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 - 9:20pm
No. CS is not decided in a pay more now to save later way. CS is decided on CURRENT finances. Period. Not some promise to lessen the payment later. No court would enforce that and no one would take that deal because there's no guarantee that you won't just end up paying and paying. That's a gamble. If one spouse wants to gamble that paying the other spouse more now will result in his having to pay less CS later, he can go right ahead but he's taking a risk. Monies paid now in promise to pay back later in the form of lowered CS would be a loan. If mom wants to make an arrangement with dad for a loan, she's free to do so but he is free to not take the risk.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:21pm
LOL, if he's not giving her the money to support the kids because he has them (you said itn's not a custody issue) what IS he giving her the money for? Sounds like what your mom needs in this scenario is a loan. I'd suggest she take one out.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:23pm
I may be wrong, but didn't your dad leave your mom, a SAHM, after 25 or more years of marriage?

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:24pm
LOL. You seem to forget that mom is working now too!!!! So he doesn't have the option of biological care, lol. If mom has the kids, they're going to be in other care while she works. If dad has the kids they're going to be in other care while he works. In case you haven't noticed, the costs of dc for a couple of kids is not enough to live off of. Even if dad did pay mom what he would have paid for dc, she'd still have to work so what would be gained?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:26pm
OIC. Can't handle the argument so you reduce yourself to attacking the poster. Nice debate tactic.

BTW things are fine with CLW's ddil now that she's working. All she needed was a job. And she needed one with her views on what constitutes a fair division of labor as a SAHM.




Edited 5/2/2004 10:01 pm ET ET by grimalkinskeeper

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:27pm
You're right.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:28pm
Yes there is. Higher SOL. I said the kids belong with the parent who can best support them. I didn't say it in Greek. If that's mom, then that's mom. If it's dad, than it's dad. Mom is not the default position because she has a uterus. Kids have two parents who have equal claim to custody unless something is wrong with one of them. If both are fit, the kids belong with the parent who can best provide for them.

This is about the kids NOT what mom can get out of the deal. If mom has minimal houseing and dad has better housing with better schools, etc, etc... YES the kids belong with him. Why wouldn't they? There is no reason to assume dad is unfit or even uninvolved. There is no reason to think that dad would make a worse single WP than mom would make a single WP. Standard of living matters. The quality of schools a child attends matters. Not struggling financially vs. struggling finacially matters. The kids should be with the parent who can best provide for them. In general, there is no reason to even assume mom is a better parent than dad. In fact, her abilities to be a WM are more in question than dads ability to be a WD. After all, he's been doing it for years so he's had practice.

Tell me why children should live a minimal existence when they can live a good one?? If there is significant difference between what each parent can provide, especially if one is in a minimal situation, the kids belong with the parent who can best provide for them. Why would the kids deserve anything less??? Why would we want them in the minimal situation?? You are so concerned with whether mom gets her kids that you're not thinking about what's best for the kids!! Like it or not, SOL matters. I'll give you it matters less as you go up the SES ladder but the difference between lower middle class just making it and stable upper middle class is signficant and worth giving the kids. If it's a difference between upper middle class and upper class, the differences don't mean as much but if mom is living just meeting the minimum or struggling, it can make a big difference. One the kids should have.




Edited 5/2/2004 10:04 pm ET ET by grimalkinskeeper

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:38pm
No I haven't. It's a joint decision. So? He supported her WHILE she SAH. That's a joint decision. He doesn't owe her for doing it beyond the support while she does it. It's a joint decision as long as both parties agree. When they are no longer married, neither owes the other anyhing. They both got out of the deal what they wanted.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:50pm
You don't need a job. You just need a plan. If you're comfortable with the risks you take by being out of the work force, whatever they may be, and know that if a divorce did happen you could take care of yourself and your kids great. I don't think anyone has to do anything but we're fools if we don't prepare to take care of ourselves. When push comes to shove, we are the only ones we can really rely on. Marriages do fail and they fail at an alarming rate. That is reality. If that's a reality you're prepared to deal with should it come to fruition, great.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 9:55pm
Wow. Who's decision was it to put 1000 miles between him and his kids? Dss is going through a divorce now and the courts will not let him leave the state with dgs, which he wants to do because he has no support where he is. Ddil doesn't even bother seeing dgs and the court said that he has to remain in the same state as ddil to allow for frequent visition should she decide she wants it. She has to agree to the move in order for it to happen.


Edited 5/2/2004 9:56 pm ET ET by grimalkinskeeper

Pages