5 Support Arguments That Don’t Matter in Divorce Court

Divorce sucks. Especially when your lawyer tells you that you are likely going to come out with the short end of the stick. Even legal sophisticates, meaning those who have experience with courts and lawyers because of their business affairs, their real estate acquisitions or their estate planning, often gasp at the perceived immorality of divorce laws.

Clients frequently complain about the unfairness of divorce laws and the courts’ reluctance to consider moral issues that are important to litigants, but irrelevant to the court.

Five of the most common complaints are:


In bygone years the courts only made spousal support orders where a recipient spouse was innocent of marital fault. When a wife was considered to be the cause of the marriage breakdown, no support was payable.

In the middle of the 20th century, divorce law began to evolve and currently many countries and states administer “no-fault” divorce. That means even if your husband or wife is a serial philanderer, or physically abusive, if they qualify for spousal support, they will likely get it. A long marriage results in a lengthy period of support and support theory is based on a lack of means of one spouse and the ability to pay of the other.

Imagine the dismay of a spouse with means when their husband or wife leave them for another partner, move in with that partner, and still receive support from their aggrieved left-behind spouse. The obvious question is “Why do I have to support her (or him) when she has chosen to move on with a new partner? Shouldn’t she be supported by him?”

Sounds logical, however, the legal test for entitlement to support is based on “means and need”. If the spouse moves in with a starving artist or someone on a disability pension, that spouse may still have need, despite their attachment to a new partner. Related to this complaint is the next one:


Often long-divorced clients will call their family law attorneys bursting with good news. He or she will announce that after 15 years their ex has finally remarried and when can the spousal support payments end? The problem is that only if a former spouse agrees to the cessation of support, in writing of course, can payments be terminated.

Ex-spouses, however, are loath to give up what they have enjoyed for many years and most frequently the matter ends up in a courtroom. Twenty-five thousand dollars later and with a little luck, the support may be reduced, but not eliminated, because of the “means and needs” test.


In long marriages, spousal support is often ordered to be paid permanently or indefinitely. Some jurisdictions even order that support be secured by life insurance or binding on the estate of the payor upon his or her death.

What that means is that even after a paying spouse dies, the support lives on, paid from a life insurance policy or from the proceeds of the deceased payor’s estate. The practical reality is that as spouses enter their “golden years” they generally live off their pensions or the proceeds of sale of their assets. Yes, the same pensions and assets that were already divided between the spouses at the time of divorce.

The alleged unfairness is that the deceased spouse’s estate is reduced by the ongoing support obligation, to the detriment of the deceased spouse’s heirs, and worst of all, it is paid from assets that were already divided equally. It’s back to “means and need” again. If the recipient spouse has need and the payor spouse has means, support may continue after death.


Clients often ask why they are obliged to pay support for their children after the age of majority, and in particular, why they are ordered to fund an expensive university education? The argument usually centres around the fact that if the family was intact, decisions would be made that may include parental funding of school, but could also include children working part-time or applying for student loans.

The answer is simple. If divorced parents cannot agree on how to educate their adult children, then the court must step in. The laws in many countries provide that child support must be paid until the child obtains one post-secondary degree or diploma. Yes, even if the family, pre-marriage breakdown, had no intention to fund their children’s schooling.


In many jurisdictions child support is governed by child support guidelines enacted by legislators. Many of these laws provide that a parent with primary residence of the children is entitled to child support based on the other parent’s annual income. So far, so good. However, issues arise when the recipient parent’s earnings outstrip the payor parent’s earnings and yet the higher-earning parent is not obliged to make a financial contribution to support, so as to reduce the support obligation of the lower-earning parent.

The policy behind the law is that a primary resident parent’s contribution is more than equal to monies paid for child support, for it is the primary parent who does the most work including transportation, socialization, schooling, medical and dental issues, psychological and emotional guidance and many other day-to-day matters for the care of children.

The common denominator in these scenarios is that if you and your spouse cannot come to an agreement on support, the court will intervene. Best to try to reach a compromise with your spouse then to risk the rigours of the law.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang


12 thoughts on “5 Support Arguments That Don’t Matter in Divorce Court

  1. Thanks for a great synthesis. Wish I had it when I was still doing family law litigation. I have posted it on my Facebook in the hope a few frustrated individuals gain a clearer understanding of why it is a good thing to settle in a thoughtful manner.

  2. Chip Thanks for the encouraging comment. Many years ago the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called B.v.G. confirmed that remarriage does not necessarily signal the end of spousal support payments, so up here it is very possible to have to pay lifetime alimony.

    Feel free to add any of my posts to your site as a guest post. Cheers! Georgialee

  3. Interesting post, and nice Blog.. though I note you don’t offer a position on whether the law “should” be that way, particularly the double-dipping inherent in support paid after the payer has no more income.. or support of adult children post-divorce where children have no such right when their parents are married.

    I can’t imagine telling my parents, in the day, “You have to pay to support me when I’m in University.”

    But, then again, we are living in the “age of entitlement” I suppose.

    1. This is why the writer expressly encourages parties to settle support issues instead of leaving the final decision up to a judge. (However, some student loans require the parents to contribute to a dependent child’s higher education, so it would be best to change that law as well.) Most orders can be varied if there is a material change of circumstance that warrants revisiting the original order, so technically there are solutions available. Unfortunately for clients, variations are difficult to do as a self-represented party, so this remedy may not be readily available to those who are not well off financially.

  4. Very informative. Thank you. Funny people learn a lot about the law from television shows but this article dispels some of the myths created by the media.

  5. My brother suggested I might like this blog. For once he was totally right. This post actually made my day. You can’t imagine just how much time I have spent looking for this information! Thank you!

  6. I am trying to figure out on a pension division that would not accept a QDRO, but I received fifty percent in the divorce, if I pass away(cancer and other issues) does he have to pay it to my estate since it was a division off property and not alimony? He being typically male, remarried and put everything in new wife’s name and my children will be left with nothing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s