Ex-wife becomes a man; ex-husband seeks end to alimony

Source: CNN.com

CLEARWATER, Florida (AP) -- Lawrence Roach agreed to pay alimony to the woman he divorced, not the man she became after a sex change, his lawyers argued in a Florida court Tuesday in an effort to end the payments....

Roach and his wife, Julia, divorced in 2004 after 18 years of marriage. The 48-year-old utility worker agreed to pay her $1,250 a month in alimony. Since then, Julia Roach, 55, has had a sex change and legally changed her name to Julio Roberto Silverwolf.

"It's illegal for a man to marry a man, and it should likewise be illegal for a man to pay alimony to a man," said Roach's attorney, John McGuire. "When she changed to a man, I believe she terminated that alimony."...

"This is definitely wrong. I have a right to move forward with my life. I wish no harm and hardship to that person," Roach said of his ex-wife. "They can be the person they want to be, to find happiness and peace within themselves. I have the right to do the same. But I can't rest because I'm paying a lot of money every month."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/sexchange.alimony.ap/index.html

They were different genders when they married and when they divorced. The only way to end alimony is remarriage of the spouse receiving support, death of either party, or proof of improved economic benefits.

so no matter what happens after that unless he(the ex wife) gets married the husband is on the fuckin hook.

He'll lose this case. And it is good for all of us if he does.

Alimony is based on the past relationship, not the ex-spouse's current gender.

I don't think this should be grounds for Roach to get out of paying alimony. His spouse was a woman when they married and divorced, and didn't magically become richer when he became a man.

and it's supposed to go towards rent etc.

I would have to know Julio's capacity for earning a living for himself. And what the living arrangements were whilst the two were married.

Although that wouldn't necessarily make a difference legally. Just as far as my personal opnion goes.

I think this is it, too.

that could have been spent earning money and developing a resume in return for a share in the profits of the other partner. It's a recognition that that partner's ability to earn a living has been harmed. Regardless of the sex change, if Julio Silverwolf earned the alimony, he should still receive it.

I couldn't agree more.

Alimony is not a man vs. woman thing.
And not a stong male hunter brings food to the female waiting in the cave either.

It's exactly what you said:
One partner stopped earning money and developing their career because of the other partner or because of children they got together.

Alimony is a repair of that financial damage.
Nothing more nothing less.

damaging or not.

I long for the day that family and divorce courts are finally gender equal and men aren't assumed to be at fault based solely on their gender.

:nopity:

I long for the day when selfish, irresponsible men grow the fuck up and support the children and families they abandon.

What does alimony have to do with children and families?

Alimony is predicated on the idea that one party of a marriage is a dependent, a permanent child who, absent the earnings of a spouse, is expected to remain unable to fend for herself (or himself, too I suppose, you know - theoretically speaking).

Ever wonder why the last vestiges of the patriarchal society are so difficult to eradicate?

But on the conditions of production within the marriage.

The spouse's current or past sex is not at issue. What's at issue is whether the conditions within the marriage were such that the wife supported the household and sacrificed a profession thereby, and whether that opportunity cost requires compensation until she can live independently.

ie, if gender issues were part of the official record, and Roach agreed to alimony knowing this was in the works, the suit won't have much merit, methinks, not unless he can make a good case for duress.

Overall, though, I don't think he should be forced to pay alimony at all. You marry a person your sexual preference with the assumption that sex will be a foundation of your marriage. Finding out that your partner (or you yourself) was not what they presented themselves as, preference wise, rips that foundation.

Most of the posters seem to be overly focused on placing responsibility on the former husband.

Whatever intentions Julio had when he married, the marriage did last 18 years. I don't know Julio's financial situation, but presumably the alimony was awarded to ensure that Julio was not harmed by the dissolution of what is in part a financial partnership.

in the first place. If it was o.k. to be gay then a lot of people wouldn't try to play that stoopid game.

And grappling with this must have been excruciating for Julio. But it must be acknowledged that the emotional dishonesty involved in closets hurts everyone involved.

Let's see, 55 so he was born in what? 52? Not exactly a great deal of support for trannies, even now, but then?

It's all subjective, I suppose.

I have sympathy for both, but, based solely on the information available from this article, also feel that if Roach didn't have his eyes completely open at the time of the divorce settlement, he is the injured party.

NT!

Wives are property.

Even after divorce, men feel entitled to dictate what women do with their bodies.

This has far more to do with the husband's homophobia and feeling like his own masculinity is "threatened" because his exwife hasn't remained a "trophy" wife that reflects well on him than it has to do with economic justice.

The former husband specifically stated that he hopes Julio the best -- he just doesn't wanted to be forced to pay for it.

He doesn't have the right to dictate that his ex must retain a vagina as part of the divorce settlement. Nor does he have the right to determine how an ex spends their money.

That's pretty simple, really.

Can you provide any reason - OTHER than homophobia - why he would care what elective surgeries his ex has? If the ex, say, had gotten breast implants instead of a sex change, would he expect his alimony to be terminated?

and all to do with finding a potential loophole to get out of paying alimony. Seen too many situations where the spouse charged with alimony tries to do anything to get out of the obligation. Just call me cynical.

why does everything need to be about men trampling on women... why can't it be what it is... GREED

It's simple he doesn't want to pay and is looking for any reason to get out of it. Not because he is a woman hater or a homophobe but because he is a greedy bastard and he wants to keep his money instead of living up to his responsibility after the divorce.

it ceases to be "their" money.

The divorce laws in this country need a serious second look when it comes to alimony.

I was stumbling over the her/his past-tense/present-tense way I constructed the sentence. Didn't mean to imply it was joint money.

And if the ex had gotten breast implants instead of a sex change, you better fucking believe he would be complaining to high Hell about it. That example actually defeats your position.

It was to be revoked should the ex-wife die or remarry, which neither has occured here.

Come on, people.

:wtf:

:applause:

Very simple, really. A lot of ugly motives are being imposed on this guy that really have no basis whatsoever in the article posted.

Where are all the ad hominem attacks on the husband?

:shrug:

taking away alimony cuz he's hurt about this embarrasing him...I don't see any attacks.

It is too obvious that he just wants to get out of alimoney cuz he's pissed his wife left him to become a man and he's lashing out.

maybe it is to you. he should not be paying any money to anyone now regardless of the situation.

i don't see any documentation that he SHOULD be paying anything. got any?

"Lawrence Roach agreed to pay alimony"

first line of the article...

If someone posted that about you, you would hit "alert" in a second.

It doesn't matter what the ex husband wants to pay for or not. The prior relationship didn't retroactively cease to have ever existed, and the ex's current gender has no relevance in that matter.

And it all seems to be fairly generalizing, rather than based on facts in the article.

There is probably more. Go back and read it yourself.

against Transgendered people just based on that article. It's such a big issue for that guy that he thinks his ex-wife has somehow retroactively ceased to be his ex-wife because of it. That's not generalizing, and it is based on the article.

I did read it myself. I think she did too, and she clearly read it very accurately AFAIC. Her post was an accurate observation, not an unfounded attack.

Cite to any evidence in the article the guy was a homophobe and not someone who doesn't want to pay is ex-wife money. ANY EVIDENCE.

That going to court over her transgendered status is evidence?
:wtf:

:wtf:

As someone else serendipitously pointed out, he would do the same thing if the ex were getting breat implants.

What he might or might not do if she got breast implants is pure speculation. The facts are that he's taking her to court and using her transgendered status as a club to beat her with even though it's irrelevant to their past relationship.

then no one knows if he would go to court over his ex getting implants.

If the man agreed to pay alimony and is now renigging on it, then he needs to pay it... If he wants to get out of honoring his agreement, then it needs to go to court to be tossed out, which it will--because when the agreement was made the ex was a female. The only thing that changed was her sex, which is what set this in motion... on its own, a sex change doesn't change the fact that they were married for 18 years and decided to divorce and he agree to pay alimony. He still has to pay it, whether people here like it or not, unless a judge rules otherwise, which I doubt will happen.

Someone who isn't a homophobe would say: "It's illegal for a man to marry a man, and that's wrong, that should be changed."

They wouldn't say "It's illegal for a man to marry a man, and it should likewise be illegal for a man to pay alimony to a man."

Instead of rejecting discrimination against gays, they are presenting it as though the discrimination is right and proper, and arguing that it should be expanded.

They're both former husbands now.

It's the uh... person-formerly-known-as-ex-wife, who is defending her.... uh, his entitlement to the husband's property.

The exertion of power over property rights is flowing from the husband to the ex-whatever.

Nowhere in the article do you find the implication that the ex husband wishes to dictate the terms of his ex's life, only his continued partnership in financing it.

Alimony is a patriarchal artifact. It is an anachronism.

Sadly, he lives in Florida, which is beyond the reach of democracy or sanity. So he'll probably win his sick, homophobic, assholish bid here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There was an assumption that came up a couple times upthread, that Julio left Lawrence to become a man, or that gender was an issue in the marriage.

Not necessarily.

I have been in this situation myself, and married with the full intention of remaining married to my husband for the rest of my life. The marriage failed for other reasons, and only after the wheels had completely fallen off that wagon did I look into gender reassignment. This is not at all uncommon for transgendered people who marry before transition.

Gender is not the only thing in a transgendered person's life, being trans is not the one explanation for everything, and a transgendered person's promise is worth the same as anyone else's. We don't know what ended their marriage, and it doesn't really matter.

If a husband wanted to stop paying alimony to his ex-wife because he had been a banker and she became a biker, would anyone even question whether it was her desire to be a biker that broke up the marriage? If he wanted to terminate his contractual obligations because he had been a Catholic and she became a Protestant, would it be assumed that the marriage failed because of her innate Protestant nature? What if Julio had decided to get short hair, or a tattoo, or a boob job? Julio chose to live differently after his divorce than during his marriage. Most people do. It doesn't matter.

We don't know whether gender was an issue during the marriage. It may have been. It may not have been. It doesn't matter. At one time, these two people decided to get married. It didn't work out for whatever reason. They agreed on the terms of spousal support, and now, Lawrence is attempting to redefine those terms in such a way that he is no longer liable for spousal support payments. A contract is a contract, an agreement is an agreement, and what Lawrence is doing is weaselly as hell.

As for the "if he could afford the surgery, he doesn't need the payments..." Not necessarily. We do not know how Julio paid for the transition costs, and we don't know what they cost. The article doesn't specify what surgeries Lawrence has had or how much he paid. A phalloplasty, which is one of the more expensive surgeries, is enough to satisfy the surgical requirements for changing the gender on a Florida driver's license, on birth certificates in states that allow gender change on the birth certificate, and on a US passport. The phalloplasty can be done for less than $12,000. That's the price of a five year old used car in decent condition. If Julio had bought a five year old used car, would anyone be claiming that he ought to not get his contractually agreed upon spousal support because he obviously doesn't need it?

Hormones are optional, but can be obtained for about $20 a month. and the counseling required can be obtained for a low cost to sometimes even free. If Julio bought a five year old used car, and spent a dollar every weekday on coffee, would anyone be claiming he doesn't need spousal support because he is making too much money?

We don't know if Julio already had a hysterectomy, or if it was medically necessary and covered by insurance, or whether it was an out of pocket expense. If it was, it can be done for about $10,000. That would bring surgical costs to about $22,000. That's as much as a one year old used car in good condition. If Julio had bought a one year old used car, would it invalidate his spousal support payments?

Of course not! Assumptions and judgments are being made about what reassignment surgery costs and whether Julio should be allowed to choose to spend his extra money on it. If it were an expensive thing Julio bought that is the same kind of expensive thing most people buy, there wouldn't be a discussion. If it were a car or a truck, there wouldn't be a discussion. But because Julio may have bought a penis replacement that doesn't come with an engine and wheels, everybody gets to have an opinion on it?

Thanks so much for your input on this.

If a husband wanted to stop paying alimony to his ex-wife because he had been a banker and she became a biker, would anyone even question whether it was her desire to be a biker that broke up the marriage?

That's an interesting analogy. However, had she taken up biking in the course of the marriage, it wouldn't have been likely to affect the sexual foundation of the marriage, would it? (Assuming we aren't talking about bizarre initiation rites.)

There are too many questions the news stories leave unanswered.

I was thinking of the social changes, not the sex. To change from a conservative (banker) cultural role to a counterculture (biker) cultural role would be a dramatic shift, and for an ex-wife, that change would come with an assertion of strength of personality. That's where the parallel is with the change from a wife who was in a more traditional role of not being the primary breadwinner (and would therefore be owed spousal support) to being a divorced man. The changes in social role and assertion of the self are what tends to upset husbands of any wives, including the husbands of wives who later turn out to be transmen.

Also, the change from banker's wife to biker would involve changes in costume and appearance, much as the change from female presentation to male presentation does. Distinctive dress and manner are a secondary part of that analogy. The social aspects stemming from a change in appearance - the "what will my friends think of me if they see my (ex)wife dressed as a biker | man ?" part - still run parallel.

As for the sex, well, there's no reason to make any assumptions about that, either. For me and my husband, the sex outlasted the marriage, and continued well into my transition. Even if Julio did begin to explore his gender during the marriage, something else that we do not know, it also would not necessarily have affected the sexual foundation of the marriage. A transman who is not into men is not likely to marry one, not even before transition. Straight transmen mostly, but not always, come out of lesbian relationships. Admittedly, having sex with a straight man who sees you as only female can chill the sexual spark, but again - not always, and perhaps not even most of the time. Having sex with a jerk who doesn't respect you, well, that's a different story, isn't it?

Also, please note that I was talking about changes that occurred *after* the end of the marriage, not *during* the marriage.

regarding biker v banker, that was my first thought. I veered because not every motorcycle enthusiast :) is a Hell's Angel type. I actually know some very respectable social types who enjoy their $25k Harleys.

But if you're talking about a biker club with, say, bizarre initiation rituals ...


Anyhoo... I'm inclined to suspect the ex-husband in this case was aware of gender issues, if only because his quotes in the article don't sound as bitter as one might expect for a blue-collar worker of that age (I know, horrible stereotyping).

We don't know if Julio has a preference towards males or females in it, do we? If he's gay, as long as Florida doesn't allow gay marriage, the ex is indeed screwed in the alimony department through no fault of his own. In which case, perhaps he should be petitioning the courts in favor of gay marriage.

In Florida, Julio would not be allowed to marry a woman - one can't marry a person of one's own birth sex. Legally, he'd still be free to marry a man in Florida, if anyone would issue the license. The loophole has not yet been closed, but it is expected to be closed, making it illegal in Florida for a person who has done a gender transition to marry anyone. Ain't that grand?

As for the bitterness... remember, the ex who wants out of his spousal support obligations knows he's being quoted and knows he's in the middle of a case. His use of "that person" and "they" instead of "Julio" and "him" sounds pretty bitter and ugly to me. He knows Julio's name, obviously knows his pronoun, and can't even bring himself to say it. Also, in my experience, blue-collar folks have been no more and no less accepting than anyone else of gender change, and they have been *far* less likely to be patronizing and condescending. To be totally honest, I haven't seen a difference between conservatives and liberals, either. The people who have been the most obnoxious to me about the gender change thing have all been liberals.

The biker thing's just an example. Honestly, I liked how the two B's sounded together ;-) Socially, I was thinking of the weekend ride, as opposed to the weekend at the golf course, the trip to Bike Week in Daytona as opposed to the trip to Miami Beach to shop, talking over beers about engines as opposed to talking over Chardonnay about curtains... then there's also leathers v. khakis, boots vs. pumps, and so on. I don't know what you think I'm thinking, but whatever it is, probably isn't it.

The very idea that one person has to pay another for the rest of both of their lives makes me want to puke.

I can understand a.) a lump sum or b.) a defined period until you get back on your feet, but not "for ever and ever".

Homophobic or not, it should be interesting if this points out the stupidity of endless alimony.

like it or not, when one person gives up a career to be a homemaker, or sacrifices better career opportunities for their partner, there is a long term economic impact on their life.

The person who benefits from that relationship has long term gains from it.

"Getting back on your feet" doesn't replace 18 years of retirement pay, 18 years of social security deposits, or 18 years of job training, job networking, resume building, salary history, etc.

A person who gets a job in their 40's after a 20 year work history gap is not financially equivalent to a person who has 20 years of job history - even IF they both make the same salary. They aren't equivalent in in terms of actual money in the bank, or retirement pay, or years earned toward a pension plan, nor in terms of future job prospects if both should happen to be laid off in the future.

The person who has been working for 20 years presumably has professionally achieved what they have, in part, because of the sacrifices of the nonworking or underemployed partner. They surely expect to continue to reap those advantages "for ever and ever."

I don't know the details of their particular marriage, but nobody would say to the working partner "you couldn't have had this job if I hadn't cared for your kids for free ... it's not fair that you continue to reap the profits of my work after we divorce - therefore I demand that you quit this high paying job and start a new career as an entry level employee." We accept it as "normal" that the working person should continue to profit from the division of labor that existed during the marriage, even after a divorce. And yet the same people who accept that as normal act outraged when it's suggested that the nonworking/underemployed partner should also be allowed to continue to profit from that same division of labor that existed prior to the divorce.

I have a friend with a spouse. They have no children. Three year marriage. About $50K salary difference. If they divorce, the spouse with the higher salary will be forced to pay alimony, because in that state, the spouse making less is entitled to that difference.

I do NOT understand that.

There is a presumption in your statement that one spouse stayed home and raised children, but COULD HAVE BEEN out making the same salary as the primary breadwinner. It's just not always true.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that marriage doesn't often involve sacrifices that need to be taken into account in a divorce settlement. But when a marriage does not work out, and one spouse has clearly been the "taker" in the relationship, I think there should be a way to terminate the "taking". Some spouses ARE moochers and I think that having divorce laws that favor this behavior are wrong.

There are individuals who package themselves into marriage material for the sole purpose of latching onto a potential breadwinner, with NO INTENTION of making any major contribution to the foundation of the marriage. And, sadly, those who marry these people are often too much in love to consider a prenuptial agreement.

I sense that alimony is a major reason why more and more people are reconsidering marriage. It implies a level of partnership in marriage that often no longer exists.

You said: "when one person gives up a career to be a homemaker, or sacrifices better career opportunities for their partner, there is a long term economic impact on their life."

What about the sacrifices that the working spouse make that effects their long-term bond with their children? The working spouse, whether man or woman, may spend 12 hours away from home and develop less of a bond with their children even though the money they earned was for the prupose of raising those kids. How is this damage compensated?

Here's my quick take on it:

As a man, Julio Roberto Silverwolf will no longer be subject to the institutionalized wage discrimination that would have limited the pay she could have received as a woman.

I think Lawrence Roach can make a reasonable argument for at least reducing his alimony by some percentage to reflect that fact.

Alimony is not men having to pay women because women are discriminated against in society.

It's compensation to one partner, in acknowledgment that the division of labor during the marriage left one partner at a substantial economic advantage, and the other at a disadvantage.

Especially in Florida! Transfolk in Florida are not protected and are actively discriminated against. To say that now, Julio can reap all the benefits of being a male in the "patriarchal society" just isn't accurate. Women are a protected class. Transgendered people are not a protected class. If you want to start down that road of who gets discriminated against and who gets the benefit of that discrimination, don't do it for this case, because it isn't too likely to go where you want it to go.

It's up to a court to decide the merits of the ex-husband's request to have the alimony agreement changed. He's perfectly within his rights to try to get it altered.

As I stated in another reply (maybe another thread), by reopening the issue the ex-husband is taking a risk that he'll end up paying more than he does now.

the ex is just going to have to suck it up and pay the damn alimony, this person gave 18 years of life to be married to him and probably has no prospect of earning any decent wage, alimony is VERY hard to get in the first place these days so i have to assume that julia/julio has little to no prospect (esp. as a 55 year old transgendered person) of ever earning a decent wage -- and in any event ask any 55 year old male about age discrimination, it's very very VERY real, you can't just start over at that age

the ex just don't wanna take care of the person he once promised to care for until death do them part, no pity here, not after 18 years of marriage

as far as how the surgery was paid for, i know of one case where the surgery was actually covered by insurance, another case of an older person who traveled to thailand and got it for about half the going usa rate -- as a poster said elsewhere in the thread, no one would have bitched if julio had purchased a used car with the same amount of money

That was me, about the used car.

alimony is in regards to the time DURING the marriage not after it.

Ugh.

The ex can't even bring himself to call Julio by his name, or even a pronoun. Powerplay bullshit. No wonder the marriage fell apart.

I'm kidding, but WOW is that a ridiculous cry-for-attention name.

Oh well, at least he spelled it normally...

if i'd lived 18 years or whatever as julia effing ROACH, i'd want to be a silverwolf too

i've known a few greyhawks and silverhawks, i don't think silverwolf is any worse if you're into that new age thing, at least nobody can say they didn't know where you were coming from

and anyhoo it sure as hell beats ROACH!!!

he should get alimony just because he was ever willing to marry a guy named roach in the first place and even take the guy's name, cripes!

absolutely correct 100%.

and that's 100% correct?

for alimony. Problem solved.

It is usually the person deemed by the court to have given up their own aspirations to tend to home, spouse, children. It is whoever's chance at income took a hit upon the marriage. Problem not solved. Not that way at least.

:shrug: A tongue twister perhaps...

...which could change the alimony amount. I mean, Julia/Julio is making enough to pay for this procedure, no?

You don't have to be that well off to pay for it. Plenty of low income people still manage to get it done.

Nothing

...yes, I know women aren't the only ones to receive it, but without knowing the complete statistics, I bet at least 85% of the alimony payments go to women.

Now, with Congress reviewing the ERA again after it was defeated 30 years ago, why can't we have this: Women need to be paid as much as men for the same work. Once women can make a real living and not have to crack thru the glass ceiling, then we can eliminate alimony completely. Child support is something different altogether, of course, but alimony just reinforces the idea that women are kept and compensated, that we're second class citizens who need to be given a leg up because society can't pay us equal wages.

Just fuckin' give us the money we fuckin' EARN and we won't have to dip into our ex-husband's bank accounts!!!!

And maybe once Julio is done with his gender reassignment surgery, his own wages will go up accordingly and the whole problem would be solved.

I hope we can make it happen this time.

Just fuckin' give us the money we fuckin' EARN and we won't have to dip into our ex-husband's bank accounts!!!!

When I met my now-ex wife in 1987 she was working in South Carolina for an employer who by policy paid women 70% of what men got for comparable work.

of lucrative careers themselves in order to support their husbands'. Now what? The money he continues to earn because of her efforts ought to be shared with her -- regardless of their marital status.

Perhaps a lesson not to have a one-earner household?

:hide: