Since we’ve been discussing the Mary Winkler case and the general subject of women getting away with anything and everything, this story from last year–Alimony Upheld For Mom Who Kicked Son To Death–fits in well. The woman’s attorney’s arguments are particularly beautiful:
“Linda Calbi admitted she kicked her 14-year-old son, causing injuries that led to his death. But a judge has ruled that she’s still entitled to alimony payments from her ex-husband.
“Christopher Calbi had sought to end the payments, claiming his ex-wife violated her moral obligation to provide a safe home for their two children after the couple divorced.
“Superior Court Judge Eugene Austin refused. He suspended the $3,183 monthly payments while Linda Calbi spends 30 months in jail; however, the judge said that when she gets out, she can apply to have them resumed.
“Her ex-husband also must continue to make $400 monthly payments toward the $50,000 back alimony debt that he had amassed.
“‘I am not going to terminate the contract,’ Austin said. ‘It’s a valid obligation negotiated between the parties. Mrs. Calbi has pleaded guilty. She will do her time. But for the next 30 or 40 years, you two are parents of the same child and you both are going to have to deal with that.’
“During a court hearing in Bergen County, the Teaneck man said he has a ‘huge hole’ in his heart and has become ‘financially destitute’ since the Aug. 2003 death of his elder son, Matthew.
“Linda Calbi was originally charged with murder, but was allowed to plead guilty to aggravated assault after admitting that she kicked Matthew in her Old Tappan home, causing injuries that led to his death.
“‘That someone like me should have to support the woman who did this to my child is beyond comprehension,’ Christopher Calbi said after the court hearing.
“His ex-wife’s attorney, Ian Hirsch, called the ruling fair, arguing that the woman’s crime cannot be used as a legal reason to end alimony payments.
“‘Mr. Calbi is using his son’s death to take away any obligations he has,’ Hirsch said. ‘I think he’s trying to take advantage of a tragedy and turn it around to his economic benefit.’”
You gotta love this attorney–dad not wanting to pay money to the woman who killed his son is “taking advantage of a tragedy and turning it around to his economic benefit.” Bad dad–how could he be so rotten?
One more question–can you imagine a judge ordering a woman to pay alimony to the ex-husband who murdered her child? In fact, in California has a recent law which created a presumption that a victim of domestic violence should not be required to pay support to a violent spouse.
