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: 04-11-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 6:06pm
ITA. Great post.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 6:07pm
Um, he'll be providing for his kids. It's up to mom to provide for herself now that she's the EX spouse. A divorce nullifies any promise to provide for a spouse. You don't seem to get that. If he still wanted to provide for her, why not stay married?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 6:09pm
Why should he be stressed about finances? He's not the one who never bothered getting job skills! Mom is. The onus is on her to figure out how to support herself now that she doesn't have a dh to do it for her not on her dh to support her because she never planned for anything besides being taken care of. No. The WP is not obligated to take the financial hit for her. That is her burden to bear as it is a burden of her own making.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 6:28pm
No, not at all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 6:32pm
So my desires should be ahead of my childrens needs?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:03pm
But that's not how CS works, however, mom is free to try and cut such a deal with dad but it's unlikely dad is going to be able to afford to give her enough to maintain the kids lifestyle. Why are we trying to figure out how to make things easier on mom instead of figuring out how to make them easier on the kids? The kids SOL is likely to be much better if they're with dad as he's not likely to be able to support two households on his income. Why the push to make sure mom gets the kids and alimony? I don't get it. Is there some reason the kids should be with mom over dad? Does having a uterus make one the preferred parent even if the kids have to live in poverty to do it? I don't think so.


Edited 5/2/2004 7:06 pm ET ET by grimalkinskeeper
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:07pm
I agree. Kids are part of a family not the center of the universe and you do them no favors to treat them as such.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:09pm
LOL. Since when to all dads work such schedules? Few I know do. The average dad doesn't. As I've said before, there are extenuating circumstances. There are times when dad, for one reason or another is not the parent to choose just as there are reasons not to choose mom such as when the choice is the kids maintaining their pre divorce SOL or having their family income cut in half when dad ISN'T unfit for some reason.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:11pm
THANK YOU!!!! This is what I've been trying to say. If dad is not a crappy parent and the one who can better support the kids, then that's where the kids belong because this is about the kids NOT about mom!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:12pm
Um, no, I've been saying all along the kids belong with the parent who can better support them. If mom can't, then mom can't. The only time you'd choose a mom who can't support her kids over a dad who can is when there's some reason dad woudln't make a good custodial parent.

Yes, this was a debate about a mom who was ill prepared to support her kids and in such a case, unless dad is a schmuck, he should get the kids until mom gets her act together.

Pages