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: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 11:24pm
CLW, I've never attacked cocoa or suzymomm in this thread.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 11:31pm
Yeah, my 2 1/2 year old would throw a fit if he had to wear those crappy Target brand diapers. My 4 year old would be devastated if he had to show up at preschool wearing second-hand clothes when the full price Talbot Kids stuff is so to his liking. My 6 year old would cry for hours if she had to be pulled from softball with merely the promise that mom will play with her at the park an hour a day. And of course, my 8 year old would be mortified to realize that he would have to borrow his books from the library rather than buy them. Ahhh, the stigma of the public library. The trauma from all that would send them straight down the path to Will Never Achieve Their True Potential.

I love this minimal existence stuff. I can hear the song Money Money Money ringing in my head. I thought it was all about good parenting, not money. Good parenting conquers all, doesn't it?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 11:32pm

found an interesting link ....


doesn't mean my position in this argument is always right .. but it does show that many legal systems agree with me.


http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/family-justice/law/spouse/payment.htm


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/family/support/intro.htm#spousal

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
Sun, 05-02-2004 - 11:37pm
I don't believe cocoa was referring to charlesmama's opinions about TV. I believe what she objects to was, "That's total BS.  You think that the little woman should come AFTER kids and spouse - fess up.  Equality bothers you.  Men and women are much more alike than you think."

I'm guessing this because I ALSO think what you said above was a load of crap, and I'm not a Republican....*or* 25 year old, either.

I happen to believe it's completely possible to disagree with you without believing women should be subservient in all situations and relationships, especially since I have done so many times and don't happen to believe women are or should be subservient.

P.S. Cocoa, I apologize if I'm speaking out of turn (a strong possibility since you and I never seem able to connect on issues). But that was how I read your post to PNJ.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 12:46am
Welll... it was 30 years, but my mom left my dad, and I *do* think she wisely invested those years.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:41am

Never said she needed to live off of the cost of daycare.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:59am
Marriages are not nullified. Only the Kennedy clan can marry, have lots of children and then have the Catholic Church deem the marriage to have never occurred.

A SAHM is "entitled" to alimony because she's given up her job. When a couple marries, they both likely work. When they have children and agree one is going to stop working, that decision nowadays necessarily implies that, if they divorce, the WP is going to have to help the SAHP get back on her feet for a few yrs. At the time the SAHM gives up her job, she knows what she is giving up and the risk she is taking. So does the husband. It's not an all-consuming concern, but it's out there and is acceptable to both H and W...at least until the decision to divorce where the WP wants to keep as much money as he can.

I think CS should be used to benefit the children only. I know that's not the case in the real world, but it should be and that's why courts should award alimony to the spouse making less or to the SAH spouse.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 6:19am
And mom is likely working beyoned 8 or 9 hours a day establishing/re-establishing her career. What's your point? Mom isn't, automatically, working less than dad and even if she is, it would have to be by a lot to decide to place the children into the lower SOL household based on hours available alone.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 6:20am
Note the word "usually" in my post above.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 6:22am
No just me. This makes it a valid debate stance because???? OIC if you single out one poster for attack when you can't debate her it's a ligit debate tactic. Right.

Pages