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 - 8:59pm

Do you make enough money from day trading or other sources to contribute some portion of the mortgage, to pay for your food and clothes?

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:01pm
Yes, if the school district has an open policy and if you can get in and if you can manage transportaion around your new career which isn't very likely to be very flexible because the flexible jobs get gobbled up by those who stay in the work force. I don't get the insistence that kids belong with mom here? Why should mom be, automatically, preferred in spite of differences in SOL and things like the kids being able to actually live around the kids they go to school with? From a kids perspective, I'd rather live near my friends than be driven to school from the poor side of town.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:03pm
I know that alimony is not need based assistance. It's a return on an investment or payment on a promise as in the case of a prenup.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:30pm
Oh, riiiight. SAHPs never dump their spouses as long as the money keeps a'comin'.

You have some nerve.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:37pm
Noooo, but I do think it's likely you formed your opinions for the same reasons.


Edited 5/3/2004 9:54 pm ET ET by cocoapop
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:47pm
Are you saying the SAHM has to serve dinner on china and "give" as much sex as wanted because she's a SAHM? That whole notion is simply foreign to me, a SAHM. We still haven't even unpacked our china from our wedding.

I understand what you're trying to get at. Does a SAHM try to watch her figure, try to be cheerful on days she's got PMS, become open to the possibility of sex when she's exhausted because she knows she'll enjoy it once she gets into it? Yes, absolutely, because she is a WIFE. It has nothing to do with employment status.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:54pm

Do you not READ my posts? I don't have an insistence of kids being with mom (except in my case, lol). My insistence in this subthread is that its not only about finances and fitness. There are many more factors.


Here, I'll repeat myself ... see if you can read it this time. <<I've known many a child that was better in the custody of the father. But that decision wasn't based on finances and fitness of parent alone.>>


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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 9:58pm
Financial support has nothing to do with equality in my marriage. We are equal because we each have a say in the decisions we make and have true parity.

You, OTOH, said above somewhere in this debate, that if either you or DH could no longer work, it would put an intense strain on your marriage, and you meant emotionally, not financially. That's inequity of an unhealthy and unforgiving kind. In fact, you even described dual wohps as 1 or 2 economic units or something. In my marriage of equals, if DH became unable to work, our bond would strengthen, and together we'd decide how to continue to put food on the table.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 10:18pm
You make it sound like she can't flip a burger or something. A sahm can go to work tomorrow if she wants and if her husband decides he no longer wants a sahp. What does she become? A wohm. Big deal. If she can so easily become a wohm, why are you pretending that only wohms have power and only they are equal with their husbands? Many wohms wish they could sah, can't afford it and have husbands who from the birth of their first child, have made clear they need 2 incomes to have an acceptable SOL. (You even said this about your marriage above - that if one of you were unable to work, there would be intense strain on the marriage itself.) Just because someone's a wohp doesn't make her an equal in a marriage.

If anything, the sahm is more likely to be an equal and not dependent on the whim of her husband, because she sah as she choses. Anyone can work. For many reasons, not everyone can sah.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Mon, 05-03-2004 - 10:21pm
Well, apparently from your view of marriage, I would assume that you believe that it is equally the fault of both parties that a marriage ends becuase of infidelity. Not only that, it is fine for the person who was cheated on, to have all of their financial stability taken away and possibly their children taken away, because of a joint decision made "UNTIL DEATH DO US PART". Or wasn't that in your marriage vows? This little clause is in there for a purpose. Marriages are not supposed to end-- sure they do, but it is ridiculous to punish the person who is not at fault for ending the marriage for the ending of the marriage. I cannot believe that you think it is right or fair for a person to have their children taken away, because they need a year or two to be recertified, etc. for making a joint decision to SAH, in the context of marriage-- ESP. if the SAH person was not at fault for the divorce. That's just BS. Mr./Mrs. Smith has stayed at home for x number of years. Mrs./Mr. Smith decides to bang his secretary/pool boy/milkman/the local whore. Mr./Mrs. has to take recertification classes in order to work, find a job, and on top of it all, has his or her children for whom he or she has been the primary care giver for x number of years taken away. Oh yeah, and don't forget the child support the NCP gets to pay-- where is the price the WOHP pays in this situation-- gets the kids, a new slut/man-whore, and watch his ex go to work, and receives child support. Yep, I can see how that's fair to all parties involved . . . Ridiculous.

Pages