FLEMINGTON — For nearly seven weeks, John Waldorf has been in the county jail on a “non-support” charge for allegedly failing to pay alimony.

He claims he is a victim of New Jersey's "antiquated" alimony system and many people agree with him. In late October a small protest was held

outside the courthouse.

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director, of DADS (Dads Against Discrimination) is hoping to garner support for Waldorf on Friday, Dec. 7 when a judge will again hold a hearing to determine how much Waldorf must pay to be released.

Waldorf, who divorced his wife of 11 years in 2011, was ordered to pay $2,000 a week in alimony to his ex. That amounts to $104,000 a year. In addition he was ordered to pay $3,300 in child support. The problem is that Waldorf has only been taking home about $90,000 a year on average, according to Eden. Eden said he has Waldorf’s tax returns dating back to 2000. The highest income reported by Waldorf during the marriage was $147,000 before taxes according to Eden. In most years Waldorf made $90,000 to $120,000 before taxes. His average take home pay has been about $90,000 a year.

The alimony payments are in addition to about $100,000 in legal fees incurred during the divorce process.

It now also appears Waldorf has lost his job because of his jailing. Meanwhile, Waldorf’s ex-wife, who is disabled, has been getting nothing, all while taxpayers are footing the bill to feed and house him as long as he remains in jail.

Eden also questioned Judge Hany Mawla's motives for keeping Waldorf in jail. He said before Mawla became a judge was involved in Woman Against Family Assault. Eden said his role with the group creates a prejudice that should prevent Mawla from being in family court.

Judge Mawla did not respond to a phone call asking him to comment.

Eden said Waldorf is essentially being jailed for his debt, which he said is unconstitutional.

Eden got to know Waldorf through NJ Alimony Reform, a group that is lobbying to change the alimony rules in New Jersey.

The group hopes to eliminate permanent or lifetime alimony and restrict the wide discretion judges have in setting alimony payments. Massachusetts became the most recent state to update its alimony rules to bring them in line with modern circumstances. New Jersey’s laws were written when most women did not work outside the home and had no means of support in the event of a divorce, according to the group’s web site.

Under existing state law, judges use several factors in determining whether a spouse should get alimony, including the length of the marriage, employment and finances.

If circumstances change, couples have to go to court to get the alimony modified.

In January, bills were introduced in the state Senate and Assembly that would amend the law allowing the court to modify alimony and child support payments based upon changed circumstances, such as unemployment, temporary disability or similar circumstances for a period lasting longer than six months. Changes would not be made if court determines the change in circumstance was deliberate on behalf of the payee in an attempt to evade the support obligation or no reasonable efforts were made to get a new job.

In February the bills were voted out of committee. The senate version was referred to a second committee. No action has been taken by either body since then.

Proponents of the bill argue that the current laws encourage those receiving support to never remarry and to not seek work even when they are fully capable. Opponents to the bill argue that it will hurt those who truly deserve support.

Other bills are pending that would create a commission to study alimony reform.