Divorce rulings on SAHM's alimony?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2003
Divorce rulings on SAHM's alimony?
1358
Thu, 04-29-2004 - 10:29pm
I have seen this many times, and I am wondering what your guys' opinion on this. Of course with divorce rates so high we find couples with children in court all the time finding out what is entitled to mothers for alimony. The argument is, should SAHM's receive more alimony then WOHM's? This meaning SAHM's who have through the whole marriage stayed at home with the children while the fathers successeds in their careers. This also meaning if they are going to pursue a career after the fact is their income be significant enough compared to the EX since they have been out of the work force for years and has not gained experience in what ever career the would have pursued.

I personally know someone who went through the exsact same thing and had a hard time finding a job(with income compareable) after the divorse since she hadn't worked for 25yrs.

The question also arise, does the SAHM contribute to the Fathers success because they choose to stay home therefore they should receive a cut now that they are divorced (the same as many would if they were still married)?

Thoughts? Please state weather you are a SAHM or WOHM when you place your comments

Be who you are and say what you feel because those  who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 1:49pm
How weird... I agree with you.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 1:55pm
Do you people actually read anything, or do you prefer to take everything out of context.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 2:06pm
>>If you don't think there would be any damage to your children if you worked 13+ hrs a day every day plus commute for much of their lives, raise your hand.<<

But the post you responded to wasn't talking about "much of their lives" it was talking about a FEW YEARS. Here's the post:

>>I wouldn't be surprised if the parents working 60-70 hr weeks or going to medical school do so with the expectation that in a few yrs things will improve and their jobs will be more secure. Raising children takes many yrs and I wouldn't give up an opportunity for more money and a better position if it was only going to take a few yrs of 60-70 hr-weeks to ensure that. In the long run, it's selfless since it improves the family's situation.<<

Then you say that with kids there is no "long run" because we have children for so little time that the damage is already done.

So do you think there is "damage" to children if a parent works 60-70 hour weeks or does medical school for a *few years* and then is able to drop back in hours to a more "normal" workweek?


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 2:11pm
Yes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 2:32pm
Oh please, I'm not trying to "catch" you at anything. I'm trying to understand your POV, hence I'm asking you specific questions and asking for clarification.

It's not semantics - IMO there is a difference between: (a) working 60-80 hours a week for your children's entire lives, and (b) working 60-80 hours a week for a few years of their lives so that you have a more secure, higher paying job and return to "normal" working hours for the rest of their lives.

>>I'm sorry that there are people that think you can spend an infinite amount of time per week away from kids and think there will be no consequence at all.<<

What's the "consequence" or "damage?" You keep throwing these words out there but not saying specificially what you mean. And what's the threshold for such "damage?" Is 45 hours/week too much? 55? You seem to think 40 hours is ok . . . where do you draw the line?


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 2:38pm

>>It's not semantics - IMO there is a difference between: (a) working 60-80 hours a week for your children's entire lives, and (b) working 60-80 hours a week for a few years of their lives so that you have a more secure, higher paying job and return to "normal" working hours for the rest of their lives. <<


There may be a difference, but I don't think either is good.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 2:43pm
You have to remember, this subthread didn't start about Hollie. I've never said that she particularly made the wrong decision for her in her circumstances, just that in general, kids need fathers mroe than just as LDPs and that the mother should consider her children's needs for a father well before her own desires to be elsewhere and do whatever she can to stay where the family chose to be.

But since Hollie has opened her situation into this for debate, it would be curious to see if her xh would have been so willing to forego visitation if he had the kids right there and seeing them wasn't an ordeal involving flights, money, time off work, major schedule changes, etc. I do see how a NCP might be more apt to simply give up. Also, if you live in the same town and see your kids at least weekly, missing a single visit is not as big of a deal. But if you live far away, if you have to miss a visit, you may end up only seeing your kids once that whole year. And the older the kids get, the harder it becomes.

I went to boarding school at 13. I only had my parents for maybe a weekend a month, plus phone calls. It definately had an adverse impact on my relationship with my family (and I did not feel abandonned or have anger over it, but just the same, negative impact resulted) and my teenaged years were quite different with only one weekend a month parents. I definately acted out in inappropriate ways becasue I missed me father, in particular.


Edited 5/7/2004 2:44 pm ET ET by faduckeggs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 2:47pm

After I posted, I realized I was fighting my demons and not your post. I just worry about my kids w/out their dads and I still resent my father's treatment of me after the divorce.


With Hollie, I guess we will never know. Her DH sounds like he is trying to find himself...thru another woman unfortunately.


"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 2:53pm
(((Kristi)))

I'm really sorry if my posts have upset you. Your boys have a wonderful loving mother, and they do have a father, even if he is no longer physically there. I'm sure they'll grow up knowing just how loved they really are.

I know you have a close knit community around you through family and church and friends. All of these factors are also important in raising kids, so even if they don't have a father in their lives as of today, they have a support community around them.

And look at it this way, having been through some rough years yourself, you'll know what to watch for and maybe have a better udnerstanding of how to address ny issues that do arise.

Plus, after having recently watched "13," you can be forever grateful that you have boys. :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 2:58pm

Your posts haven't upset me. It is kinda of strange but Devin's death has brought up alot of issues from my passt that I thought I had settled. My father's actions after the divorce, my parents lack of medical attention when I had a nervous breakdown at 13 (buckle up, Kristi), my mother's lack of faith in my ability to pick out good men to date, her feelings about me having Zak out of wedlock. All things I thought I had made peace with and they have come dregging out. It is weird and unsettling.


It is like you have themes or cycles in your life and you can't get away from them. You try but the same themes keep coming up....this thread is like that too...

Kristi

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

Pages