Should Spouses Who Kill their Children be Awarded Alimony?
This court case of a mother who killed her 14-year-old son is troubling (Hat Tip: reader_iam):
I would have to agree with the father's analysis; to be forced to pay this killer (the beating she gave her son caused internal injuries) alimony is truly a perversion of our justice system. No one who kills their child should be rewarded with monetary support from a spouse. More and more, it seems our society rewards horrible acts with money, prestige and sympathy. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The law should be changed.
Linda Calbi was originally charged with murder, but the charges were later downgraded to aggravated assault, based on expert reports that medical error contributed significantly to the boy's death. She was sentenced last year to three years in prison and won't be eligible for parole until November 2008.
The Calbis were divorced in 2001 after 15 years of marriage. A few months after Matt's death, Chris Calbi fell behind his alimony payments and filed papers in court seeking a reduction or termination of his payment obligations.
"She took the life of her oldest son, scarred her younger son for the rest of his life, and tore the fabric of my soul from me," Chris Calbi wrote in papers filed in Superior Court in Hackensack. "To reward this evil and violent woman by allowing her ... to derive a financial benefit from the family she destroyed ... can only be described as a perversion of our justice system."
A judge ordered him to continue making payments, then later interrupted alimony for the period that Linda Calbi is incarcerated.
But Chris Calbi's arrears had risen to more $40,000 by then, and the judge ordered him to pay $400 a month to his ex-wife's prison account.
I would have to agree with the father's analysis; to be forced to pay this killer (the beating she gave her son caused internal injuries) alimony is truly a perversion of our justice system. No one who kills their child should be rewarded with monetary support from a spouse. More and more, it seems our society rewards horrible acts with money, prestige and sympathy. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The law should be changed.
posted by Helen at 7:08 AM
88 Comments:
Is that even a serious question?
Absolute madness!
The Judge should be the one going to jail.
I was going to post on this but my son kept me busy. I wonder if a wrongful death lawsuit would work here. Sue her for an amount greater than the alimony.
Not only is her continuing to get alimony outrageous, but she only got 3 years in prison for beating her son to death. That's doubly outrageous! People frequently get more time for crimes where no one dies or is even injured.
This just proves thatthere are a lot of idiots on the Bench all over the country. And a lot of people drunkof the power their Judgeship gives then over the average citizen.
This just proves thatthere are a lot of idiots on the Bench all over the country. And a lot of people drunkof the power their Judgeship gives then over the average citizen.
Maybe when she gets out he can sue her for child support for the remaining son.
We shouldn't be so quick to blame the judge.
We should first ask if the law itself allows the judge to terminate alimony based on the bad acts of the party receiving the alimony. I am willing to bet it does not. The judge may have had no choice based on law in making the ruling he did.
We should be careful in advocating just such a restriction. Extreme cases make for bad law. It's easy to say that the bad act of murder should be grounds for lose of alimony but given the perverse nature of the legal system, the definition of "bad act" will be defined down to the point that getting a speeding ticket will trigger a lawsuit to terminate alimony.
I think a wrongful death suit is exactly the proper response in this circumstance. It will resolve the injustice without endangering the broader legal system.
I am not going to condone or excuse what she did. It was terrible and IMO she got of light . . . but then women always do. They are seldom held responsible for their actions in the manner that men are.
But I note that he was $40,000 behind in alimony payments at the time. I have no knowledge of this woman's mental or financial condition, but I wonder if things would have turned out differently if her ex had not been a deadbeat.
labamigo - read the article more closely.
The Calbis were divorced in 2001 after 15 years of marriage. A few months after Matt's death, Chris Calbi fell behind his alimony payments and filed papers in court seeking a reduction or termination of his payment obligations.
But, of course, a woman kills and we always want to find a way to blame the innocent man, don't we? A la Andrea Yates.
1. Alimony should be abolished altogether. It's mere child support for adults. At best, it should b e a temporary measure until the receiving spouse gets job training.
2. Shannon Love is wrong. Alimony SHOULD be based on good conduct. In particular, it should be contingent on a good faith effort to become financially independent. Murder is prima facia evidence of a failure in kind.
The real tragedy is, after she leaves prison, they'll probably give her custody of her younger son again.
The world's finest legal system strikes again.
As a stay at home mom I'm going to disagree with the, "Alimony should be contingent on a good faith effort to become financially independent." I gave up a career to take care of my kids. If my husband did divorce me then I do feel I would deserve alimony for part of the lost years of my career.
Now, to the woman who killed her kid, jail should be reason enough suspend alimony after all the state is taking care of her now. Why should he?
Welcome to the "road to hell paved with, not gold, but the "good" intentions of tinfoil hatted leftist loons" in the past forty years. Their philosophy has caused so much havoc with our way of life that I don't recognize much of it anymore. Not that we had a perfect system, far from it, but to tear something down brutally without thought to what comes after is sinful.
We should be careful in advocating just such a restriction. Extreme cases make for bad law. It's easy to say that the bad act of murder should be grounds for lose of alimony but given the perverse nature of the legal system, the definition of "bad act" will be defined down to the point that getting a speeding ticket will trigger a lawsuit to terminate alimony.
Take it away for any felony a woman commits. We do that all the time for the right to keep and bear arms for felons. It is absurd for you to even bring up the possibility of it being taken away over a speeding ticket, unless of course we are talking about one for felony wreckless driving.
No.
A rather bold example of why those who say that men shouldn't get married because they get nothing from it but the potential for eternal legal misery have, unfortunately, a good point. The whole notion of alimony should go by the wayside. If we live in a society where men and women are equal, the notion that one spouse enjoys enormous legal protections and is entitled to part of the other's income and possessions while the other deserves little more than scorn is completely contrary to that equality.
I'm pretty sure whichever person earns less in a marriage is the one who gets alimony. If men and women are equal, this makes perfect sense, and simply monetizes work which one party received from the other.
I'm also with the folks who argue that he should sue for wrongful death. The alimony and child support for the younger son can be part of the damages, you can use your "bad act should invalidate alimony" arguments to your heart's content, and it would even go some way towards ameliorating the frustration of the mother receiving a short sentence.
I agree with Heather. Marriage often requires significant compromises that affect the earning potential of one spouse. Kids are the most obvious. (My wife earned more than me before she decided on a career change to stay-at-home-mom. Now she's looking to get back to work, and won't make half of what I make, for many years, at least.)
But I have friends who've made other compromises: relocating for the benefit of the husband's career to the detriment of the wife's career, wife takes a no-risk, no-growth job so the husband can take big risks (which didn't pan out, so in a divorce, he'd probably be collecting alimony!), etc.
These compromises within the marriage are made on the assumption that spouses are pooling current and future resources. You can't dissolve the marriage contract without accounting for things like this.
Just because there's a murderer or airhead trophy ex-wife collecting alimony doesn't invalidate the concept of alimony.
To Heather:
Let me introduce you to an engineer what I used to work with. He is married to a woman who graduated from one of the best law schools in the country (University of Michigan). Without going into details, her career trajectory since graduation has been toward positions of less effort, less responsibility and lower compensation until now she is a stay-at-home mother to two children and a third on the way.
The irony of this is that her lifetime earning potential far exceeds his but she wants to be a "stay-at-home mom". Furthermore, he would love to be a househusband but knows that if he pushes the issue too far, she will, at best, become obnoxious and, at worst, divorce him. In other words, he's trapped, at the mercy of yet another female leech.
In other words Heather, in "giving up my career" to care for "my" (not "our") kids, I suspect that you didn't give up a thing. You were just fortunate enough to find a fool that you can exploit.
Heather wrote (and also in reply to Chris), “As a stay at home mom I'm going to disagree with the, "Alimony should be contingent on a good faith effort to become financially independent." I gave up a career to take care of my kids. If my husband did divorce me then I do feel I would deserve alimony for part of the lost years of my career.”
Heather, you don’t deserve it. Here’s why.
When you decided to give up your career, you moved from a state of less utility to a state of more utility. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have done it. This is basic economics. Utility is not necessarily monetary.
Heather, you have already been compensated for your CHOICE (not a “loss”) to give up a career. You preferred a close relationship with your children over a career: you got it. You have been compensated.
Moreover, if you deserve to be compensated for giving up a career, then your ex-husband deserves to be compensated for his loss of deep family relationships. Are you paying him for his loss? No?
Maybe he, like you, moved to a state of higher utility.
"Extreme cases make for bad law. ... [G]iven the perverse nature of the legal system, the definition of 'bad act' will be defined down to the point that getting a speeding ticket will trigger a lawsuit to terminate alimony.
I think a wrongful death suit is exactly the proper response in this circumstance. It will resolve the injustice without endangering the broader legal system."
Pshaw. How about using good old fashioned reasonable judgement? As in, parents who beat their children to death do not get alimony, child support, etc.? I think society can safely stand on *that* slope without slippage. Heck, we can even move down to felony-level child abuse and feel fairly firm ground beneath us.
Also, regarding your second point, the idea that an outrageous result should be redressed by more litigation to "balance the accounts" makes the veins pop out. How about simply dealing with the case at hand, rather than expecting litigants to play the law exam game of "name the all possible actions"? Adjudicate the matter at hand and deliver justice to the extent the law allows, do not duck the hard call and simply hope the litigant has enough money and time to pursue other, less pertinent rememdies to balance the botched decision.
That said, it easily could be that the law is so poorly written the judge had no choice. In that case, shame on the legislators.
From the article:
"The panel suspended Chris Calbi's payments until a hearing is held in Hackensack to make that determination. The panel also vacated the father's arrears after Matt's death."
At least the panel who considered the argument had the good sense to say that the arrears after the death of his son were vacated.
Can you imagine anything as obscene as forcing this man to pay for the legal defense of the woman who beat his son to death?
And to respond to Labamigo - it's important, I think, to note that he didn't fall into arrears until AFTER - repeat AFTER - this woman had murdered his son. No information in Dr. Helen's article, or the one from the paper suggest that he had failed to make those payments previously. He was no deadbeat , and your characterization of him as such was I think a bit hasty.
bobh, Caveat emptor! Sounds like your former co-worker bought a lemon and now the warranty has expired.
jeff, staying home isn't as simple as that. The trade-off isn't just "time with the kids" vs career. It's a huge bundle of goods exchanged on both sides, and one crucial component is the promise of financial support from one side, and the promise of quality child care (and so much more!) from the other. Every marriage is different, but it's typical that women give up potential money to get family, and men give up real money to get family.
To think this is one of the "accomplishments" of feminism...
***shaking head in disbelief***
The principle in this case is actually consistent. As the Court said, the theoretical concept behind alimony is to equalize the former partners' economic situation without regard to fault or behaviour. Since alimony is in no way conditioned on "good behaviour" it can't be taken away for any kind of moral lapse, or bad behaviour towards the paying party, the children, et cetera.
Where this goes wrong is where the legal system usually goes wrong, in that the principle at play here is in violent contradiction to the principles by which the public actually supports the idea of alimony. It turns out, as we see from the comments above, and as any idiot -- i.e. not a lawyer, who are fonder of their theories than any number of cold facts -- can see, the reasons the public supports alimony are moral, and should be conditioned on good behaviour, both before and after the dissolution.
People generally support alimony only in the sense that it represents "economic damages" suffered by an innocent spouse when the other has somehow violated the marriage covenant. The moral component is essential. That's why people do not support alimony for spouses who behave abominably but happen to make less money than the other spouse. This is, of course, in complete contrast to the law.
Now a good question is: how did the law become so wildly out of step with public mores?
Also, if I were a judge or legislator, I'd be asking myself how we could bring it back in line right quick, inasmuch as very little is as dangerous to an official as a populace realizing the officials have been enforcing something other than what the public wants enforced. Trees are handy and rope is cheap, you see.
I'm pretty sure whichever person earns less in a marriage is the one who gets alimony. If men and women are equal, this makes perfect sense, and simply monetizes work which one party received from the other.
Huh? So all those years of not having to pay rent or utilities or for food or anything don't count? This is what's wrong with the whole concept of alimony: it assumes that what the majority wage-earner (and let's be honest: in most cases, that's men) contributes is meaningless, while what the minority wage earner contributed is somehow worth a significant portion of the other's livelihood and possessions. Should the woman be forced to fork over the thousands and thousands of dollars that were spent on her to house her, feed her, clothe her? Maybe when unmarried relationships end, the woman should have to pay back the man for all those dinners out, gifts, free trips, etc.
I'm being ridiculous for a point here: no one would expect women to pay back for all those things, so why are men expected to pay exorbitant sums for alimony? Personally, I look forward to marriage some day, but I can't blame those men who want nothing to do with it for reasons like this.
Dave,
If this is how you see marriage why would you want to be married?
Most of the time when alimony is given it is given to a stay-at- home spouse.
Who in theory at least is contributing to the marriage and advancing the spouse in a non-paying way.
I routinely disagree with people who feel entitled to a free ride.
Heather does not strike me as this type of person at all.
Trey
Chris wrote, "The trade-off isn't just "time with the kids" vs career. It's a huge bundle of goods exchanged on both sides, and one crucial component is the promise of financial support from one side, and the promise of quality child care (and so much more!) from the other."
This is non sequitur, Chris.
The issue at dispute isn't what the parties give up, but the duration of responsibilities under the agreement. Heather claims harm from home-making. I pointed out that men can show harm from career-making. One is compensated and one is not.
Long after men stop receiving the benefits of child care and home-making, they still pay alimony to women.
Legal responsibilities to a child end when they come of age. Legal responsibilities to an ex-spouse should end when the marriage ends, and that's at divorce.
Women are not children; they don't need child support.
bobh,
You just called all stay at home mom's "Leaches" You probably meant "leeches".
Baby boomers have shown us how NOT to do the family thing. Mothers are not fathers. We are all equal under the law but we are not the same. Mothers will always be able to meet their childrens emotional needs better than fathers will. Fathers mean well but that area is mostly a blind spot for them. To make them care for children full time is equivalent to forcing me to watch football all weekend and then change the oil in my car. Its an unnatural act.
Bobh, I hope you are not a family man. Let me re-phrase that- I know you are not a family man, but I hope you don't have a wife and children.
My value to an employer has a price tag but my value to my children is priceless.
genxmom says - Mothers will always be able to meet their childrens emotional needs better than fathers will.
Ummm, I think not.
I know plenty of women who don't meet anyone's emotional needs and don't care about anyone's emotional needs but their own. I also know women who believe they are meeting their children's emotional needs when they are actually making their children emotional cripples.
I'm not saying men are better, but, unlike you, I'm saying they're just as good. Different perhaps, but just as good.
"Mothers will *ALWAYS* be able to meet their childrens emotional needs *BETTER* than fathers will. Fathers mean well but that area is *MOSTLY A BLIND SPOT* for them. To MAKE them care for children full time is equivalent to *FORCING* me to watch football all weekend and then change the oil in my car. Its an *UNNATURAL* act."
Well, well. That is certainly worthy of a response. Not a polite response, but a response...
If this is how you see marriage why would you want to be married?
Most of the time when alimony is given it is given to a stay-at- home spouse.
Who in theory at least is contributing to the marriage and advancing the spouse in a non-paying way.
It has nothing to do with how I see marriage. I have plenty of examples of successful (and unsuccessful) marriages around me to know in general what to seek and what to avoid. It has to do with my opinion of alimony and the American justice system as it relates to divorce: like it or not, it is heavily weighted to benefit women. If the situation were reversed and the man had been the primary caretaker of the child, but had killed said child, would there be even an ounce of sympathy for him legally or elsewhere? Absolutely not, and rightfully so. But because it's a woman, she's looked at as though she's some poor victim of circumstances. While certainly not all or even most divorces are the result of such actions, the general notion of "I'm a poor little victim of a big mean man!" is prevalent throughout the system. Don't like the prenup you had to sign? No problem, lawyers are already lining up to find ways to get you out of it and into his wallet. Men have begun having more success on the front of children, but there's still a way to go.
What I really wish is that more men and women both would take the concept of marriage more seriously. Everyone's probably heard the "marriage is the new dating" line by now, with "starter husbands" and the like. There's the old standby, the women over on Craigslist posting up the "I've had my fun" posts, looking not for lasting love in a meaningful relationship, but a business arrangement and a calming for biological clocks grown loud. And there are the guys who go along with it, who want to have their fun and think if they don't jump on the first woman to show a bit of interest, they have no chance beyond that. Marriage has become almost a fashion statement, like having babies has been for a while now. And when--surprise!--things don't work out in such an ill-conceived relationship...then the money demands come. Pay up, ex-hubby! It's all your fault! While I go out with this new guy over here!
Slanted against women somewhat? Yeah, probably, since I'm a guy and have seen far, far too many of my friends burned with identical scenarios, not to mention the ridiculous divorce rates in this country. If people would take their own relationships more seriously, we wouldn't have to worry about divorce law because half of those married wouldn't be keeping the divorce law field in business.
Wow. Alimony. So many thoughts here. I’m torn between being a reasonable guy (which is what I am, usually) and being an angry men’s rights activist (which is what I am when I’m not being a reasonable guy).
1) Alimony is a very old concept that was created when the labor market for women was nearly non-existent. Times have changed, and now, just about any woman who wants to work can find a job. The idea of “keeping a woman in the manner to which she is accustomed” is ridiculous.
2) Alimony enables divorce. There is a co-dependency in marriage where the wife depends (or used to) on the husband for economic support and the husband relied on the wife for emotional and maternal (for their children) support. The family court systems ascribe zero value to the latter, so the whole deal ends up being one-sided in favor of the ex-wife.
3) Being a reasonable guy, I could support the assignment of alimony in cases where the primary income earner (lately, the number of women in this situation is growing) leaves the lesser, temporarily, to enable the establishment of an economic footing. But by temporary, I mean no more than six months, maybe a year with appeal to the courts, but no more. But if you’re the poor one, and you choose to leave, then you leave on your own terms and receive no “reward” for your divorce.
Genxmom: “We are all equal under the law but we are not the same.”
I’m afraid you’re reading the Constitution, again, deary,. The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to men. The law as currently written and practiced does not treat men and women equally. I won’t event attempt to list the inequities, but most of them weigh against men.
“Mothers will always be able to meet their children’s emotional needs better than fathers will.”
I will tell you that you are wrong about this and you will disagree. But here’s my experience and observation of others in my community: Dads meet the emotional needs of their children from about puberty on BETTER than mom does. The needs are different and turn outward at the onset of puberty, and they don’t necessarily look huggy-face and kissy-pie. Sometimes they appear harsh, but the value of knowing the limits at the same time as the strength of support has more value than some acknowledge. Dads are typically less malleable than moms, but it doesn’t mean that their support is less nurturing or valuable.
“My value to an employer has a price tag but my value to my children is priceless.”
As the primary provider in my family, my time has a pricetag, but my ability to provide for my family is priceless. The cost of a temporary ‘companion’ for the night numbers in dollars, but the value of the companionship that my wife provides is priceless. I’d like to think that the value of my companionship to her is the same, but in all too many cases, I know women who have left their husbands because the take-home pay was too low.
Spouses who seek divorce under the assumption that they will receive alimony and use of the familial home are leeches and deserve nothing unless they’re willing to see that whatever intangibles they took away are also replaced in kind.
as far as my generalizations about mothers and fathers go, obviously they are generalizations. Of course, you can always find exceptions that prove the rule. If I leave my kids with my husband all day every day, I know they will be alive when I get home. But I can't be sure they didn't eat fritos and watch cartoons ALL DAY LONG!!!!
And only mothers can read their baby's minds to know what they need before they can talk.
No matter how many boomers try to shame me out of speaking the truth, its still the truth.
GenXmom,
I am afraid the research proves you wrong; kids, especially boys, who are raised by fathers often end up better off after divorce. Girls without fathers end up more promiscuous and have more problems whereas boys tend to act out more. Fathers, just like mothers are important in their children's lives. You do a disservice to dads everywhere to compare what they do to you watching football; it does not come close.
To those of you who corrected me, yes you are right. I should not have been in such a hurry.
"And only mothers can read their baby's minds to know what they need before they can talk."
First bigotry, now claims of psychic powers. This is getting interesting.
"No matter how many boomers try to shame me out of speaking the truth, its still the truth."
If you are feeling shame, maybe it isn't the truth. (Born in 1969, ma'am, just to go on record.)
Should spouses who kill their children be awarded alimony?
Not only no, but hell no. Nor should they have the child / children who are survivors.
genxmom... I do not disagree your value to your kids is priceless. But it is not absolute. I am a father of three kids, who I raised my self. I worked full time, went to school plays, and ball games, helmed birthday parties, taught them how to ride bikes, and a million other things. It cost me 5 career quality jobs and my life savings in order to be there for them. I also watched football and changed the oil - cut the grass, painted the house, cleaned the pool, did the laundry, cooking, and cleaning. And I was there crying like a baby on graduation day. Your view of, and lack of value you place on the father shows your head is so far up your ass that it is poking back out of your neck. Many women think they are special, more special than you truly are. My guess is your biggest fear is the realization that if you didn't have a vagina, a man would have absolutely no use for a person who thinks like you.
The judge must be a greenie. The mother should have self-sterilized, the son should not have been born to save the Earth. The mother was rectifying her sin against Gaia by terminating her son's carbon foot print.
Genxmom, you seem to be quite biased against the value of fatherhood:
"But I can't be sure they didn't eat fritos and watch cartoons ALL DAY LONG!"
If all your husband did for your kids or your father did for you was see to it that they/you were alive when mom returned, then you truly have been slighted.
I see SOOO many fathers coaching their daughters through soccer and basketball and softball, and leading YMCA Indian Guides outings (well, not since the PC crowd forced cancellation of the program) and Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. And there is such a dearth of female Girl Scout leaders (they frown, if implicitly, on male leaders) that if you want your daughter to be in Brownies, mom MUST volunteer as a leader (at least that's widely true in central NJ), and not all women can.
And frankly, there are worse things to eat than Fritos.
A father who's paying attention, as most do, will bring a whole different spectrum of experiences to his children's lives than a mother will. Where will your daughter learn what respectful treatment from a man means? What other example of how to treat a woman with respect will your son see if not the way your husband treats you?
And yet the family courts end up treating divorce as purely a business transaction because all of those things are intangible. Dismiss your husband from your life and collect his money, but then you abandon all that isn't so measurable.
br549,
Until I read your last sentence, I was pretty much agreeing with you. I think your low blow is meant to shut me up. Do you talk that way to everyone who disagrees with your or just people who are far away and anonymous? I'll bet your are a real treat for waitstaff at restaurants. I am going to ignore you and continue on. I am not talking to you so don't bother reading my posts anymore.
My husband does lots of other things that are priceless. He cooks every night, as did my dad. He is a wonderful father but he is not a mother!
You can't deny biology- kids want and prefer mom. Even if mom is messed up, or if mom doesn't attend as many little league games as dad. You want it your way, but nature made it another way. That is where the feminists lost me such a long long time ago.
Genxmom says:
You can't deny biology- kids want and prefer mom. Even if mom is messed up, or if mom doesn't attend as many little league games as dad.
I disagree with you on that. Kids will gravitate to the saner calmer parent, be it mom or dad.
I agree fathers can be just as good primary caretakers as moms.
As for alimony, I do believe that me staying home material helps my husband’s career as it hurt mine. In the event of a marriage breakup and asset re-allocation to what am I entitled. It is not a matter of, “keeping me in a lifestyle I’ve become accustom to”.
Why are spouses insured for more than funeral expenses if I don’t add value to the marriage?
I tend the think that the person who walks away from a marriage in not entitled to support.
That being said, there are very valid reasons to not grant or resend alimony; new live in relationship, career advancement, illegal activity, etc.
but the charges were later downgraded to aggravated assault, based on expert reports that medical error contributed significantly to the boy's death.
I wasn't sure about this statement at first, but does it mean the doctors/paramedics supposedly made a mistake?
As you wish. My point of view, as well as your head, remain in their respective positions.
Discuss amongst yourselves:
When people become foster parents, they get trained on how to develop trust with their new foster children. Part of what needs to happen is that the mother of the family has to be built up as the most reliable and loving person on the planet. How dad treats her is a big part of that. She has to be percieved as almost superhuman in order to help these children trust her. There is a syndicated columnist, Jennifer Roback Morse, who writes on this exact issue (she is a foster mother).
I suppose I should address the original topic of Dr. Helen's post- the mother getting alimony. OF course I think she is entitled to nothing, except maybe being pushed off a cliff.
In terms of alimony in general, I would have to say it depends. If a woman saw her role as a traditional one and made sacrifices for her husband that ended up impoverishing her when he left, then alimony is called for. Sacrifices such as giving birth to 12 children and ruining her physical health.
In terms of men getting alimony from women, if he has custody of the children, he is entitled to a portion of her salary.
Jeff: "The issue at dispute isn't what the parties give up, but the duration of responsibilities under the agreement."
I was referring the duration or responsibilities when I said that the trade-off includes a promise of financial support. The stay-at-home mom gives up future earning potential for the promise of future financial support. You seem to think that termination of the marriage contract terminates other agreements within the marriage such as this one. I disagree.
Now, I've got reservations about the proper amount and duration of alimony, particularly in cases like this one. But I support the concept of alimony basically as enforcement of a contract.
"The idea of “keeping a woman in the manner to which she is accustomed” is ridiculous."
Yes it is...she throws out the man(and most divorces are initiated by women), she should also forfeit the lifestyle that came with him.
Alimony, palimony, child-support, and welfare.
Why should anyone be given something they havent earned.
PS.
If you qualify being a stay at home mom as earning alimony, or childsupport they have a word for that.
its called prostitution.
Hopefully, the surviving younger brother will not be placed with the mother. He wouldn't be sleeping at night, unless he had at least one eye open. And who knows, perhaps if the younger brother is angry enough, she might have to sleep with one drunken eye open also.
Reading the article, there may be a possibility neither parent is what I would call "ideal".
If the boy had fought back with the same ferocity as placed on him, he'd likely be in juvenile hall instead of where he is now. Hard to imagine that being a better place than home.
advancing the spouse in a non-paying way
Oh yeah.
Maybe I only see it because I've always worked in a cubicle in large companies, but the men who never have to leave early or take time off from their job for car maintenance, taking children to routine checkups, running errands to places only open between 9-5, etc etc etc and never have to stay up late to do the laundry or pack lunches and can spend an hour in the evening reading industry mags instead of making dinner and washing the dishes do far, far better in the workplace than men and women who have those impediments in the way of a 60-hr workweek. The corporate world still revolves around people who have someone else to manage their household. And just try to find a "prosititute" who'll manage your home for remuneration of only "rent, food, and health care."
You really CAN put a monetary value on a spouse who supports a breadwinner.
THAT said, I understand the various state alimony laws don't treat a helpful partner who devoted her life to her family but still got traded in for a younger woman with perky boobs any differently than the "soaps and bonbons" dead weight that y'all seem to have married. I don't know how you write legislation to address that.
...damn shame I'm not sexually attracted to women; I could really use a wife like Heather. :P
Most women, like most men, seek advantage dressed up like redress.
While a woman is married, she claims her unpaid economic contributions to the marriage are "priceless." As soon as she has a lawyer, the price becomes all the law will allow. The hypocritical tension between female contempt for economic measurement and female avarice is what's really priceless.
You're a stupid woman if you "give up" a career for a husband and family and rely on a judge to wave his magic wand and make it all better when divorce breaks through denial.
Alimony is bad for you. As a divorced woman, you need to struggle for a while to grow up. Alimony prevents the spiritual growth you need to get to the point where you're not a whiny pain in everyone else's bohind.
Few women "give up" a career for family. That's a face-saving rationalization. Work sucks. Women have memorized their Cliff Notes rationalizations for refusing to do any.
Women who can pull it off retire early with a sigh of relief and wasted educations. Then they claim outsized amorphous spiritual contributions to home and hearth. Deep inside they know they're slackers. Saying "I'm priceless" is just Desperate Housewives handwaving to distract from their real lack of productivity. I'm not saying men wouldn't do the same if we could.
As far as that spiritual contribution thing goes, if most moms got reviewed for actual performance, they would get fired and their kids would be better off. (If the shoe doesn't fit, you're not Cinderella and you shouldn't be offended by this. But if you're a mom who doesn't acknowledge that most other moms are incompetent, you're one of them.)
The only games women win are the ones that men let them win. Ladies, you forget this at your dire peril. It's not just golf or basketball but the game of Life. The glass ceiling is blown from your own limitations. Your only path to success in a world run by men who have evolved to run the world is to keep making men want to let you win whenever it suits you. Being bitchy and demanding will only take you so far except with a man you don't want anyway, except as a torment-toy. No wonder you end up bitter.
Bark less, wag more.
It's alimony helen.
Not like she's asking him to pay child support for the kid...
:-)
No, this murderer should have to legally forfeit her alimony. And she should be forever stripped of her parental rights to the surviving son.
However, I don't think this is about "woman's rights" as (re possible future custody) about "blood" rights. She's the bio mom so somehow she has "rights".
IMO something this heinous invalidates any bio-tie.
Now about alimony in general... I had to calm down because reading the woman-haters on this thread ("leeches"?) almost cost me my laptop.
Most mature couples make agreements on family structure - will they be two-earner? Have kids? How many? Day care? Home care?
It can be the man or the woman...but whoever stays home full time should receive alimony upon divorce. I'd like to see some sort of "fault" returned so bad behavior is not rewarded .. if it is the SAH then reduced alimony, if its the other then full pop.
I can cite just as many male "leech" stories ... guys whose wives worked long hours while they got their law/medical/phd, all while promising her she'd get to go back to school as soon as he got into the job market...he lands the job and hands her the divorce papers. He has no student loans and she has no degree.
Isn't that special?
and SIX MONTHS of alimony would be 'enough' "rehabilitation"??
Uh. No.
most other moms are incompetent
The only games women win are the ones that men let them win
how thick are those scabs on your knuckles, mikey?
The Internet is odd because people say things that they normally wouldn't say on a face-to-face basis. Some prevalent ideas pop up from a number of people - and you would never have known that a lot of other people really thought that way without the anonymity of the Internet.
I have always wondered why men want to pay for some housewife. Yes, they stay home because it beats working. On top of it, housewives can turn into petty, greedy, bossy tyrants who spend their time being condescending to people who have less than them, and envious of people who have more than them (more = more things that the husband bought). Oh, and don't forget to watch Oprah.
With regard to the argument that she is helping her husband's career: Well, not always. I have seen friends and co-workers who have a dragon at home. You can't be at your best at work when your stomach is churning from the constant nagging. Aside from that, when I was working horrific hours, I was NEVER FRIGGIN' HOME to mess up my place. There simply wasn't much work to do myself. If the housewife is sitting home all day, maybe most of what she is cleaning is her own mess.
Having said that, though, I don't really care if this guy has to pay alimony or if other men who want housewives have to pay alimony. That's the price of having a sit-at-home princess. These types of men sometimes brag about what they have to pay for the demanding bitch (meaning their housewife), so I guess they can continue to be proud about paying her alimony. They must truly be great, rich men to pay that out, so I say continue to allow them that.
Whenever anyone says that housewives may be anything other than selfless angels who are the bestest people in the world, and who deserve far more than the man could ever pay in alimony ... the insults and shaming language start popping up (from these innocent houswives, no less).
You are not a real man if you don't support a housewife. You can't get laid and you probably have a small penis. You should never be a family man, well I know you are not a family man, but ...
Must be touching a nerve.
This is the law of the land in Canada. No amount of bad-behavior on the part of the spouse receiving spousal support can interfere with their right to receive spousal support. There have been several test cases and the law has been upheld.
The internal injuries received by the boy that caused his death, seems to me, would have had to have been caused by getting kicked. So I am assuming he was down when receiving these blows. It was not immediate, as if a bullet or blade was used. But it was murder. The woman beat her son to death.
The perp's rights are now forfeit, and hard time is due. A debt to society is to be paid. It only makes sense that the agreement reached in the divorce settlement should also be re-visited.
If I may give a few words of advice regarding anyone who wishes to receive alimony. Don't file for a divorce in Maryland because you ain't getting any here. The law in this state regarding alimony is first the spouse has to prove he/she has no marketable skill. Then one might get it for a maximum 2 years, and only while attending an education program that will give one that marketable skill. I have an acquaintance here who had some big pie in the sky ideas about leaving her husband and getting a big monthly check, until I told her to get a lawyer and check things out. She's still with that husband but living in a separate bedroom and fighting like cats and dogs. I feel sorry for the kids.
If for whatever reason a woman has not enough education or skills to support herself after a divorce, would you rather have the ex pay in a "you helped make that bed sleep, now sleep in it" or have the costs of supporting the spouse fall to society. Meaning you and me the taxpayer?
Sorry. I'm all for the family law trend that encourages working and independence after divorce (and no alimony is becoming more and more common in the younger generations where women are expected to be educated and work).
But if Joe BigShot wants a divorce to go on and acquire a newer model family, why should taxpayers and not him have to pay for the social costs he's leaving behind in terms of a spouse unable to compete in the marketplace?
Same thing with child support. If you don't get the non-custodial parent to pay it, and we can boo-hoo all we like about the poor men who have to actually pay, why should the rest of society have to bear the costs (financial and social) of raising his children?
I think in defending "mens' rights", Helen misses this. Who actually steps in to pay for getting the job done. If it's the State, well that's financed by intact families like yours and mine, folks. You can see it in the schools now -- all those non-intact families who are now desperate for male "role models" in the classroom because there's none at home, or calling for more vigorous physical activities for those who act out, presumably because they're not getting enough outside of classtime and haven't been taught to distinguish between in-class behaviour and the type of things you're out doing with your family after school hours and weekends.
Sadly for so many from divorced households, I suspect the boys sit in front of the computer or otherwise are tied to the house, and don't get out much outside of classtime. And everybody's kids pay for this in classtime, because there's so much to compensate for that the State is now expected to provide. Your divorces and split families cost us all, fellas. That's why I can't jump on the pity party mentality: You chose her. You made that bed... why should I pay for it, when you were the one sleeping in it?
Gee, I'd be so proud if there was a huge debate about who was going to support me - parents, husband or taxpayers - while I lie on the couch and watch Oprah.
I got tossed out of the house at age 18 and worked through college as a roofer (among other things). Any job you can get. But housewives CAN'T work, because they're housewives.
Housewives rock!
Goodness, more lovely comments about those awful, stupid, bloodsucking "housewives"...
btw: women don't marry the house. do y'll still use "coloreds" to refer to African-Americans?
such shrill bigotry is a sight to behold.
I am not sure why a few people here talk as if a housewife cannot get some type of job. Anyone can go out and work at something to bring in enough to live. If one cannot do that because of disability, they can sign up through the state to get disability payments or get private insurance to assure some type of income. Some commenters here are acting like women are incapable of supporting themselves--as if they are kids under 14-- who must accept a childlike allowance from daddy to make it. Sorry, I don't buy it.
In most states helen, that's exactly why there's no more alimony entitlements anymore.
But in the cases where you've got an older women in their 60s and 70s finding themselves divorced with no education or job experiences except motherhood to fall back on... I'd sure support alimony for those older types who fell into that traditional model of marriage, rather than the State payin 100% of her survival needs.
If one cannot do that because of disability, they can sign up through the state ...
Well, in actuality helen, it takes a lot more than just "signing up". Thank heavens-- Remember, the State here making those disability payments is actually taxpayers like you and me.
Helen,
Some commenters here are acting like women are incapable of supporting themselves--as if they are kids under 14-- who must accept a childlike allowance from daddy to make it. Sorry, I don't buy it.
If god forbid my marriage fell apart. I would go back to work, I intend to go back at least part time when the kids are in school. But I was raised by a single mom who worked full-time and I would hate that for my young children.
I do have problems with some of the venom aimed at me for a decision that my husband not only agreed with but encouraged. I’m not a saint, I never watch daytime talk shows. I might spend too much time reading Instapundit.
We discussed child raising before we were married and my husband was adamant that if we had kids one parent would stay home. Before we had kids we talked and agreed that I should stay home. As I said, it’s not a matter of if I can or would work. I agreed not to work outside the home in return he agreed to financially support me while I take care of the kids. We have insurance in case on both of us in case something happens, so one of us can take care of the kids.
Now, if my husband intentionally renegades on the agreement by running off with his, “soul mate.” I would have no problem demanding payment for any my loss of earning potential or asking him to keep to the agreement.
Btw, my husband is a total wonderful person who would never do that. But, I know of a few guys who have. Likewise, I know men who were totally screwed during a divorce because she ran off with her “soul mate.”
Darleen, in this case, the more the shoe pinches, the better it fits.
The vast majority of women, and I include you in this generalization, are so enmeshed in and feel so entitled to their special privileges and protections that there's no talking to them about it. It's exactly the same as when men considered their privileges to be so much the natural order of things that any attack on those privileges shocked them so much they couldn't think or respond reasonably.
For a few years now, as I've become increasingly aware of how ridiculously American women behave, I get asked relatively frequently, You don't like women do you? I used to say, No, I like women, it's just this and that....
I've stopped qualifying and now answer honestly, No, as a pampered, privileged class, I don't much like women who act like typical members of that class, and you're acting like that right now.
Wow. I guess my household is the exception to the rule. My husband is equally effective at meeting the needs (both emotional and developmental) of our son, and right now, I work from home full time, and he stays at home full time to take care of the kiddo. My job is a lot more flexible than his is, so keeping my job, while he quit his was the logical decision.
Once I have another child, we'll switch, and I'll quit work to look after the kids, and he'll be the primary income-earner. I don't fool myself into thinking that my children need mommy with them all the time, they need a parent with them, that's all.
As to alimony, I don't need it. He'd be on the hook for half the cost of supporting our kids, but supporting me?? Sheesh. With regards to the example of a woman with 'no marketable skills' who was suddenly left out in the cold, there's a remarkable amount of similarity between running a household, and managing an office or working as a receptionist - maybe not the highest paying jobs, but certainly a good place to start.
Helene said,
Some commenters here are acting like women are incapable of supporting themselves--as if they are kids under 14-- who must accept a childlike allowance from daddy to make it
And that has been the problem with feminism from day one; they claim they are strong and do not need men for anything but they need men to support them financially .
If they want us to take them seriously they should make up their mind;
are they strong independent and equal to men,
or are they weak little things that can not do anything on their own and that men ( and goverment ) must support and protect?
Because decades of feminism have shown us that feminists only care about issues that will get them more money.
More money from their ex husband,
more money from the state...
There is no money in defending Muslim women who get treated worse than cattle so feminists simply stay away from such inconvenient facts.
Feminism is all about money and a little about power, but mostly about money.
Feminists are gold diggers under a different name.
I am a feminist, please don't tell for which issues I stand.
With regards to the example of a woman with 'no marketable skills' who was suddenly left out in the cold, there's a remarkable amount of similarity between running a household, and managing an office or working as a receptionist - maybe not the highest paying jobs, but certainly a good place to start.
That's wonderful. But in reality, especially for the older women who have been out of the workplace for decades with no degree, just getting the job is the hard part.
Both looks and computer skills are often called for in receptionist jobs.
Not making excuses, but the rich men who leave these women (in their 60s and 70s) who were counting on his salary to maintain their lifestyle should get alimony or a decent settlement I think, and not have to rely solely on government programs for their support.
And I'm not sure if the older group who went the traditional route caring for the home and family all though years should be lumped in the "feminist" category, when we're blaming feminism for society's ills.
I know a guy in his early 60s who "hid" his pension, or structured it so that the mother of his son and grandchild couldn't touch it legally. How sad. Even if you can see the marriage is over not because she cheated but for the crime of becoming "old" and "boring", wouldn't you want to provide for her, especially considering you have plenty?
He lost my respect the day he was telling me how crafty his financial structuring was...
Oh and yes, he was an attorney, fwiw.
Sad...
I'm shocked that this hasn't come up, but I was just waiting to see how long it was before the "it's so hard to find a good man" comment came up. Translated, to most women that means "it's so hard to find a sucker."
This attitude of entitlement is why, ladies, it's hard to find a su...man to marry you and save you from the horrible indignity of working for a living. What also hasn't been discussed is the childless divorces in which alimony is STILL DEMANDED. What is the rationalization for that one? Ever heard the phrase "husbandly duties"? Ever heard used the gender appropriate equivalent? No, because to suggest that women have a duty to sexual accomadation of their husbands, to paraphrase Andrea Dworkin, is equivalent to rape. Why on earth would a man get married in these times?
As men speak to one another and watch the news, it's become impossible to ignore that the risk/benefit analysis for marriage for men is extremely high on the risk side and the converse on the benefit side. That is why many of us have decided against it entirely. I can still have kids if I choose to. I was adopted and would gladly pay the favor forward, with the added benefit that should any woman I'm involved with turn out to be a shrew, I don't have to be worried about loosing the child I chose to have.
Michael Lee has a great point. In general, I like women and I believe firmly in their equality. But "as a pampered, privileged class, I don't much like women who act like typical members of that class..." and the real truth is that it's difficult in the US to find a woman who doesn't fit that description.
I would bet that many of these inequities between the sexes would go away with the simple passage of an Equal Rights Amendment but I don't see any men screaming for that as a solution. Many men want things to be equal among the sexes but maybe not that equal.
Cham,
Maybe it's because, having been burned by other, ostensibly "Equal Rights" laws that go only one way, men aren't buying the sales pitch?
We theoretically have equal rights under the 14th Amendment already, but the courts have perverted that unchecked in respect to divorce and "family" court. Why would a new amendment make any difference?
The ERA would read:
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
The 14th amendment addresses citizenship but doesn't necessarily make things plain and clear regarding gender. Which means no preferentially treatment in a court. It also means that the ladies get drafted and become active in combat, that was the big hold-up back in the 70s when the ERA got volleyed around. But now we see that the ladies do pretty well in combat and Israel has been drafting women for years without issues, so I think we can put those challenges aside. The big beef MRAs have is this courtroom bias toward mothers, the ERA could easily be applied to quash the bias. But not a peep out of those vocal and easily agitated MRAs about that amendment approval which makes me think they are all whine and no action.
How about "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state."
The simple act of layering on some group designation makes me suspicious.
cham: I'd say the reason for the silence is distrust. Too many have been burned by 'equality' which is NOT equality.
We have the same problems in Canada. Equality is for females ...
How do you get around that?
So, once again, the family court hits the headlines. Instead of getting lost in the details and offering opinions that do not matter one iota,,,,, let's examine the family court system.
First, it is run by lawyers. There is no incentive for lawyers to remedy their client’s issues in an expeditious manner at the exorbitant rates they charge. It would simply be a conflict of interest. Therefore,, they hand out raw deals for repeat business. Sometimes they even get free headlines for advertising.
It is my opinion that they are societal leeches. They may begin their career as someone with a conscious but after a short time; they must choose either a conscious or a career. By that time, they have been entwined into a financial world. Conscious looses. Callous minds develop and greed happens generally at the expense of the children. Oh,,,,,, yeah,,,,,,, what about the kids??? I doubt that they give a damn.
There is no money in complete resolve,,,,,,,Therefore, the lopsidedness of the system. Currently it is for the women. It used to be for the men. Somehow the pendulum has never been in the middle. Hmmmmmm
I have given up on getting justice in the family court. I refuse to feed them.
If you think for one nano second that those folks are stupid or ignorant,,,,, If you think that for one minute that they don't know what's going on or unaware of the travesty,,,,, you are a fool. Wake up.
There is no recourse against false allegations for a reason. Look at the hundreds of lives ruined by the “Nappy Headed Ho” that levied the false charges against the Duke University lacrosse team. She wasn’t even publicly reprimanded. Zero charges filed. The judge let her go because, “She may actually believe those things happened.” Yeah, and, the Easter Bunny jumped over the moon. Numerous cases of false allegations abound in the news. When proven false there is no recourse against the accuser for a reason. The message is,,,,, the attorneys are soaking up the gravy.
As long as the attorneys can get their financial anatomy up your bank account,,,, they'll keep it there for as long as it's a pleasurable experience.
My response is,,,,, don't feed the attorneys. Starve them out of business.
No argument out of me, cougar.
The ones I ended up "hating" in my situation were the lawyers. I was paying one to slit my throat (my ex's lawyer) and another to stem the bleeding (my lawyer). After they BOTH bled me dry, they both disappeared. My own lawyer wouldn't even return my phone calls.
This is amazing, terrible!
The more people who know about this, the more likely that something might be done about it!
Here are other references:
Mother Kills son and then receives alimony
www.groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/7df1b7810a7a9153
汽車旅館
消費券優惠
motel
消費券
薇閣
住宿券
廣交會
廣州飯店
廣州
广州
广交会
广州酒店
Canton Fair
Guangzhou Hotel
Guangzhou
広州
広州の交易会
広州のホテル
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行。
這一家租屋網免費刊登不用錢耶，超好康的想出租房子快來吧！
專業搬家公司,服務第1,顧客至上,是你值得托負終生的好伙伴!精緻搬家公司主要是在為大家服務搬家為目的,本網站服務項目以,搬家公司、回頭車,家庭搬家,工廠搬遷,為主要,服務地區台中搬家,台北搬家公司,全省搬家公司,歡迎洽詢
順便介紹一下室內設計在國內的發展，已到了一個急待突破的瓶頸階段。雖然，在裝潢學界，我們已建立了從高中、高職、五專、二技、四技、大學到研究所相當完整的室內設計相關專業教育體系，在業界，相關從業人員至少也在數萬人以上，而民間人士對於住宅、商空、辦公室等各類空間室內設計之需求也隨著經濟的不斷成長與社會進步而日益殷切。表面上看來，室內設計似乎蓬勃發展、坦途在望，但事實並非如此。此一領域至今仍有許多問題急待克服與解決，而其中最主要的問題之一是官方一直將「室內設計」視為是依附在建築之下的附屬品，而非一獨立之專業。這種情形，我們從內政部所公布施行的建築物室內裝修管理辦法之內容便可清楚看出。
此一未與學界、業界充分溝通即匆促制訂、且施行後成效不彰的室內設計管理辦法可說問題重重，值得深入檢討，以謀徹底改善之道。
官方對於「室內設計」未能正確定位可說是問題的主要根源之一。此一瓶頸如無法突破，則室內設計將永遠只是附屬於建築底下的一個妾身未明、專業地位未受尊敬與肯定的灰色領域。這種情形對多年來努力建立室內設計專業教育體系的學界、以及辛勤接受室內設計各級專業教育的諸多莘莘學子而言，真是情何難堪。何以同樣在中華民國教育制度下，一樣的修業年限，一樣具備完整的專業教育體系，建築、土木等領域的畢業生就有機會取得官方對其專業地位的認定，其權利能受法律保障，而修習室內設計公司的室內設計者就只能參加建築物室內裝修專業技術人員之講習與測驗，還需在建築師、建築公會或其他相關專業團體之審核查驗下夾縫求生？這對室內設計領域是不公平的。如果不是其他專業領域之專業知識與技能未能完全涵蓋、不足以有效處理室內設計相關問題，何以有室內設計存在的空間？又何需大費周章建立從高中到研究所的專業教育體系？可見室內設計有其存在的必要與價值，也有其獨具的（與其他專業有所區隔的）專業知能。
再談談網站優化SEO方案的優勢和效果保證：
網路行銷管理顧問的專業實力決定了在網站優化方案及實施方面具有獨特的優勢，主要表現在下列方面：
領先的網路行銷導向網站建設理論和系統的網站優化思想指導；
作為中國中國互聯網協會網站建設指導規範的主要起草人，對網站規範（網站優化是網站規範的基本組成部分）的認識更為深刻；
對利用國際WEB標準實施網站重構有著豐富的經驗；
從網站運營策略層面進行整體網站優化，是網站運營導向的網站優化方案而不僅僅是為了搜尋引擎排名，單純的搜尋引擎排名效果是局部的、短暫的，也可能是後患無窮的；
需要找健身中心幫你健身嗎？會變瘦唷！ 喝茶葉也會被瘦呀！不信你看看A片的女生都好瘦
SEO不等於網站優化，不提供片面的，實踐表明只有系統的網站優化才能達到最好的、持久的搜尋引擎優化效果；
基於用戶行為的研究，通過網站SEO優化為用戶提供最有價值的信息和服務，為瀏覽者轉化為顧客奠定基礎；
為眾多不同規模的企業網站及電子商務網站提供網站優化方案、實施及運營維護，豐富的網路行銷實踐經驗，讓網站優化深入到網站運營的每個細節，這是網站優化得以成功的基本保證。
好了說完了，以下幾個站點不錯，累的話來去motel休息一下吧！有空能去看看
優質站點介紹：led手電筒,棧板,二胎,隔熱紙,照明,健身,a383,a383,兼職小姐,二手家具,a383有人要 去嗎？
美美的led胸章好美唷，放在車燈上面照的很亮
文山搬家
南港搬家
大安區搬家
松山搬家
中山區搬家
大同區搬家
中正區搬家
士林搬家
萬華搬家
台北搬家 公司
台北搬家公司
客人來看看唷！最新網路行銷方式
情趣用品這一款超好用的說！
情趣用品好好用！
室內設計,室內設計,室內設計,裝潢,室內設計,室內設計室內設計公司
,搬家公司,搬家公司,台北搬家公司,搬家公司,室內設計
這一家租屋網免費刊登不用錢耶
搬家公司,健身,茶葉A片,SEO,SEO,SEO,motel,led手電筒,棧板,二胎,隔熱紙,照明,健身,a383,a383,,二手家具,a383,胸章,車燈,
文山搬家,兼職小姐,南港搬家,大安區搬家,松山搬家,中山區搬家,八里搬家,
五股搬家,
泰山搬家,大同區搬家,中正區搬家,士林搬家,萬華搬家,
台北搬家公司,台北搬家公司,客人,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,加油棒,台中搬家公司,台北市搬家公司,台北縣搬家公司
室內設計,室內設計,室內設計,裝潢,室內設計,室內設計室內設計公司
,搬家公司,搬家公司,台北搬家公司,搬家公司,室內設計
這一家租屋網免費刊登不用錢耶
搬家公司,健身,茶葉A片,SEO,SEO,SEO,motel,led手電筒,棧板,二胎,隔熱紙,照明,健身,a383,a383,,二手家具,a383,胸章,車燈,
文山搬家,兼職小姐,南港搬家,大安區搬家,松山搬家,中山區搬家,八里搬家,
五股搬家,
泰山搬家,大同區搬家,中正區搬家,士林搬家,萬華搬家,
台北搬家公司,台北搬家公司,客人,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,加油棒,台中搬家公司,台北市搬家公司,台北縣搬家公司
Post a Comment
<< Home