Posted on Sep 30, 2015
Do you think it is fair that a woman be required to pay half of her military retirement to an ex-husband convicted of child molestation?
15.8K
128
71
1
1
0
I wasn't aware this was an "Arizona" law, and I got my divorce here... I thought it was part of Federal Law? In fact, I've seen some (here) keep most/all of their retirement thanks to good lawyers and what the spouse is willing to "settle for". My lawyer wanted to do the same for me, but I opted out as I felt she was entitled, but I did have a choice/option and I think, in this veterans rush to get the divorce, she may have screwed herself, so I'm a bit confused by this Can anyone out there shed a little light on this subject?
The fact that he is a child molester and has been sentenced to life in prison, should this have bearing as to whether he is entitled to receive the spouse's retirement? Please share your justification/rationale! :)
The fact that he is a child molester and has been sentenced to life in prison, should this have bearing as to whether he is entitled to receive the spouse's retirement? Please share your justification/rationale! :)
Posted in these groups: 
Divorce
Divorce
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 30
12
12
0
MSgt Curtis Ellis - While, as the article points out, she may be required to pay because of the state's community property law, absent that, she would also be required to pay under The Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act, which is a Federal law, unless that law has provisions for incarcerated persons.
I do not think it fair and think that, with a good lawyer, she could possibly get some relief. Of course, the best thing would be for the incarcerated husband to waive his right to the money or establish a trust account for the kids, where all the money is deposited.
I do not think it fair and think that, with a good lawyer, she could possibly get some relief. Of course, the best thing would be for the incarcerated husband to waive his right to the money or establish a trust account for the kids, where all the money is deposited.
(12)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
COL Jean (John) F. B., it appears that USFSPA only requires dispensation of pension funds to former spouses pursuant to a court order under state law. http://www.dfas.mil/dfas/garnishment/usfspa/legal.html
(4)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
LTC (Join to see) Definitely good info to know, Sir, and thanks for sharing the link!
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
LTC (Join to see) - Thanks good info. Was not aware of that (although I hope never to be in a situation where I need the info)... :-)
When I was still on active duty, a co-worker and I were at lunch one day when a very nice looking young lady sat down at the table next to us. My friend commented on the young lady and joked that he would love to "take her home" with him. I told him to "go for it", to which he replied that he could not afford to because his wife would get 50% of his money. I told him that was a bargain, as she was getting 100% of it now. :-)
When I was still on active duty, a co-worker and I were at lunch one day when a very nice looking young lady sat down at the table next to us. My friend commented on the young lady and joked that he would love to "take her home" with him. I told him to "go for it", to which he replied that he could not afford to because his wife would get 50% of his money. I told him that was a bargain, as she was getting 100% of it now. :-)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
There's more to this story. [Joanna Gulli · Tucson, Arizona
Unfortunately, all too often, only one side of the story is reported. If all the facts were investigated it would be discovered the judge's decision was for him to receive only $100 of his half of THEIR pension, the rest going to her for child support. The judge's decision was an equitable distribution not 50/50. She received every thing else including their house, two vehicles, furnishings, all items pertaining to their home and property and bank accounts. There is no reason why her children can't go to college and live a comfortable life if she spends her money wisely.]
Unfortunately, all too often, only one side of the story is reported. If all the facts were investigated it would be discovered the judge's decision was for him to receive only $100 of his half of THEIR pension, the rest going to her for child support. The judge's decision was an equitable distribution not 50/50. She received every thing else including their house, two vehicles, furnishings, all items pertaining to their home and property and bank accounts. There is no reason why her children can't go to college and live a comfortable life if she spends her money wisely.]
(6)
(0)
SSG Michael Patton
MSgt Curtis Ellis - I used the link you provided in the original posting and read the comments.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
SSG Michael Patton - I checked with her, Joanna Gull's, response and she didn't have a link to her comment for this information. Will do some research later on today with KVOA, who originally reported it, and see if there were any changes, Thanks again!
(0)
(0)
SSG Michael Patton
I assumed, due to her surname, that she is related to the couple in the article and had additional insight. I know what assuming does, however. If you do find out more please update us all.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Under the USFSPA, the local judge is not allowed to give the non-military spouse less than what the DFAS formula comes up with. If you are wondering, the formula is A/B*50% where:
A = # months married while in service
B = # of months credited for retirement
If A>120 months the spouse files directly with DFAS for direct payment and doesn't even need the court.
Biggest crock of shit in the world.
A = # months married while in service
B = # of months credited for retirement
If A>120 months the spouse files directly with DFAS for direct payment and doesn't even need the court.
Biggest crock of shit in the world.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google