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

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:21pm
But he doesn't ALLOW me to do things. He does not have unilateral decision making power in this family, nor do I.

We ARE equal. If he were to start trying to control my behavior unilaterally there would be a divorce regardless of the issue at hand.

You make the mistake that every woman who is AH needs her dh's permission to do so and that every many who has a SAHW wants her to work.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:24pm
I understand your position, I just fundamentally disagree. I think that in marriage, both parties make decisions about what is best, and it behooves them to fully conside the impact of those choices and be ready to live with them. A woman's decision to work less or play a more supportive role should be may knowing the risks, one of which is that the marriage will end and the spouse in the supportive role is stuck with a lower earnings capacity.

Of course, the WOH wpouse also takes risks with this setup. He risks that he will become the lesser of day to day parents and have no chance to have custody or even share evenly in the physcial custody of the child. I know that for me, not having my child is a much greater loss than not having as much income. I am the longer hours spouse. If we divorce, I'll probably lose the kids, since dh does the money and after school routines. He has more actual hours with them. And that thought is terrifying. I really don't know how people who cannot see their kids every day still want to get up and go on with life.

But for our lives to work the wqay we've chosen, it's a risk I takel knowing full well the consequences. Women who don't care for their own careers know this risk as well.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:26pm
Why does cheating on you rwif mean that you should lose your kids? It sounds like more punishment..."he made his bed..." Is it about what's best for the kids (2 parents) or what is best for mom (getting away, making the ex suffer, etc.)?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:29pm

Cheating is a sore point for me because my father cheated on my mother and they divorced. I felt like he cheated on his whole family. By being with another woman, he betrayed his whole family. He wasn't thinking about his children...he was trying to hurt my mother. His selfishness destroyed my family. He cheated on all of us.


Yeah, I have

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:29pm
A court in many places won't review every two years even if that's what you want. They don't want to be burdened, so review only happens if the petitioning party shows an extreme change in circumstance. Any lawyer worth their salt would know that.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:37pm
It doesn't. Never said it did. Things are much better if both parents can be involved.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:41pm
Doesn't matter. You can still set precident. Talk to dss#2. He agreed to, temporarily, give then dgf extra money to help her out (until she got a job she never bothered to try and find) only to have the courts say, "You've been paying it so KEEP paying it" when he tried to stop giving her what the courts never ordered in the first place. You are far more likely to prove that you can AFFORD the payment you've been making than to have the courts reduce your payment because they think you're nice.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:43pm
I was responding to Hollie. Are you Hollie's alter ego?

I didn't claim that you said it did, but Hollie clearly did.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:44pm
No, absolutely not. Choose to SAH. I will not waver from that. Does your dh "allow you to continue to WOH?"

And you didn't answer the question.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 5:56pm

No, its about the consequencs of his actions and taking the responsibility for those.


He *knew* when he cheated that it would most likely end our marriage. He *knew* that I had no reason to be in AZ except for him. He *knew* I had no support there. He *knew* there was a good chance I would move back to OK if we divorced. Yet, he took that step anyway. He chose to take action and he knew the consequences of those actions would be my moving. And he also knew that due to the logistics of his job that he could not reasonably have primary physical custody. He *knew* the children would be better with me.


I didn't move to punish him. However, I also wasn't going to relieve him of the consequences of his actions simply to be nice to him.


He was already making decisions that were taking him away from his kids. He was already harming that relationship. That wasn't *my* doing, that was his.


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