Father claims he lost custody of his kids for being Agnostic

[strawman]

If Jay meant that alimony shouldn't be paid unless visitation is given, I agree.
If he meant child support, then I disagree.

So you're saying that if a parent loses access to their children due to, say, beating them during visits, then they shouldn't have to pay alimony because they are being denied seeing their children?

I don't understand the logic.

It is unfair that access to one's children can be used as leverage to get one to pay owed alimony and child support while the reverse is not true (ie, if being denied visitation rights, then one cannot withhold payments).

Keep in mind that while they are reasonably separate, alimony and child support are often tied together for accounting and legal purposes. If you pay only one, you are legally not fulfilling your responsibility for both. In other words, not supporting the other parent is the same as not supporting the children, even if you are paying child support, since they may not be able to raise the children if they are not financially solvent.

Regardless, there's enough unfairness and complexity in the system for everyone.

 

[Jiarn]

No, let me clarify.

If the spouse has visitation rights, but the other is denying them the right for "holdout" reasons. That's where I don't feel Alimony is deserved.

If the other spouse is beating them during visits, then that's resolved by involving the child protective services. So I'm not seeing your point either.

 

[makare]

Alimony has nothing to do with the kids. There is alimony even when the family has no kids or the kids are grown. It wouldn't make any sense to tie something that has nothing to do with the kids to visitation.

 

[Jiarn]

Perhaps I'm just misguided due to my bias against the idea of Alimony all together. Seemed a way to get a message across to a spouse that was preventing the other from seeing the children for their own gains.