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: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 4:02pm

That was hallejah_moms idea. She seemed to suggest that a move-away would not be harmful as long as you replace dad with another good man. I disagree adn find that thought ratehr disturbing.


I was speaking on the grounds that if the father was not doing his job being there anyways, hence wouldn't make it a difference whether he was there physically or not.


And also, it doesn't matter whether a bio-father is there for the child or a non-bio-father is there.

Tonya
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 4:06pm
Oh, I never meant to suggest that you were having Alan replace their dad in their lives. And I do agree that uncles and grandparenst are wonderful additions to life. The reason we chose to live in Dallas is due to all of Ted's nearby relatives. The daily presence of grandparents and uncles really adds to the kids' lives.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 4:09pm
I didn't mean to suggest that you meant to suggest it .. lol. Just wanted to throw it in there before someone DID suggest it ...

Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color.  Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 4:26pm
It doesn't preclude anything, but it cerainly makes it much more difficult than it would otherwise be. Especially if the parent living away has any interest in going on with life and adding anything. Ostensibly, far more difficult than necessary. Its got to be much easier to go on with life in such a way that children are a seamless part of the new life, when the children are actually a regular part of that life. Its just got to be much more difficult to do it when the children are removed from regular life. You know, especailly if new marriages and half brothers/sisters come on the scene. As they may well often be expected to do. That possiblity is just reality. Check it out. The kids living within real life distance of this father ARE going to get the lions share of his attention. He will be able to do all kinds of things with them, and his life will end up being schedualed around them, to a much greater extent than aroud the kids from the previous marriage. You know "I'm sorry, I know its my weekend but I won't be coming to see 15 yr old this week in the baseball tournament because 8yr old has a soccer tournament out of town (and btw I'm the coach I have to go)". And you know how thats going to be viewed...very negatively by the "old" family. Yet what is the guy supposed to do? NOT participate in the life of the new family in this way because he CAN'T participate that way in the life of the old one? There has to be an awful lot of benefit to the children being moved away, on the other side of that life balance, to make the distance relationship the best option for them. Its a long long life. And kids will suffer for the distance - so it sure does have to have something in the balance that makes it worthwhile. This isn't a relationship between the children and extended family that needs to be maintained - its a relationship between the children and their FATHER. A little different than relationships between children and cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents. 1000 miles is not a "mere" distance and a "close" relationship as it relates to aunts and uncles, doesn't quit define the child/parent relationship.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 4:37pm
Because every time a parent decides to spend time *not* with the children, the parent is *not* cheating the children out of their time with him. Kids don't have some right to all the parents free time. Neither does a spouse, for that matter. My husband once took a whole week and went to Europe. Without any us. He chose to spend a week with his Granny. So? A parent does not cheat on the children, when they cheat on the spouse. If your husband had taken you on a one week cruise instead...would it have been about you over them? Of course not. In fact, chances are, your kids would have had a much worse week if your husband had chosen to take you away, rather than just going away himself. Your perspective is not theirs. You have to realize that and allow it. They are not his wife. You can't transfer what he does to you - to them. They have a right to their own relationship. Its entirely possible for me to be crappy husbands but great fathers. Or vice versa, actually.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 4:47pm
My concern isn't with damage. My concern is with thinking a parent is selfish for working long hrs. I've heard that before and just don't agree. (I rarely hear of both parents working 60-70hr weeks and I would agree that's a hardship on the children.) I sah. DH works long hrs and rarely sees the children before bedtime, unfortunately never for dinner. (Thankfully, he's home all weekend which is atypical for his field.) DH feels he needs to keep up these long hrs for about 4or5 more yrs and then scale back when his position is more secure and his client base more established.

He works hard and often comes home exhausted. In former yrs, he worked all-nighters, sometimes a few days in a row. Sure, there are breaks and wasting time on the internet and gabbing with his colleagues. He has a much higher IQ than I and would be wasted and unfulfilled in a job with better hours in the same field. So I just don't understand this common misperception that a parent is "selfish" for working long hrs. The only explanation I can discern from your posts is that a parent who does not come home at or soon after dinner is being "unfair" because he's not pulling his weight and it's difficult being the only parent home with the children. So, if you're still interested in addressing this issue (because your response to me didn't really discuss it), does your definition of selfish encompass avoiding helping out with the children and putting the onus on one parent who may need a break or help? If so, that's entirely different (and nowhere near as insulting) than saying the hard-working parent is being selfish.

Is it a hardship on the sahp A resounding YES! (You don't want to get me started on that subject)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 5:20pm
It looks to this outsider, like you truly made the decision for the wrong reasons. And that you've set yourself up for decades worth of anguish because of it. It just sounds so much like "He had to decide between the OW and me. And he chose the OW and made me suffer. Both was not an option. He had the power and thats what he did. So now I'll make him choose between the children and the OW. I've decided both will not be an option. Whateve choice he makes will be wrong and I know he'll suffer. I have the power and thats what I'll do.". But you are going to make yourself suffer doing this, probably more than anyone. You really can't set that choice up - you have to let the father have the kids and the OW.

<>

Special grandparent time >> benefit than regular easily accessible special Daddy time? Ok, when the other kids have their Daddy coaching soccer, and hockey and here and there and whatever, your kids will not have theirs. Will grandparent presence make up for it, do you think? Don't sell the Daddy too short too quickly. Its quiet common for Daddys to come on line in a big way in the lives of their kids once the kids are schoolage. You say you have thought about the ramifications...I hope you have. Believe ME I know. When I had a 2 and 4 yr old my HUSBAND lived 4 hrs away in another city 5 days a week. Even then the kids missed him - but you know it really didn't make a huge difference to their daily lives. Now they are 7.5 and 10 and they'd probably divorce ME if I moved them 1000 miles away from their father. He is up to his eyeballs in their lives - and its not just him. Its an incredibly common Daddy transformation. The way you have things now, you can't expect to see that transformation, so just don't hate him when you see it in terms of some future kids he might have. Just - get ready for it and be ready for it or it will hurt. Your situation does preclude it happening for yours. And you can't blame. He could move to where you want to be, but you could have stayed where he wants to be. You are both equally responsible for the distance thing and the ramifications of it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 5:21pm
>>Well, in my first post a drew it at 60 hrs a week. I guess we all draw it somewhere different... do you think there is no threshold at all, or do you just think that my threshold of 60 hrs is too low? The damage I am speaking of is damage to the relationship between the child and the parent.<<

What Hollie said - I think your threshold is arbitrary. It is impossible to put a "limit" on the number of hours one can work before there is any "damage" to a parent child relationship because every relationship is different.

Family A may have DH attend med school FT and DW work a 60 hour week and they have a very healthy, loving relationship with their well-adjusted child.

Family B may have DH work 40 hours a week and DW SAH and they have a poor, strained relationship with their not-so-well-adjusted child.

I understand what you are trying to say (I think) that too much time away from your children can have harmful consequences to your relationship with them. I agree with this. However, to say that anyone who works 60-80 hours a week (even if the other parent is a FT SAHP) is selfish and that their child will be damaged b/c of it, is a blanket statement that I just cannot agree with.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 6:33pm
I don't think it's binary, either/or. I think there are ways to parent that permit one or even both parents to work 13+ hour days and not "damage" the children. Virgo's kids go for huge blocks of time without seeing their dad AT ALL, given the current world situation and they aren't 'damaged". Similarly, I have cousins who's Moms are nurses and worked odd and occasionally long hours...again, not "damaged" because of it.

It's a matter of the other spouse and the rest of the extended family stepping in to that void and helping the children see the 'greater good"--whether that's a parent trying to achieve a career goal that will ultimately help the family (such as an uncle of mine who worked very long hours early on in his career so that eventually, his wife didn't have to work and so that the 3 kids (two of whom were not *his* children) could afford college), or that the parent is helping a greater good in society (such as the aunts who work in the hospital and were often called to longer hours in the case of emergencies, like after the 1995 tornado in Plainfield, IL, or my dad who spent 2 weeks living at the armory in Chicago during the riots that ensued during the 1968 National Democratic Convention.)

How the parents address these absences ABSOLUTELY determines how the children are affected by them...and "damage" is in no way a certainty.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 8:11pm
you're near his family, are you not??? we're near nobody, not that being near his would make me feel any better. but at least if my kids were as young as savcal's, i would have had some kind of family support. i have never had it.

<>> oooo, could i plz??? i would not be taking my children from their father, he would be *PUSHING* them away, as he is well aware, i am not happy being so far from my family so if he decided he didnt want or need me anymore, adios.

<<>> Well, duh! ya think?

<<>> Nope, *25*. why should i like it just because i have lived here that long??? that is odd. Im really not in an "awful situation", just dont like living so far from my family. period. Sure i have lots of friends, familiar with the area, looooove my home, enjoy work, but its a different world here, and i would love to just drive over to my parents and hang out for an hour or two and be able to go home at night. or perhaps hang with my sister on her front porch for the evening and then go home and be able to go to work the next day, without all the production of traveling, and spending the night, and imposing alllll the time. Yes, i am quite aware i made my bed, but because my husband has a career going here, its not like we're going to jump and and leave it all. we moved here because there were no jobs where we grew up at the time we were married, and there was here. and i mean *no* jobs! not even the mcdonalds kind of job. so we had to do what we had to do, but i dont have to like it.

fyi, now that my dh has a position where he can live where he wants, after our youngest finishes hs in two years, we *are* moving out of here. and our kids have decided we all want to be close in vacinity with each other, so i may not live near my parents or my sister, but i will have all my children back near me.

like i said, if dh decided to PUSH us away, we will go. period. he can come live where he doesnt want to for 25 years.

Pages