I was thinking today about Dave Foley, the actor who landed a role on the 90's sitcom "News Radio", and because of role on the show, experienced a few years of having a very high annual income (1million+). His wife divorced him while he was still on the show, and he was ordered to pay alimony based on his income at the time.

A couple of years later, the show was cancelled, and his income fell dramatically due to his no longer having a role on a hit tv show. However, the judge refused to make any change whatsoever in the alimony he owed to his ex-wife. Arguing that she had become accustomed to a certain lifestyle, the judge even went so far as to proclaim that "Mr.Foley's ability to pay the required alimony has no bearing whatsoever on his obligation to pay."

Excuse me, but what the fuck is the line of reasoning here???? If a mother or father loses their job, and the family income drops accordingly, EVERYONE in the family, mom, dad, and children, have to make changes in their lifestyle. So why the fuck is it that women and children are suddenly exonerated from their obligation to live a lifestyle commensurate with their income as soon as the parents get a divorce?

I'm serious, can anyone shed any light on the legal reasoning behind this? I understand the whole "trying to do whats best for all parties" angle, but this current situation is just ridiculous.