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 - 7:48pm
No. I naver said mom would never be able to support her kids. I said it's best for them to live with dad while she figures things out. I am talking about the period of time during which mom is figuring out how she's going to support herself not her entire life. It is that period of time that I think the parent with the more stable income should have the kids provided there isn't some other reason he shouldn't have the kids.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:58pm
I still don't agree. The SAHP has already had the luxury of being supported. THAT was the compensation for what they gave up to SAH. The only way I could agree with you would be if SAH were for some greater good. It usually isn't. It's usually just a preferred lifestyle. When it is for some greater good, you can usually show what that contribution was and ask for due compensation. SAH is a choice. If you choose to SAH, you choose to take the income earning risks that come with that choice. It is not an ex spouses fault you chose to take that risk and not their bill to pay. Now, if you SAH so he could pursue a high paying and demanding career rather than earn less in a lesser position where he could be more hands on, you'd be entitled to alimony for your contribution to his career but you're still not entitled to compensation for a risk you knowingly chose to take.

BTW, FTR, I've seen a few posts about dads choosing not to take their kids. If dad could improve his kids lifestyle by taking custody and refuses to do so, I, personally, think he morally obligates himeself to increase their standard of living but he still doesn't owe anything to their mother. He does owe it to his kids to provide for them well. If he's not willing to do that himself, then he should ante up. Unfortunately, few men do. I've only ever known one who did but that one is the most amicable joint custody arrangement I have ever seen. Makes you wonder why they ever got divorced.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:59pm
He doesn't owe that to her. They're no longer married.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 7:59pm

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
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 8:00pm

Yes it is how CS works. If my income increases, and xh's remains the same, the CS he pays me decreases. If his income increases and mine doesn't, his CS increases.


Our CS arrangement is reviewed every 24 months. We both show proof of income and the CS obligation of both parents is adjusted accordingly.

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
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 8:02pm

If you'll note, my scenarios had SQUAT to do with custody. It doesn't matter who has the kids. Alimony is a separate thing.


And, once again, dad is not SUPPORTING mom. You're the only one contending that.

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
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 8:05pm

yes!


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: 12-07-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 8:10pm
I think you have forgotten that the decision for one parent to stay home is usually a JOINT one-- not just the SAHP saying-- well I just don't want to work so you can pay all of my bills!!! For the greater good? That is what this debate board is all about isn't it? Whether or not SAH is for the greater good for the children or not.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:14pm
You're siding with a 25 year old Republican?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:17pm
I imagine the strain on my marriage would be pretty intense.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages