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 - 1:08pm
Except, assuming that everyone in this family acted to the best of the their ability, she did provide services that, without her, he would have had to pay for. And if she were "sacrificing for his career" let's assume that many times those duties would have to be paid at a premium (OT childcare, single childcare during business trips, last minute concierge services). In a mutual decision - as in WE are choosing this path because it is best for our family, *both* parties are responsible for the decision and how it plays out in all scenarios. A working SAHM is not getting a free ride. (now if you want to hold up an example of a lazy sahm who did everything she can not to work, neglected her family and forced dad to work three jobs creating a situation where he had no choice but to leave her, that might be a different story.) So dad leaving and taking the children, depending on the needs and ages of the children that led to the joint SAH decision, without additional support does more to punish the CHILDREN than it does to be fair to the dad. Wouldn't this loving dad want the easiest path for his children during a time of trauma for them?

There are all kinds of variables that could sway the argument and we could what if it to death, but the reality is that in a divorce keeping the children closest to the life that they lived before, both in terms of finances and daily routine, is what is best for the children and will help them through a transitional phase. If a parent can't see that, than I would say that they probably aren't the best choice for primary custody regardless of their income. (of course this assumes non abuse situations, healthy loving parents, etc)

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:10pm
Huh? My dh has never before been married, has no other kids, or anything like that.

That's an unfounded nasty accusation, not surprising coming from you based on your other posts in this thread. I would not date or marry someone who was divorced.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:16pm
I wonder how many of those "punished exspouses" (presumably male) were on the committees that drafted that piece of divorce law? nt

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:24pm
Oh. That's the definition from my dictionary. I didn't like the way the word was being bandied about so casually since it has a somewhat nasty connotation so I looked it up. I didn't see any other definitions. My point was the term was being used incorrectly.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:24pm
But that is YOU, that doesn't mean that it is the norm.

I didn't obsess over every nap and poop with number 1 or 2, but they were both good eaters and sleepers. Number 3 is neither and I do. I obsessed over every word with 1 and 2 (early and late respectively) I don't with number 3. The focus may change, but the level of intensity hasn't. At least for me.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:26pm
ROTFLOL. Texas law said it's punitive, so it must be factually correct! That's a good one. I would have expected that of Texas law, frankly. Texas was largely founded by debtors fleeing judgments. Since it was not yet a state, debtors couldn't have their assets seized if they moved there - it became so common to do move there to avoid having to pay lawful debts that the common notation indicating that debtors could no longer be pursued became "MTT" - for Moved To Texas. To this day it is one of the few states which allow people to shelter millions - MILLIONS - and still declare bankruptcy to discharge debts. Small wonder, considering the degree to which Texas allows people to get out of their financial obligations, that they think it's punishment to require people to pay what most other states find obvious that they owe.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:31pm

Oh no, I think the norm is to obsess less with each child over infant/toddler things.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:32pm
You have the trime to insult texas and still cannot be bothered to make your point. Exhibit #123 as to why you have no point.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:34pm
Isn't it something? Texas thinks it's not overly punitive to fry people, it's just punitive to make 'em pay alimony, LOL!
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:38pm
And my stance isn't that there should always be spousal support. So what's your point?

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.

Pages