Divorce rulings on SAHM's alimony?
Find a Conversation
Divorce rulings on SAHM's alimony?
| 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

Pages
<>
AMEN!
Hollie
http://attach.prospero.com/n/docs/docDownload.aspx?guid=7E117344-D332-46AD-A2B2-30B19FAEACCF&webtag=iv-pssahwoh
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.
I most certainly did not claim that cheating means you get your kids taken away as punishment.
I claimed that if you know the consequences of your potential actions and then take those actions anyway, you can't be all upset that the consequences actually happened.
Hollie
http://attach.prospero.com/n/docs/docDownload.aspx?guid=7E117344-D332-46AD-A2B2-30B19FAEACCF&webtag=iv-pssahwoh
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.
Interesting. <>
Same with xh and our divorce. He knew full well the consequences of his actions. Yet in his case you think I'm punishing him. I'm not. He's simply having to live with the consquences of his actions. It was a risk he was obviously willing to take. He lost the kdis because I do the bulk of the caregiving; because he travels 40-50% of the year; because they are better off with me. He knew that when he cheated; yet did it anyway.
Hollie
http://attach.prospero.com/n/docs/docDownload.aspx?guid=7E117344-D332-46AD-A2B2-30B19FAEACCF&webtag=iv-pssahwoh
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.
Why does that apply to cheating, but not to choosing to be underemployed or unemployed? That is the exact argument I've been making for days.
Those who choose tp be underemployed know the potential consequences and should not be upset when they happen.
Not really, because she was specifically addressing a certain law that you brought up, which states no alimony.
Property distribution has nothing to do with alimony.
Because the choosing to be underemployed was a decision made by both parties, jointly.
I most certainly did not particpate in xh's decision to cheat.
Hollie
http://attach.prospero.com/n/docs/docDownload.aspx?guid=7E117344-D332-46AD-A2B2-30B19FAEACCF&webtag=iv-pssahwoh
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