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: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:17pm
Why is mom being thrown to the wolves, lol? We're talking about what is best for the kids. If dad is an ok parent and mom is an ok parent and dad can better support the kids, that is where they belong!!! There'd have to be something wrong with dad to choose the situation where the family income was cut drastically. So now mom being left to support herselves has been thrown to the wolves???? LOL. I don't think so. She's a big girl. She'll figure it out.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:19pm
No. Show me one post where I said mom didn't get visitation? The only post where visitation was referenced was WRT the kids visiting mom in the slums. There I advised mom visit with them elsewhere. Mom isn't going to be denied visitation unless there's damned good reason to. I just think the kids should call the more stable household home. If mom wants to try for custody when she figures out how she's going to support herself and where she's going to live, great.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:26pm
I'd rather visit my kids in a stable situation than live with them in an unstable one. I must be high in the testosterone dept too. A standard visitation schedule is two nights a week and every other weekend around here. In my case, I could actually end up seeing my kids more if dh were the custodial parent because I could maintain early work hours and could continue to start working before the kids got up and get off 2.5 hours before dh gets off. As the custodial parent, I'd have to go in later and work later resulting in my kids going to latch key for, at least, 3 hours a day. Latch key would be a matter of convenience if dh had custody (like we use it now. The kids report only to keep them in the habit of reporting just in case I don't make it home in time to get them as does happen fairly frequently).

As the custodial parent, I wouldn't see my kids two evenings a week and every other weekend. As the non custodial parent, I could see them every day after school, my two evenings and every other weekend.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:27pm
Not true. My son's sister was a high needs baby. She became a Not-so-high needs toddler because her high needs were MET, not because they were ignored. She took VERY hard to daycare and took a long time to bond with her first provider. her second provider was a nightmare who claimed to be good with high needs, but was just plain horrrible (basically subscribed to your philosophy, that high needs was something to be neglected out of a kid and made her MUCH worse during the 5 days she was with this provider). Her third provider was just flat out amazing (aided by the fact that this was a woman John's sister "took" to immediately) and she did infinitely better there.

But again, it was a matter of having a provider who understood the needs of high needs and MET them...just like John's stepmom met them...just like I met them when I cared for her. By holding her when she needed to be clingy, even if it met going to the bathroom while she was along for the ride.

John's Dad and stepmom go to Myrtle Beach every year for a weeks' golf vacation. They go without kids. The first year they went after John's sister was born, John's stepmom had a co-worker care for the kids the first day they were gone and then John and I took over for the rest of the week. When I got there the 2nd day to relieve the co-worker, the co-worker informed me that she didn't truck with "coddling" babies and that it only took John's sister about an hour to stop fussing and be fine with being left to her own devices. Then we finished the transfer and the co-worker left.

John's sister began wailing the minute the woman walked out the door and when I took her out of the swing, she would NOT let me put her down....LITERALLY...for the first 24 hours I was with her. Not even for a second. I cooked holding her, washed dishes holding her, did the laundry, played games with John's brother while I kept holding her. I had to go to the bathroom holding her...I even had to sleep with her on my chest because she wouldNOT let go of me; she literally had a deathgrip on my jammies (and it was NO picnic getting into them while holding her, either). And while she has always been high needs, she was NEVER a long-term Velcro baby; she always had time throughout the day when she'd play happily on the floor or nearby--as long as she could see you. She wasn't having ANY of that; she was very clearly distraught by having had her needs "met" by the other sitter. It wasn't until the second day that she was finally willing to sit on the floor and play with toys, but again for the first couple of hours, I had to be within a hand's reach of her physically.

Once she realized I was there and willing to do what was necessary to meet her needs as SHE needed them (and not as other interpreted them), she was able to go back to being her usual high needs self, which did still involve a degree of being able to be a tidge on her own.

Ask me about high needs kids before John's sister was born and you'd have found someone rather skeptical about the whole deal. John's sister taught me a very humbling and important lesson; there ARE kids who need more than other kids. John was SO easy going and has never known a stranger. John's little brother is somewhat more reserved socially, but still, VERY easy going. John's little sister? Not so much and ignoring her different, more tactile needs makes her MORE clingy, not less so.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:28pm
Why does he see them so little? Here, 2 nights a week and every other weekend with two weeks in the summer and every other holiday break from school is standard.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:29pm
Who's losing their kids. Visitation schedules aren't that awful that it's akin to losing your kids.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:32pm
Not really. Let's face it, PNJ doesn't have a high needs kid. I know several dual WOHPs who do. Not a one of them has ever been willing to put their high needs child in a situation where the caregiver is as lacking in understanding of high needs as PNJ describes. Even tho John's sister was with a bad choice in caregiver that second time, she was only with the woman 5 days and they yanked her as soon as they found another provider (not an easy task in 5 days). And even in that instance, they *had* deliberately sought a provider good with dealing with high needs.

parents of high needs kids, whether SAH or WOH, in my experience, don't recommend or practice ignoring the need as a means of alleviating it...and that includes their choices in provider.

Avatar for cl_annieb67
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:36pm

But I don't see that as an 'investment', per se.

"There in the sunshine are my highest aspirations. I close my eyes, feel their beauty and follow where they lead."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:37pm
There are ways to reduce the risk but anyone who SAH should realize that the deal is only good as long as the marriage lasts. How risky it is depends on your situation, previous job training and education. Some people can move in and out of careers easily. Others have no job skills at all. For the latter, SAH is very risky. As they say "Don't put all your eggs in one basket". Personally, I consider anyone who does, lacking in intelligence. For someone like me, with job skills and education to fall back on, I'd do fine even though I'd pay a price in income earning ability for having been out of the work force. Someone like my sister who never bothered training for anything or getting an education would be SOL. As with anything, there are degrees of risk. Any married woman has to realize that the only thing she's walking out of the marriage with will likely be half of the assets. Period. So, a lot depends on how much marital assets there are too.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:40pm
HOWEVER...and you've NEVER said this.....if Mom's income level, while significantly less than Dad's, is still sufficient for minimal levels of housing, food, clothes, etc., there's NO reason that Dad's greater income should be a compelling reason to give custody to Dad.

In that, I agree with Suzymomm. Doesn't mean Dad's not fit or still shouldn't be awarded custody. Simply means the significance of his greater income is diminished as relevant to "fitness".

IOW, greater income is ONLY a major factor when the lesser income cannot achieve (or approach) the basics.

Pages