REPOST: Halle Berry’s Child-Support Fight: Female Breadwinners Can’t Have It Both Ways

Separated since 2010, Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubry share custody of their 6-year-old daughter. According to recent reports, the actress is petitioning for a reduced monthly child-support payment on grounds that her estranged partner is a lazy man who refuses to get a job. But Cathy Young argues on TIME.com that providing for one’s family is not an essential part of masculinity. Read more of her thoughts below:

Nahla, Gabriel Aubry and Halle Berry at the Topanga Canyon Festival on May 24, 2009 in Topanga Canyon, California.

Image Source: time.com

We need to shed the notion that providing for one’s family is an essential part of masculinity

The latest celebrity tussle over child support has an unusual twist. The parent seeking a reduction in child-support payments is the mother, Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry. The parent collecting the checks is her ex-boyfriend, French-Canadian fashion model Gabriel Aubry, who shares custody of their 6-year-old daughter Nahla. The gossip website TMZ reports that Berry has petitioned the judge overseeing the couple’s custody arrangement to reduce the monthly child-support payment of $16,000 to just $3,000, alleging that Aubry is refusing to get a job. Is this what equality looks like? Sometimes, it is—though the reactions to this skirmish show that a double standard definitely persists when it comes to men “living off” women.

TMZ ran the story under the headline, “Halle Berry: GABRIEL AUBRY IS A BUM; I Want Child Support Slashed.” A piece on Gawker’s Defamer blog sarcastically complimented Aubry on finding a great gravy train and suggested that Berry could not be blamed for wanting to put a stop to it. When a Gawker commenter posted a crude remark questioning Aubry’s manhood and joking about “medical bills to reattach his penis,” blogger Jordan Sargent’s only response was, “Strong comment.”

Would a woman collecting a lot of child support from her wealthy ex be derided as a lazy bum? Certainly not. (She might be attacked as a greedy vixen, but such attacks would likely be seen as misogynist.) For all the feminism-inspired changes in cultural beliefs about what it means to be a woman or a man, the idea that providing for one’s family is an essential part of masculinity has endured. While 40% of mothers in the U.S. are now their family’s primary breadwinner—including nearly a quarter of married moms—nearly a third of Americans still agree it’s best for everyone when the man provides for his family. One person’s Mr. Mom is another’s Mr. Bum.

While men are somewhat more likely than women to hold traditional views on gender issues, there is evidence that in their personal preferences, women may actually be more wedded—as it were—to the male-breadwinner ideal. In a 1994 study based on U.S. survey data of single adults, men were almost as willing to marry “someone who earns much more” than them as “someone who earns much less.” For women, a higher-earning partner rated 6 points out of a maximum of 7, compared with 3.5 for a lower-earning one. Women were also much less willing than men to marry someone who did not have a steady job.
Have things changed in 20 years? Perhaps not, in this regard. In the latest Pew Research Center poll on marriage, one of the biggest gender gaps for singles is in how important people consider employment for a spouse or long-term partner: 78% of women regard having “a steady job” as “very important” in choosing a mate, while only 46% of men do. Sorry, Gabriel Aubry.

These preferences are largely related to family roles. It’s not that women are materialistic gold diggers; rather, most want the option to curtail or interrupt paid work for motherhood. But prejudice against men who aren’t good providers may paradoxically clash with ambitious women’s life plans.

Take one of the women interviewed for feminist journalist Peggy Orenstein’s 2000 book, Flux: Women on Sex, Work, Love, Kids and Life in a Half-Changed World. “Abbey,” a 26-year-old artist and comic-book sales rep planning a career in the industry, admitted to growing ambivalence about her art-director boyfriend Jeremy. While Jeremy was devoted, supportive of Abbey’s goals and willing to follow her when she had to move, she was put off by his lack of ambition and limited earning potential. Ultimately, Abbey confessed that she’d rather have the choice to stay home after having children—despite being virtually certain that she wouldn’t exercise that choice and being strongly attached to her identity as a professional woman. Yet marriage to a Jeremy may be the best choice for a woman who wants to balance career and family.

Generally, it’s conservatives like RedState.org blogger Erik Erikson who defend the male-breadwinner role as biological (not quite the case if you look at the animal kingdom). Yet when a man and woman are in financial conflict, many feminists will line up in apparent solidarity behind a woman who upholds the most stereotypical of attitudes about gender and providing.

During the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995, prosecutor Marcia Clark sought more child support from her estranged husband—who earned half her salary—because of trial-related child-care expenses. (Imagine the derision if a male attorney had done the same.) When Gordon Clark asked for temporary custody, a chorus of feminist voices rose to defend Clark as a strong woman under attack. Today feminist websites like Jezebel mock affluent men who want to pay less child support as cheap crybabies—but offer no comment on Halle Berry’s bid for child-support reduction.

To be sure, $16,000 a month for a 6-year-old who spends half her time with her dad may raise questions about appropriate levels of child support in cases involving wealthy parents—and about when child support becomes a subsidy for a parent who should be pulling his, or her, weight. But such questions should be raised across the board, without double standards. In his own accidental way, Aubry is a pioneer for gender equality.

Attorney Michael Kelly is a family lawyer who provides legal consultation and representation for clients involved in child custody battles. Read more stories on child support here.

REPOST: Leave child support legislation alone

Gregg Herman of the Wisconsin Law Journal voices his opinion on changes to family law that would reduce child support contributions.

Image source: taperklaw.com

The story told of a wealthy business man, Michael Eisenga, who thinks he is paying too much in child support. After losing his appeal, Eisenga v. Eisenga, 2013AP91 (filed Oct. 3), Eisenga apparently asked his legislator, Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc — to whom, of course, he had contributed money — to draft legislation that would lower his child support.

According to the article, based upon requests by Eisenga and his lawyer, Kleefisch introduced a bill that “would cap the amount of income subject to child support to $150,000 a year — and assets could not be used in the calculation.” The article noted that Eisenga had donated $3,500 to Kleefisch; $7,500 to his wife, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch; and $15,000 to Gov. Scott Walker.

These so-called “constituent bills” are rather common in the family law field. They are introduced by legislators who want campaign contributions and don’t like to say “no” to anyone who gives them.

Image source: familydivorceonline.wordpress.com

But, they rarely go anywhere. In fact, many never even get a hearing. They are merely a mechanism for the legislator to placate a contributor. It offers a way to say “I’ll try,” instead of “no,” even though they know full well the effort will be fruitless.

Except once. Those of us with long memories will recall when a Dane County legislator introduced a seemingly innocuous bill requiring both parties, where there are children, to file with the court extensive medical history information about themselves and their siblings. The court, in turn, was to provide this information to the child’s physician. The confidentiality issue and logistical problems were, in and of themselves, mind-boggling.

Of course, no one complied and subsequent action by the State Bar Family Law Section caused the legislature to amend the statute so it applies only to those with sole custody. Even for those cases, the law is commonly ignored. The remnants of the law can be found as Wis. Stats. §767.41(7m). Prior to the amendment, of course, there was substantial confusion.

More commonly, it seems in every legislative session a bill is introduced to mandate equal placement in every case — even where the parties live many states away from each other.

Fortunately, few of those bills see the light of day and the family law section seems to have learned its lesson that they cannot be simply ignored. Last year, a representative of the section appeared at a hearing to explain why a bill was bad police and not necessary. It went nowhere.

Kleefisch’s bill has little prospect for success. Child support laws are driven by federal title IV-D regulations, which no state would risk violating due to the threat of losing federal aid.

Image source: child-support-laws-by-state.com

Still, the question is worth asking: Does Wisconsin law regarding child support for high income payers need to be changed?

Under current law, the court may, under the guidelines, reduce support for income between $84,000 per year and $150,000 per year, with a further reduction for income over $150,000. After that the court can deviate from the guidelines if the court finds that application of the guidelines would be unfair to either party or to the child.

In addition, courts may require a high-income payor to contribute to a trust for the benefit of child’s higher education, as long as the contribution is made from the parent’s income earned while the child was still eligible for child support. Kowalski v. Obst, 2003 WI App 218, 267 Wis. 2d 400, 671 N.W.2d 339.

After all, presumably in an intact marriage, parents put aside excess money for their children’s education. It only makes sense that a divorce court has the same power.

Certainly, there is a level at which it is ridiculous to pay child support. A colleague of mine calls it the “one-horse rule:” no child needs more than one horse to ride.

Yet, the amount varies based upon individual circumstances. The law allows the court the discretion about whether and where to cap support. That is the way it should be.

In short, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it. No matter how much money is contributed to a politician.

Having practiced family law since 1969, Michael Kelly has become one of the most seasoned family lawyers in the State of California.  Visit his practice's website for more updates.

Women and divorce: By the numbers

It may be a surprise to some, but it seems women file for divorce more often than men. A recent study highlighted that only one percent of women found themselves divorced in the 1920s, compared to 15 percent today.

Image Source: www.myjewishlearning.com

As early as 1867, the numbers on divorce filing rates indicate that women are initiating divorce proceedings 62 percent of the time. This nationwide statistic peaked at 70 percent in the 60s. Smaller samples in 1969 showed that in Iowa, 80 percent of filers are women, and this trend of women as plaintiffs in divorce proceedings continues to hover over 60 percent until today.

Image Source: www.i.huffpost.com

In modern times, women’s desire to break away from their marriages may be psychologically rewarding, but not as practical. Although women are quicker than men in emotional recovery, they tend to suffer more from the economic strains of divorce. In fact, research indicates that divorced men enjoy income growth, while divorced women endure a significant drop in the cash flow at home. A woman's standard of living takes a 73 percent dip after divorce, while men take in a 42 percent increase.

Image Source: www.b-i.forbesimg.com

This financial disparity is traced to child custody norms, which favor women. Men who are mandated to contribute to child support sometimes neglect the obligation. Figures show that the court is not where battles are won, as only 61 percent of those ordered to pay up actually do. The problem of inconsistent child support is persistent, but with the improving standard of wages in the country, it seems the trend of women ending their marriages will not cease. Equal opportunities for women may even push up the numbers, as the fairer sex can now secure better living standards for their children with better pay.

Divorce is a difficult process for both parties, but may put one at a greater disadvantage. Michael Kelly is a lawyer specializing in divorce and family law. Women in the Santa Monica, CA area can visit this website for information about how he and his firm handle divorce cases.