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 taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:15am

And yet it's a community property state with pretty strict child support laws. Go figure.


Frankly, I think alimony is insulting. It stems from the belief that a woman is incapable of supporting herself. Any state that has alimony is simply perpetuating the stereotype that women have to be "taken care of".

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:16am

I agree and disagree.


I agree that for some couples, the recovery is true. I can speak of one in particular and some others in general.


But I also think that for some couples it is a facade.


<<There is more to marriage than sex, so even though it *is* a painful betrayal, it can be overcome just like any other betrayal in marriage, assuming both parties want to continue the marriage.>>


I do have to comment here. An affair is not just a sexual betrayal. It is often a betrayal of a bazilliion other kinds; a betrayal of the core of what a marriage stands for.


But, if both parties want to continue the marriage, it can survive.

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: 12-03-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:17am
I think that unless a parent is unfit, kids need and deserve both parents. And in the case of divorce, I would hope that the parent who gets custody would want to continue the relationship between the kids and the other parent, for the sake of the kids. By moving them so far away, the CP interferes with the NCP's ability to play an active role in the kids' lives.

Even if you are from far away, your kids still deserve both parents. At the very least, I think it only fair that the person who chose to create the distance should pay for all the costs associated with LD visitation.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:19am
Yes it's basic in regards to community property. Yet the majority of states are not community property states. So what Texas offers is far from ordinary, and is certainly relevant in regards to alimony.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:21am

I've gotten so deep into the thread things have gotten convuluted.


I stipulate that people can disagree for a myriad of reasons, be it their experience in paying alimony, their fundamental belief, what-have you.


What bothers me is when statement are made that infer that alimony is a punishment. Myabe some receiving it do it for punishment, but that's not its intended purpose, nor do I believe that it is how it is viewed in many, many cases.

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: 12-03-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:23am
No wonder you quit your job if you felt you were doing nothing for society. I would too, if my job contributed nothing. But most jobs do contribute to society, in big and small ways, and most people do realize the contributions they make through their jobs.

I really don't care whether you believe anything about me or not. I've posted here for over four and a half years. My life is pretty much an open book. I simply don't care to discuss with cocoa the issues regarding the child I am helping to raise that puts me in a "stepmother like" position, since it has nothing to do with this debate and since she didn't inquire with a spirit of concern or caring or anything that would make me want to get into the issues, which are basically all resolved at this point anyway.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:24am

That still doesn't make it any less your choice.


I'm curious - why don't you think you should reimburse him for all the financial support you received while the two of you were married?


You made a choice to be underemployed. In exchange for that, your dh made more money, which was of benefit to you. Unless he hoarded all that during the marriage and you didn't get any of it during the divorce, then I fail to see why you should still be getting paid after the marriage. It's not like he's getting anything out of it now - it's no longer a mutually beneficial arrangement. And there's nothing forcing you to choose to be underemployed at the present. So why does he need to keep supporting you?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:25am
Can you please provide a link to show how she won $30,000,000 (is that monthly) in alimony? We are not talking division of marital assets, but monthly alimony payments.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:25am

Don't get me started on this one.


I pay 1/2 the travel costs. According to state guidelines, and what the court would have ruled, I should only be paying 30%. But I ponied up and am paying 50%. And, to top it off, xh stay(s)(ed) at my house with the kids, using my utilties, my food, etc. So, I not only paid additional costs that were unseen, but also saved us each a bundle in hotel costs.


And, I make EVERY effort for xh to see the kids as often as possible. In fact, there's been times when he's had the opportunity, and funds (paid by both of us) to see the kids and he has refused. He has also taken many other steps to prevent himself from seeing the kids. Its not, by any means, one-sided.


I go out of my way to keep their relationship with him strong. In fact, I work at times a heck of a lot harder at it than he does. But my kids deserve that and need that so I'll continue to do so.


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: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:26am
Well, I'm glad that Texas laws don't go so far as to say that KIDS no longer need support if the parents don't want to remain married! ;-) (Not that that would be legal.) I would agree with you and Texigan that the community property part of Texas law is something which (IMO mercifully) runs counter (but does not "nullify") the general anti-$-payment tone of many of its other laws.

I do not see modern alimony as insulting to women. It used to be reserved for women, to be sure, when it was difficult for women to take care of themselves financially, but is no longer. That most men and women can (and should!) take care of themselves from day 1 of a divorce doesn't mean it's insulting to realize that some just can't.

Pages