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 - 4:10pm
No, I'm pretty sure any Catholic can under specific circumstances. The anullment option isn't void after the birth of children as far as I know. Rich people - men specifically - seem to be very aware of exactly what rules pertain to the whole marriage thing. I suspect its a man thing, more than a rich thing. And I think many a wife out there, rich or otherwise, would be very very surprised to find out just how her husband viewed the whole marriage vs divorce thing. Men just don't seem to cherish that "whatever happens to half of us, could ever happen to me" thing like women do.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:12pm
I have to go on your coat tail and agree with you.
Tonya
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:15pm
He just needs me more than I need him. That's all. I don't want to get into it. Why would you be serving dinner on china and giving him all the sex he wanted? To make sure he sticks around? I don't get what you're driving at here.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:17pm
LOL, no, silly, which one do YOU want to pretend? It doesn't matter to me.
Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:17pm
My comment about me working hard for dh to be where he is doesn't suggest that SAH is a reward for such. Being a SAHM is not a reward, but neither is it a scarlet letter to be worn with shame.

I was trying to make the point that many SAHWs are instrumental in the success of their dhs. Thus the term kept woman is inappropriate. And in the case where a spouse is put in a position to be a high earner by the other spouse she (or he) would be entitled to some of those earnings. That does not make you a kept woman either.

In our case dh's law degree was paid for with money that both of us earned. It was my salary that supported us while HE took a few months off to study for the bar exam. I worked while he began a new career in the law that paid quite a bit less than his previous career. It was me who went into his office on my days off from work to help dh and his partner get their practice off the ground.

How did this get to be about SAMS being self sufficient? I don't recall that being a topic of conversation.

I wrote that faduckeggs views someone without a job as ".....shirking her responsibility to herself and her children and her community because she is not a productive, self-sufficient member of society." I was not suggesting that SAHMs are necesarily self sufficient, simply that can still be productive members of society even if they aren't employed.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:18pm
Yes, those were illustrations of things I would/might do to make sure he sticks around.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:22pm
Oh! Was your dh a virgin when you met him? (Don't answer, I don't really want to know.) I would think it would be completely unrealistic to meet a man after law school that wouldn't have an ex-lover or two.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:23pm
He doesn't have an ex lover with whom he had children or owned property.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:25pm
But it doesn't always work that way. Most of the time, once precidence is set, that's your CS payment. It's pretty hard to get it reduced later on.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 4:26pm
Wrong. I asked a simple question. Yes, I knew about her divorce. I didn't realize it resulted in putting 1000 miles between the kids and their father. That makes it hard for him to be involved.

Pages