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: 12-29-1999
Sun, 05-09-2004 - 10:21pm
Yup! DH is the same way--although he works closer to 70-80 hrs a week. He's been trying to work a few hours from home tho, to spend more time w/DS. And it hasn't affected their relationship at all--in fact, DS is going through a major "daddy" phase right now. "Daddy, daddy, daddy" (SIGH). I'm trying to enjoy it while it lasts...;)

But ITA w/you Misty--I'm PROUD of DH.

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 10:31am
It is not pushing "us" away, it would be pushing you away. He can divorce you without divorcing his kids. But you seem to think that if he doesn't want you, he doesn't want the kids. That is not it, at all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 10:55am
How is it different? If she's obligated to remain so he can be near his kids, doesn't his pushing away of HER qualify as pushing away the kids? Doesn't he have an equal obligation to keep the kids near HER?

Interesting how you and several others consistently see this in terms of how badly the ex-wife automatically treats the ex-dh, but don't see anything AT ALL wrong with the ex-dh pushing away the ex-wife, as if he has no obligation to ensure the kids remain near her.

Quite telling.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:04am
Um, Hollie is the one who keeps making this about her and her decision. I am talking about a general principle, about how I live my life, and what is, in general best for the kids. So, please understand this is not an attack on Hollie, but rather Hollie choosing to make a particular thread about her.

That said, since she has made her life fair game for debate, the reasons she gave here for what she did are pretty pathetic. He cheated on her, so he deserves it, is the sum of what she originally posted. He knew if she cheated she would take the kids away, so he asked for it.

There was no mention of concern for the kids, of trying to find every way she could to keep the children near their father, or of anything else. Instead, she posted that by cheating on her, he basically invited her to take the kids away from him. But cheating on her is NOT cheating on them. From your post, it appears there is more to the story than what she posted. But if she doesn't post it, we can only go by what she has introduced into debate.

Her life, as she introduced it into this debate, is that by cheating, he knew she'd take the kids from him, and so she did.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:11am
Both parents have obligations to the children before they should look to what they selfishly want for themselves. I just view parenting differently from those who don't think a father is all that necessary or important to day-to-day life, or can be replaced by vists to grandparents and uncles. Hopefully, for their kids' sakes, daily dads really are overrated. But a daily father is not something my kids would do well without. So regardless of how I feel about him, by choosing to reproduce with him, I owe it to my kids to help keep him in their lives, no matter how I ultimately feel about my relationship with him.

I'm just surprised so many people disagree about the importance of fathers.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:45am

Who disagrees about the importance of fathers? I sure don't. My kids' fathere is extremely important in their lives. And although he's not *physically* with him everyday, he is with them in spirit. They, so far, have maintained a very strong bond with him, and if xh and I keep working at it like we are (and we have no reason not to), that bond will continue to remain strong.


I don't think you realize the emotional toll that betrayal, divorce, etc has on a woman. And how that emotional toll, if not resolved, can be detrimental to her children.


I'd rather my children have two good, involved parents, one close, one far .. than one close tood, involved parent and one close, univolved bad parent. Distance CAN be overcome; bad parenting? Not so much.


I am so much of a better mother to my kids now than I was a year ago, two

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: 10-18-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:46am

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
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:54am
A child does not have a *need* to spend every one of any parents vacation weeks - with them.

She moved the children 1000 miles away. She has made it very difficult for the father to see the children. Its certainly her fault. Take a look at your sentence. These are children and this is their father. Yet his father can only see children in terms of "opportunity" provided by the mother? The children are caught in the middle of parental divorce control games of the "You hurt me now watch me hurt you" nature.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 12:10pm
No disagreement about the importance of fathers. Having fathered them he owes it to them to keep himself in their lives. IMHO he jolly well ought to move to be nearer them. Now, if she moved and left no forwarding address, or got a baseless restraining order keeping him from contacting them, THAT would be keeping him out of their lives.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 12:12pm
ITA

Pages