About Us
Who Are We?
Who Are We?
Who Are We?
Colorado Alimony Reform is a 501c3 organization dedicated to changing Colorado's outdated and flawed alimony and family law system.
We Believe and Advocate For:
- that child support is the equal responsibility of both parents
- that ‘alimony’, ‘spousal support’ or ‘maintenance’ should be temporary and needs-based only
- that alimony is not
Colorado Alimony Reform is a 501c3 organization dedicated to changing Colorado's outdated and flawed alimony and family law system.
We Believe and Advocate For:
- that child support is the equal responsibility of both parents
- that ‘alimony’, ‘spousal support’ or ‘maintenance’ should be temporary and needs-based only
- that alimony is not appropriate to enable non-work in an ex-spouse for many, many years
- that extended support is entirely appropriate if an ex-spouse is disabled, incapacitated, mentally ill, cares for elderly parents or disabled children, etc.
Dr. Paul Sargeant is the CEO of Colorado Alimony Reform.
Colorado, like many US states, has outdated, gender-stereotype biased and unfair alimony (or 'spousal support', 'maintenance') laws - this needs to change. The ongoing support of one party in a marriage that has come to a close - when that party is choosing deliberately to limit employment and hiding their living in a marriage-like relationship - is an historical anachronism, and a deeply flawed system of 'justice'. Alimony payments are paid (about 90% male to female), but this is changign with more women in the primary breadwinner role - e.g. see California Women for Alimony Reform
In an age when both men and women can find ample opportunities for employment of all types with more flexibility than ever and hybrid models of work, there is no rational basis for continued spoual support beyond the end of a marriage, except in the cases of disability, terminal illness or mental incapacity.
Those eligible for receipt of alimony leverage the bias in family law to their maximum beneift, easily avoiding personal responsibility and employment.
Join us in this fight to bring equity and justice to these outdated laws.
My Story
Who Are We?
Who Are We?
With Liberty and Justice For All (Except in Family Law)
Paul Sargeant, CEO at Colorado Alimony Reform
24 July 2023
‘…you will be judged most for your virtues…’ Nietzsche
For all my 56 years of life thus far I have been a law-abiding, upright, model citizen. I’ve never broken the law, nor had a desire to do so. I
With Liberty and Justice For All (Except in Family Law)
Paul Sargeant, CEO at Colorado Alimony Reform
24 July 2023
‘…you will be judged most for your virtues…’ Nietzsche
For all my 56 years of life thus far I have been a law-abiding, upright, model citizen. I’ve never broken the law, nor had a desire to do so. I paid my taxes on time, paid my parking tickets, helped my fellow citizens, I founded a 501c3 to help refugees in Burma and worked in that country. I worked 2, 3, 4 and sometimes 5 jobs at a time to provide for my wife and family, and happy to do so – that’s what a virtuous man, a good husband would do, or try to. Men are providers and protectors after all. Now, post-divorce, my obligation to pay, ‘spousal support’ (aka maintenance or alimony) for another 12 years, is unrelated to my ability to pay. After being a good provider and father, I am punished further by having to provide for an ex-spouse who is perfectly capable of finding work but refuses to. That is the situation we put good, law-abiding men into, including the possibility ultimately of criminalizing them for not having enough money.
I was not perfect in the marriage and there were many things I would have done differently. Being married to a narcissist who had multiple affairs and refused to acknowledge them, and never work did not help make the marriage last beyond 25 years. There were many good times too and four incredible, healthy children now all doing well in their own lives.
‘Why didn’t you just leave her?’ I was often asked – if it was just so bad. Easier said than done. For a man ‘leaving’ the marriage results in the label of deadbeat dad (do you ever hear about ‘deadbeat moms’?) and abandonment, and I loved my children deeply. So simply escaping isn’t that straightforward. Not if you want to at least seek virtue.
In the end, I chose to stay for the last 12 years of a marriage that was toxic, miserable, failing, with an inability to find any compromise, middle ground, flexibility or support. When I asked my ex-wife if she might consider working part-time as the children were older, say one half day per week to get back into the workforce, she had an emotional outburst and left the house for days. This was the general pattern. I was to simply be provider and put up with whatever my ex-spouse chose was the craziness and chaos of the day to ensure compliance.
I initiated the divorce on the advice of a psychologist who identified narcissistic personality disorder in my ex-wife; regrettably, she had no desire to address the issue or even accept it, denying it entirely as is typical for such a diagnosis.
One might imagine – if we hold that our legal system in Family Law and the Family Courts is intended to be equitable - that my ex-wife and I would be treated in the same manner in the process. The goal should be to allow each party to move on with their lives (and the children cared for and protected). Sadly, this is not the case. As a good provider for 25 years, your crime (that you stayed in the marriage and were a good provider) will result in a bridge to justice in the eyes of a gender-biased legal system, such that you will still need to provide for your ex-wife (after supporting your ex-spouse and your 4 children as sole income source), for a further 12 years (varies by state, but you get the general picture), at approximately 40% of your income. In my case, amounting to over $1M in alimony (on top of child support) at approximately $80,000 per year. You will be punished more for your virtues, as Nietzsche said.
Is my ex-wife disabled, you might ask? No. Is she mentally incapacitated? No. Does she have a terminal illness? No. Does she have relatives or disabled children to care for? No. Is she destitute or unable to obtain employment? No. Does she not have any prior work experience and talents? No. None of which matters in our present Family Law machine. Women are still treated as victims, men as their providers. This is enforced wealth redistribution from producers to life-long recipients, to self-induced victims.
The system is rife for exploitation by an ex-spouse who refused to work during a marriage – such that the imputed income (that would lessen the future payor’s obligation) can be minimized as close to zero as possible or set at minimum wage only for alimony calculations. The court system goes to great lengths to ensure that every possible accommodation is made for the non-working spouse (even if their non-work was self-induced and deliberate), but little to no accommodation for the paying, working spouse. And we are talking about 93% of such payments made male-to-female still, although this is now changing slightly and there are women’s groups initiating alimony reform efforts too.
What if your ex-spouse planned this all along? Sadly, yes. My ex-wife planned this scenario with her new romantic partner years in advance to exploit the high-earning potential of the future payor (me in this instance). Would anyone be so vile or manipulative? Could a woman stoop to such a level? No one would have the lack of conscience or shame to seek to impoverish her ex-spouse a further 12 years, after his sole provision for 25 years, such that he is unable to consider ever retiring, and well into his 60’s would need to continue to work at high-stress, full time work? Think again.
Your obligation to pay alimony is unrelated to your ability to pay. Yes, you read that right. That is the law we have on the books today. There are men living in their cars, in basements and sleeping rough because their assets have been stripped for the lifestyle (provided by the paying spouse during the marriage) – must, for some reason, now be extended after the marriage ends. Ask yourself, does that sound equitable or even rational?
Non-payment, partial payment, even for a period of unemployment or severe illness, can result ultimately in jail time for contempt of court-ordered alimony payments. You will be criminalized because you don’t have sufficient income to give to a perfectly healthy and capable ex-spouse who refuses her moral obligation for self-sufficiency. How is this not a violation of the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution against slavery and indentured servitude?
You might imagine that payments would stop if your spouse re-marries or is in a common law marriage or some form of equivalent relationship? Maybe, maybe not (and likely not). The responsibility to demonstrate such, at a ridiculously high evidential standard and high monetary cost, is prohibitive for most people. Ex-spouses are living with their new romantic partners for years benefitting from their combined incomes, and from the income from the ex-spouse. Again, do we think that is equitable? If so, on what basis? Is it designed to reasonably allow both parties to the marriage to move on in life well or is there a clear bias and set of gender-assumptions inherent in the court system?
In an age of low unemployment, remote and hybrid work, multiple opportunities to re-train and the gig economy, why do we maintain a gender-biased, unjust, impractical system of alimony (I am not citing here child support which is the moral responsibility of both parents of a child) – to ensure to the point of criminal charges of the paying party to facilitate that the receiving party can avoid ever having to find employment and become self-sufficient. If we believe men and women are equal, why don’t we act as such in Family Law?
If you are fortunate enough to be in a relationship with your ex-spouse based on mutual respect, gratitude and an ability to dialogue and find common ground – you might be better equipped to find a reasonable path through the Family Law and Courts system. If your relationship was acrimonious despite your best attempts and your ex-spouse determined to exploit the law to her best advantage to satisfy her greed, even making claims to their potential disability where none exists, you will be in a trickier situation that the law not only permits but encourages.
It is time for a fundamental re-evaluation of the Family Law and alimony system in the United States to assess its fairness in application, reasonable implementation, ability for compromise and equity. If we want to live in a society with liberty and justice for all, we need to take a step back and look at what injustice we are willing to impose on one party, to ‘emancipate’ another. The present Family Law system does not work for fathers – as the suicide rate for divorced men at up to 5 times that of divorced women attests. It does not work for woman who did not work during the marriage or have no intention to – further delaying their ultimate self-sufficiency. It does not work for children who are caught in the crosshairs. Wouldn’t it be better for adult children to see that both of their parents can thrive moving forward post-divorce, without one being beholden to the other financially and without the inevitable animus that ongoing, court-ordered payments to the other party inevitably induces?
It's time for a change in Family Law in an age of the desire for equity and fairness, liberty and justice for all. Including men.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
“There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
Martin Luther KingMy Story
Advice from Lawuers for Divorcing a Narcissist: Divorcing a Narcissist: Six Family Lawyers’ Advice - YouTube
Key Resources
A Selection of Materials Related to Alimony, History of Alimony and Family Law and Alimony Reform
Tol Death Us Do part - 'Til Death Do Us Pay: Legislators Consider Divorcing Alimony Law | News | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice (sevendaysvt.com)
Presenting the Case for Alimony Reform - W~Rick Fleming~Presenting the Case for Alimony Reform in Vermont~3-9-2016.pdf
Divorced Men Suffer Significant and Unfair Financial Hardship,
Tol Death Us Do part - 'Til Death Do Us Pay: Legislators Consider Divorcing Alimony Law | News | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice (sevendaysvt.com)
Presenting the Case for Alimony Reform - W~Rick Fleming~Presenting the Case for Alimony Reform in Vermont~3-9-2016.pdf
Divorced Men Suffer Significant and Unfair Financial Hardship, Suicide is Often the Result - Financial hardship is a top risk factor for suicide attempts (medicalnewstoday.com)
Divorce is Unequal and Biased, Impacts Men More with Terrible Results - Divorce Is a Risk Factor for Suicide, Especially for Men | Psychology Today New Zealand
Does Anyone Care that Divorced MEN are so Deeply Affected - The Psychological Damage Divorce Has On Fathers (fatherly.com)
If these statistcis applied to women, I bet there would be an outcry - The Mental Health Struggles of Single and Divorced Men | Psychology Today
Mental Health Effects of Divorce - Marital status and suicide risk: Temporal effect of marital breakdown and contextual difference by socioeconomic status - PubMed (nih.gov)
Let's Not Punish Men for Being Good providers beyond the end of their marriages - Divorce and Suicide in Men - The Good Men Project
Divorce Disproportionatelt Affects Men - 6 Reasons Divorce is Harder on Men Than Women (divorcemag.com) 6 Reasons Divorce is Harder on Men Than Women (divorcemag.com)
Divorced Mens Suicide Rate - Divorce and suicide risk | Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (bmj.com)
17 Reasons Divorced Men Commit Suicide - Great Review of the Corrupt Family Law and Courts System and areas for improvment for all concerned - Suicide after Divorce: 17 Reasons Why Men Give Up On Life (hashimashi.com)
NYT The Paradox of Aliony for Men - The Paradox of Alimony for Men - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony - Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony? (forbes.com)
The "Manimony" Paradox: Why Men Don't Ask For Alimony (divorcelawyersformen.com)
The Rising Trend of Men Receiving Alimony (menonlyfamilylawonly.com)
A Better, Fairer, Reasonable Approach to Alimony
What Might A Fairer System Look Like
It's hard to know where to begin on the question of alimony. It brings up so many issues related to gender roles, equity, justice, fairness and equality - or at least it should.
When a couple come togetehr, be that a male or female couple or same sex couple, they throw their lot in together, and set up a path in life that makes it better being togetehr than apart.
They have children and have equal responsibilities and obligations - or one might imagine they do.
Family Law and Alimony in the US today is a system of indentured servitude and slavery - one party bound via court orders to provide to another on pain of fines and prison - 'in the manner to which they have become acquianted'. This is an outmoded and entirely impractical scenario. The manner into which they have become accustomed was of benefit to them during the marriage, and likely as a result of the other party's efforts (and their own).
In my own case, a non-working spouse who raised our children at home, made the decision that even when the children were older and independent, that she refused to find work, or re-train, or consider it an obligation to think about work. She deliberately, consistently and willingly denied her own self-sufficiency, not contributing to the marriage when her partner (me in this case) was working 4-6 jobs on a regualr basis - after all, that's what good husbands and fathers do, right? She wanted to live in the (wonderful) manner to which she had become accustomed, as the sole result of anothers efforts.
There were many reasons why the marriage came to a close, it was a toxic relationship for over 10 years - but knowingly a selfish, determined, narcissistic partner (a woman in this case) fully exploited the law which is in her favor, to the fullest extent. At one stage she attempted to claim during the divorce that she was disabled, but never had a history of such or any evidence.
As sole income, and after providng for my family for 25 years, it was now my sole responsibility to provide for a capable, talented, physically fit woman - simply because of greed, selfishnes and laziness - all empowreed by a corrpurt legal system, that clearly sees women (predominantly, although that now changing) as needy, incapable, victims.
I have had to pay for our four children in every respect, schools, medical, clothes, food, trips, toys - entirely alone, without any effort by by ex-wife. And considered it an honor to do so.
Now, the marriage is over - and after paying close to a million dollars to this point, depsite her being physically fit and capable, despite her co-habiting with her partner, despite her own income now - I must continue to pay another $500K. One might assume I am a multi-millionnaire? Absolutely not. I work 2 to 4 jobs to be able to provdie for someone who simply knows she can exploit the system which views her as incapable and encourages and allows for her greed and laziness. It's been 5 years since the divorce and she has income via pther sources and a career too.
Let's suppose my ex-wife was terminally ill - I would absolutely do all i could for as long as I could to help financially. If we had small children needing care, I would (and did) do all I could financially and in any other way. Suppose she was disabled - it would be my obligation to assist. If she was mentally incapacitated, I would be obligated to help. None of these situtaions apply. The Family Law and Alimony system facilitates bias, victimhood, laziness, selfishness and abject greed.
So, what would a fairer, more reasonable apporach look like upon the dissolution of marriage. Here are some key thoughts;
1. Encourage self-sufficiency for the lower earning spouse in a reasonable amount of time
2. Guidelines for the term of alimony payments based on the length of the marriage but never for lifetime
3. Establish guidelines and structure to provide consistency and predictability for litigated cases
4. Encourage mediation vs. litigation and assume and impose equal responsibilities and obligations (unless pre-disposing factors such as health or children) on both parties equally.
5. Provide guidelines to allow both payors and receivers to prepare for retirement
6. A second spouse’s income should never be a factor when a payor remarries
7. All financial obligations terminate automatically upon the recipient’s remarriage
8. An alimony obligation terminates when the payor reaches the National FULL Retirement Age (currently 67) the ability to continue working should never be a factor. The current laws so not allow a payor to ever retire
9. Alimony amount based on DEMONSTRATED, PRACTICAL NEED with a maximum of 30-35% of the difference of the incomes of both parties, for a fixed and agreed to amount of time including re-tarining, re-education if necessary
10. Establish specific guidelines to give Family Court Judges direction and guidance, resulting in greater consistency, predictability, and fairness throughout the process.