Wait. You’re seriously equating a spoiled man-baby to the division of resources when a household that pooled its finances and shared the responsibility of domestic work, often including raising children and being out of the job market for potentially years, dissolves?
For doing a crappy job of raising your child? Are you volunteering your time and resources to handle these at least millions of cases? Because I sure as shit don’t want my taxes wasted on it. And even if there should be a penalty, the proceeds shouldn’t go to the entitled git they raised.
“Your honor, it’s my parents’ fault I’m a serial killer. I deserve compensation.”
Erase all the details of the scenario and it’s exactly the principle behind child support. But sometimes when you want to decide if something makes sense, the details matter.
His parents are from Dubai, though. One of the most labor-unfriendly and pro-commercial slavery locations on earth. I don’t think I feel sorry for anyone in this scenario.
The basic concept behind alimony is that one spouse became dependent on the financial support of the other upon entering into a marriage. For example, a woman might have been legally obliged to surrender all her property to her husband and have no way to get it back upon divorce (as was the case under English common law until the late 19th Century). More commonly today, one spouse might have sacrificed potential opportunities as part of the marital partnership (“you focus on your career, I’ll stay home to take care of the house and the kids”).
An adult child didn’t give up any property or opportunities in the course of choosing their parents. This is just a spoiled man who was given every possible advantage and still managed to fail at supporting himself.
This guy needs to get to work at an actual job, right away. Maybe explore the concept of humility a bit.
His parents are responsible for enabling such immature dependent behaviour. Their punishment is to have to deal with his shit for the rest of their lives. The rest of us should just move on.
I mean, this is also a case of a household that pooled resources and shared responsibility of domestic work (presumably). He was out of the job market for several years because he didn’t need to be in it.
Obviously it’s not as virtuous as somebody who put their spouse through law school by waiting tables or laying bricks, but that’s not the case with all alimony either. Sometimes it’s warranted because their partner has given them the impression that their lifestyle was acceptable and supported by them, and removing that support unexpectedly leaves them in a position where they can’t adequately return to their previous lifestyle, like an atrophied muscle.
I’m not saying this guy isn’t a piece of shit, but there’s a chance the parents who think its cool to kick a frankly unemployable child the curb after spoon-feeding him for 4 decades, are also shitty.
Probably, but they’d be arguing from the other direction, against alimony. If you’d read the rest of my post you’d see that I’m not.
If you lead somebody to believe they can build their entire life around your personal financial support, and then remove that financial support, I don’t think it’s crazy that you should be held financially liable.
The distinction here is that a marriage has a definite beginning where this dependence is entered into, and both parties are adults (best case modern scenario). Parents are obligated to provide for their children from birth, but it’s acceptable, nay, encouraged to end that support at some point. I’m saying that if you wait until your kid is 40, and they can’t support themselves, some of that egg is on your face, and you should probably be somewhat liable.
Just because someone vehemently disagrees with the point you’re trying to make doesn’t mean they didn’t read your post.
These parents paid for their son to get a freaking law degree and provided him with a place to live. How can anyone claim they didn’t provide him with the means to support himself?
When you marry you form an economic union. Much as when a company is sunsetted or goes into bankruptcy; the principals receive the ongoing assets and liabilities of the union in dissolution. This includes the value of ongoing income (contracts etc) for the firm. And income that the marital union entailed.
When parents has a child, their responsibility is to raise them till they can provide for themselves. They don’t form an economic union.
