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
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 2:51pm
He is not supporting ME. He is supporting his family. And I am part of the family. BTW-I don't have my own money separate from my dh. I never have and never will.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 2:51pm
If you notice I said *most* and *chances are*.
Tonya
Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 2:54pm
Yes I agree. It is rare that a woman would not work after a divorce. After all it would be rare for the income stream that supported one household to be sufficient to support two households.

But you were not talking about a divorce, you were talking about what someone's spouse should do to ensure the marriage stayed intact. And I doubt that any marriage where one spouse ALLOWS or DISALLOWS behavior is one that will stay intact regardless of work status of the partners.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 2:54pm
Marriage is no GIC. Its an investment in some high risk venture capital vehicle (you have a 50% chance of loosing it all). There is no guaranteed return on anything. Each spouse invests on their own, and incurs their own risk. Your ex chose to invest risk capital. You chose to invest otherwise.

You have to realize. You were - for want of a better word - lucky - you had an ex who was either so guilt ridden, or desperate to get out of an unhappy marriage as quickly as possible - that you were permitted (permitted - because while you spouse may not allow nor forbid you from doing anything - your EX certainly CAN (nice how that works isn't it)) to take off with the kids and some spousal support.

But lets do a for instance. This is it. Suppose your husband was more desperate to get out of an unhappy marriage, than he was actually guilt ridden. But suppose he didn't screw up. Thats still an unhappy marriage. Unhappy marriages usually have two sides to them...and other men or other women can appear on the scene on other side. Lets say, it was YOU who tripped over someone who let you "escape" from that unhappy marriage. NOW WHAT? Is your ex still going to let you take the kids and hand over any cash whatsoever -whether he is the one petitionning for divorce - or NOT? Yet there you are, every bit the single Mom by divorce who'd risked her income to allow her husband to increase his. NOW WHAT? The risk isn't really the event of "the divorce". The risk is really the event of "the unhappy marriage". Once that happens...the rules don't go according to what made sense when the marriage was good.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 2:55pm
Oops. I missed the word most. But, in my defense, I still don't see "chances are" in there anywhere ... lol

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.

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 2:56pm
You write: "all your Dh needs to do to keep you is to keep being himself, and to continue to finance your life." I doubt that is true. There is more to being married than being able to pay the bills. I would not stay with my dh just because he makes a healthy amount of money. And I doubt most women would.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 2:58pm
That's okay.
Tonya
Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 3:02pm
But don't you think all wives should try to make their husbands happy? I don't try harder to please dh now that I am a SAHM than I did when I was working. The money dh makes is nice but I'm not nice to him just so he will continue to let me spend money.

We have been married for 16 years. Over those 16 years we have had times with extra money and we have had lean times. I can say the years with extra money have been more fun, but we were very happy with our marriage when we were making less money and if we had to live on less again we would. I think it's more than a bit insulting to say to a person that they better be nice to their spouse so their spouse will keep allowing them to live their current lifestyle. It makes their life sound far to much like prostitution to me.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 3:04pm
Even if the alternative is for the woman who's a passionate SAHM to go back to WOH FT?

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 3:04pm
Well, here's an example from the board. luvbabes said that when she was an attorney, her work did nothing to benefit society. So since she admits she was not doing anything for benefit beyond her paycheck, obviously she wouldn't feel like I do WRT working. That's fine for her. I also wouldn't want a job that I felt did nothing for society.

I spent a large part of the year a couple years ago negotiating on behalf of a corporate client with its creditors and vendors to keep it out of bankruptcy. They managed to avoid having to lay off some 350 people. My efforts helped substantially in that regard, so I do see how the work I do is of value to others than myself. I could give you oodles of numbers.

I don't presume to speak for others in what they see of value or what they choose to do.

Pages