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
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 8:58am
Kindly point out where any of us have advocated a presumption in favor of either parent.

Just because dad makes more $ doesn't mean he (1) lives in a good neighborhood or (2) lives in a neighborhood where there are good schools. If he's paying child support (I presume you don't think divorce "nullifies" his obligation to children?) he's taking care of the CC expense already.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 8:59am
I would say times like when a parent is ill or when caring for non-needs of a child leads to situations such as high stress of the parent or sleep deprivation.

I understand that in the short term, sleep deprivation is pretty much a given for parents. However, in the longer-term, such as over the course of a week or at most, two, children's needs would have to take a back seat to the parent's need for sleep, or recuperation or even letting a parent eat/go to the bathroom, etc.

A parent's need for glasses, in order to see to drive would trump a child's need for longer jeans with intact knees.

A parent's need for meds for a chronic illness would trump a child's need for preventative care.

Now, in none of those cases am i suggesting the child NEVER get the jeans or the preventative medical care, nor am I saying a parent should never permit him or herself to experience occasional bouts of sleep deprivation. Children will be sick during the night, need walking, etc. But when those urgent needs of the child have been addressed, said child's other, less urgent needs SHOULD take a backseat to the now urgent needs of the parent. It is for their own safety that parents be able to address their own needs in a timely fashion.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:06am
Agreed. My ex and his wife paid nearly 3 times more for their first home than we paid for the condo, and the schools in their neighborhood were FAR inferior to the schools in mine. Still are.

they've since moved to an even nicer neighborhood and their schools now are just barely equal to the schools in my county. They, combined, earn about 4 times my salary and their home is a very lovely home in a wonderful neighborhood. Their schools now are a vast improvement over what they had previously. But the schools where I live are still better. Test scores, class size, teacher education levels, percentage of graduates to drop outs and percentage of graduates who go on to some form of college....my local schools trump theirs.

For the money I spent on my condo, I could have bought a single family home very close to where they ultimately bought their first home. I chose the condo because of the quality of schools. for the money they spent in their old neighborhood, they'd have had to settle for a townhome or older and much smaller single family home in my county; they weren't willing to do that.

Their higher SOL did NOT result in better schools.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:09am
I agree but see those as situations where the child's needs *in fact* are being addressed better by doing what appears to be in the parent's best interest first. (I.e. the parent not being able to see to drive w/o glasses poses a threat or at least an inconvenience to the child which is likely greater than that of having holes in their pants.)
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:17am
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I certainly hope that you meant this:



in the theoretical sense. I have known many husbands that were better equipped that don't have custody because they didn't fight for it. BUT the fact is that a custody battle - through court, decided by a judge (NOT settled for other material things, which is what usually happens) the children go to the father. It is not who is the best parent, it is a game of who runs out of money first.

When I went through my divorce, he had more money. I took a low level (LOW LEVEL) job to provide the health insurance that he promised he would take care of and didn't. When it became apparent that divorce was the only option, I increased my hours and got into a management training program in order to be able to provide for myself and child. He WAH. ON PAPER, he made a livable salary. We took it as far as mediation for custody, in which I was told that while we were getting along we could iron out a far better arrangement than I would risk being granted by a judge. He had the resources (money and money sources) to keep me in court until I gave up. We had joint custody with an incredibly liberal custodial agreement and he was the primary custodian. That was not a perk, no matter how trying of a period I was going through. Unless you have been a non-custodial mother, you don't know the stigma and the struggles of that situation. And at the risk of being sexist, it is much different for a non custodial mother than it is a father.

Of course I believe I am the better parent for dd, although x is not a bad parent (or in practice, any worse than I am). DD does live with me FT now, with visitation with her father. I don't believe that children automatically belong with their mother becuase of some superior maternal gene. But losing any element of custody is not a perk. That is insulting. And the family court system, while wanting to act in the best interest of the child, just doesn't. To believe otherwise is simply naive.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:21am
Try it before you say that. And I don't mean because you were traveling or out or something. I mean becuase a court has ordered you that amount of time with your children and the x is sticking to it because he is still coping with the divorce himself.

It has little to do with hormones or male/female attitudes.

SUS

Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:31am
Simple. I would go back to work. While putting my son in daycare is something I really wouldn't want to do, it would be necessary if DH and I were to divorce. I am confident that I could find a job that would support us if I needed to; my skill sets are diverse and being a career counselor, I know all about marketable skills.

Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:32am
And aren't those situations in which a child's needs come behind the needs of the parent? There are PERFECTLY legitimate times when parental needs should come first; the fact that the child benefits is the point, not an ameliorating factor.

Children DO benefit by having their own needs occasionally placed secondary to those of the parent; that's the argument we've been making all along.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:34am
I know you don't give motherhood any special fanfare but many people who decide to SAH have a true desire to take care of the daily needs of their children and as a result, they develop strong bonds and routines with their children; they become very attuned to their children. Often their children thrive in their care. When that is taken away as a result of a divorce and change in custody, I don't think economic factors are all that important in comparison unless it is the difference between walking through a gang war every morning on the way to school or not. If mom is the better nurturer and has a stronger relationship with the child, why would you want a kid living with the not-as-good nurturer? Why would you want the less rich emotional environment for the child when you can have better? Why interrupt a child's most important relationship temporarily just for a higher quality school? (Although I am not really buying that better schools would be involved necessarily.)

Dad isn't automatically the preferred parent just because he has a flush bank account.

Maybe you need to consider the type of person who typically SAH in these days. It is usually someone with an ample amount of maternal desire. It isn't her uterus that makes her a good or great parent, it is her aptitude and desire.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:35am
But until we have some real, affordable, daycare solutions for everyone - until safe, nuturing, educational, and superior environments are not just attainable by the wealthy - SAH is not always as simple as a free choice. If as a middle class family, your choice is a less than stellar daycare environment due to financial resources/neighoborhood availability and your and YOUR EARNING SPOUSE agree that this is not acceptable for you children, why would the children be punished in the divorce?

The fact is that divorce is one of the leading causes of plunging children into poverty. Even in a situation where a mother works. While it would be nice to believe that everyone keeps the best interests of the children in mind during a divorce, they too often become negotiating pawns. If we want to make sure that the SAH spouse doesn't MILK the earning spouse, then we need to make sure that child support is equitable and collected in a timely matter. We need to make sure that custody arrangements aren't negotiable in exchange for money - ie, Earning spouse: Okay, I will stop the custody battle that you can't afford anyway, if you also agree to a lower child support payment and take these credit card bills....

While I am sure the stereotype exists, the money grubbing exwife is a stereotype.

SUS

Pages