Divorce rulings on SAHM's alimony?
Find a Conversation
Divorce rulings on SAHM's alimony?
| 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

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