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 - 1:42pm
No one loves her job that much. REALLY? What about Nicole Kidman and Maria Shriver?

Besides which, if financial depenancy is what is KEEPING a couple together, that is a marriage I'd just rather not be in. You are welcome to it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:43pm
YOu were correcting saomeone (CLW?) about how pauying alimony would actually reduce CS down the line. I was just pointing out that often it doesn't.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:49pm
But you are only 1/2 of the marriage.

<< I take the whole "for better or worse, in sickness and in health" part of my vows seriously. >>

So the divorce rate is like 50%. And if its up to you, you are going to be in the "staying married" 50% come hell or high water. There is another 1/2 and another 50% to deal with, and you really have NO control over that - yet you are desgining your life by pretending that 1/2 and that 50% doesn't exist.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 1:53pm
A little bit, except I would say that I was more intense when I WOH ft.

I totally believe it is a personality type thing, not an amount of children or even age of children issue. If you are an obsessive, intense, or not so intense person that is how you are going to interact with your children regardless of work status, gender, age of the child or amount of the children in the home.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 2:00pm
No, the suggestion was made that perhaps anyone whose spouse made ridiculous amounts of $ might SAH (with which I disagree), NOT that you would "loll around doing nothing all day." (Believe it or not, there is a difference.) Instead of saying that it wouldn't make a difference to you how much money your spouse made, you enjoy your job and would find value in keeping it for reasons other than the $, you slurred SAHs. If you had said what you said here, there, you wouldn't have gotten the response you got. And deserved.
Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 2:01pm
The times something like this arises are few, but it does happen.

I think that there are times when a parent is ill and a parent needs rest at the same time a child needs outdoor playtime (or other stimulation). In that instance, it is ok for the parent to consider herself first and allow herself to heal and let her child watch tv for the day. It is a short term need (parent is ill) vs a long term need (mental stimulation). I don't think it's wrong of a parent to put their short term need ahead of their child's long term need for a few days as long as the child gets some mental stimulation at some point after the parent is well.

If a parent is in the middle of a necessary project and a child is hungry I think it's fine to have the child wait a little while for his food (I am assuming a child capable of waiting, not a baby or young toddler) I think it is find for the parent to finish the project prior to feeding the child. The parent needs to finish, the child needs to eat. I see no reason for the parent to jump and put the child's food on the table until after the project is finished. I am assuming the project will be finished in a reasonable amount of time.

Jenna

Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 2:03pm
Ouch, I'm glad DH (and I) weren't so short-sighted! I wouldn't have found the person I feel I was meant to be with had I excluded him because he was divorced.

I'll admit I wouldn't take alimony because I saw what happened to my DH - he got "dinged" for a good amount (lost everything in his 1 year of marriage and has to pay part of his pension to her when he collects it someday - oh, and he had to carry her on health insurance until he or she remarried). It's not nasty, evil, or taboo to be remarried.



Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 2:04pm
If you've really spent enough time on the sp board to know that, then you know exactly what my sp issue is. And since it has nothing to do with this debate, I prefer not to get into it here.

I realize that TOS only prevents linking to support baords from a debate board, but it is very bad form to bring up support board issues on a debate board, especially when they have absolutely no bearing on the conversation at hand.

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 2:05pm
I do mean first as more important and behind as less important. But there are still times when a parent's needs are more important than a child's. I am not suggesting that parents disregard their children's welfare simply that they need not automatically place the needs (or perceived needs) of their child ahead of their own all the time.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 2:05pm
I didn't intend to indicate that it always happens that way. And taken in context with the rest of my posts from this thread, it didn't indicate that it was an "always" situation.

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