Under Swiss law, divorcees can demand spousal payments from their former partner up until the age of retirement. This week, a federal court decided against these payments, setting a new precedent that could potentially affect all women negotiating a divorce settlement, reported SRF.
Historically, spousal maintenance payments were designed to support mothers who had decided to forego a career to raise a family. In the absence of a career it made sense for these payments to continue until the age of retirement when pension payments kick in. However, times have changed and the court decided that the duration of the marriage and the age at divorce matter.
The couple in this case had been married for seven years and had one child, which was cared for by the mother who was 39 at the time of separation. She demanded spousal maintenance up until the age of retirement. Her ex-husband argued this was unjustified.
This week, the Federal Court rejected the woman’s demand and ruled the ex-husband only has to support her until their son is 16. In justifying its ruling the court said that supporting the mother until the end of her working life would require 25 years of payments and that this was unjustified. The woman was only 39 years old when they separated and returning to work at that age was reasonable, particularly when she had had a full time job prior to becoming a mother.
This ruling adds to another in 2021 that asserts that women must generally start looking for work after a divorce. Divorcees should be able to provide for themselves.
The recent case adds a new element to legal precedent : the length of the marriage is a factor in deciding for how long payments should be made.
More on this:
SRF article (in German)
For more stories like this on Switzerland follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Sophia says
This doesn’t take into account the loss of career progress or growth for the 7+ years she had given it up to take on working as a mother. it also doesn’t take into account the loss of contributions to her retirement fund as she worked (for free) as a house keeper, logistics officer, planner, nutritionist, cook and caregiver. If she has custody and is the main caregiver for the child for the next years until it turns 16, this responsibility will also greatly impact her career and her lifestyle. Which are not being compensated for if seemingly the only consideration here was the child. The negative impact and the sacrifices she has to make are not being considered in this ruling. It will further push the message or the fear that being a mother will not be beneficial and will come at GREAT sacrifice to women (but not to men), which means the birth rate will continue to fall as more and more women refuse to be put at risk.
small_potato says
This is not true. Women do not have children out of their egoism, this is a choice in most cases. This law as of now is extremely against women – it tells a man a big red flashing sign “You are in trouble for the next 30, 40 years if ANYTHING goes wrong”. So, men do not want to marry and contribute, is this so strange? I know an even worse story – a married woman, smart, intelligent, working hard, has to maintain a lazy husband who does not work. They divorced, she works and he does not – and SHE must pay for his life. Is this just? Logical? That’s just the most bizarre law, acting against the interest of anyone (unless you want to exploit the system, don’t work and live at the expense of your working partner – then yes, it is good, for that 1 person).