture has brought financial hardship to families nationwide...the only ones making a buck are the courts/lawyers and the state....but it has a DEEP financial impact to one or all parties overall.

BethAnne's picture

It's as if this is a parallel universe where men who choose to stay in  a relationship whith a woman who doesn't work are blameless and were trapped into these relationships. They apparently didn't benifit from a woman runnign their howusehold, raising their kids, being unflustered by a work life and so better able to look after their husband, children and home. All these women did for these hypothetical 20 years is sit on the couch eating bonbons and chaining their husband up everynight so that he had no chance of escaping. And then these women who have not worked for years on end, (clearly for their own bonbon eating benifit) are all absolutely able to walk into a job the day  after a divorce which will pay enough for them to live on their own without any sort of support or transition period to work their way up the ladder or get training, becuase everyday there are job postings for bonbon eating man-chaining women (you probably could get paid pretty well for this, but sex work should not be the oinly option for divorced women).

There are historical reasons why spousal support is a thing, even now it allows women to escape marriages that are not working and not end up destitute because they and their husbands choose that they would be a one income household. I am sure that not all spousal support awards are entirely "fair" and some may seem excessive, but that does not mean that the whole system is wrong or that all of the women recieving it are undeserving. There are reasons why we are allowed to ask a judge to decide on these things for us rather than having to reach a compromise between a divorcing couple.  

tog redux's picture

Not everyone who gets it is in the wrong, and I agree with much of what you said. But if the woman is NOT looking for work or getting an education, she should not continue to get spousal support for years and years, IMO. Times have changed.  Gender roles have changed.  

I bet they don't automatically give it to men who are eligible, like they do for women. 

ndc's picture

My dad is a very high earning professional, and he works with similarly situated men.  I have heard them say that having a non-working wife is the ultimate luxury.  Their laundry is done, their dry cleaning is dropped off and picked up, their meals are cooked, their children are cared for.  There is always someone home to receive packages, run their errands, help with travel arrangements, drive them to the airport, hostess business dinners, etc.  These men work long hours and they don't want to deal with cleaning, car repairs, house repairs, errand running and the like when they get home.  Their careers are benefited by having their wives at home.  And their wives are hardly sitting on their asses - they are working hard, and I would not begrudge them spousal support in the event of a divorce.

Obviously this is not every SAH spouse, and I'm sure there are some who are lazy and taking advantage, but I think the majority of women who stay at home are doing their part and working hard to keep the household and family running.  If a family doesn't need the extra income (because the primary wage earner makes enough for the family to live comfortably), it makes perfect sense for one person in the couple to stay home if they mutually decide on that, and then it is only fair for that person to receive SS if the marriage ends.  If a family is barely scraping by, and the spouse with the lower earning potential can out-earn childcare costs, it's a little harder for me to understand why both spouses would not work outside the home.

tog redux's picture

I think women make a choice to be completely dependent on men, and it's not a wise choice. I'm not sure those men should have to support them for 10 years after the marriage ends.  They shouldn't be kicked out penniless, but nor should the man have to support them for years and years for a choice that they agreed to. It made sense when gender roles were different and women had less earning potential, but IMO, it doesn't make sense to me anymore. 

bananaseedo's picture

I recall this one GUBM- Her DH (childhood friend of mine) worked full time, travelled a lot, worked long hours.  She was and IS a lazy person- he was on her for years to get a job or go back to school. I heard multiple conversations on it. She would also let her mom take care of her 2 sons during the day and would literally spend 2-3hrs a day on hair/makeup. He would come home from work and have to cook dinner/serve the kids/bathe, put them to bed.  She waited until shortly after 10 yrs to finally 'have enough' of her husband.  She got alimony for like 8 years or so plus CS.   Alimony was to be stopped if she re-married.  Instead she moved in with her new boyfriend before the ink was dry and got knocked up by him.  Neither of them were working for a few years-living ENTIRELY on my friends hard earned money.  She eventually married the guy when alimony was up of course...and when CS went 'down' after one kid aged out she went back to court for an increase on her youngest lol,

She went on to have another kid w/her new husband.  Still never worked a day in her life.  After her younger kids were around age 10-12, she upped and moved to India with some guy she met over the internet LOL...kid you not.  Left a mess of her younger kids back home/exh n 2.

Piece of work...her mother even worse- had 2 husbands die young of heart attacks mysteriously....would hook up w/ guys 20 yrs younger...dysfunctional!   

ESMOD's picture

In our state.. if you cohabitate with someone.. that also cuts off the spousal support.. I think the law is catching up a little bit:)

bananaseedo's picture

That is great!!!  Finally!  Keep in mind we are in a pro-bm state and their divorce was a couple decades ago...so times were worse for guys then for sure.

Rags's picture

Community property states are more sane IMHO.  Everything accumulated during the marriage is split and other than CS there is rarely anything owed by one X to the other.