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: 08-19-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 5:42pm
Fine. Let me rephrase:

You can enroll in a *medical school* fulltime or have a job that requires you to work *60-70-80 hours a week* and still see your children. It isn't an "either or" thing as you're making it out to be. So no, the answer isn't *obvious* to me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 5:46pm

No, we never were at punishment for his bad behavior. So we can't be back to it.


<

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: 10-18-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 5:47pm

Thank you! <<they worked it out like big boys and girls with the best interest of the kids in mind.>.


I've been quite proud of how I conducted myself during this whole mess. I got out of line a few times, after all, I'm human. But we both acted civilly and responsiblity and maturely. And the end result IS what is best for the kids. If we both didn't think that, we both wouldn't have signed the papers.

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 - 6:09pm
It is? We did? I'm just shaking my head in amazement at that one.
Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 6:13pm
The things you described are not power struggles but they are simple disagreements. You may have more than your fair share though because you refuse to ever do anything that you don't want to do.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 6:31pm
Sure there have been arguments - but the always stuff is far from where we are. He doesn't always do "his fair share" but neither do I, he doesn't always discuss every purchase with me, but I don't always show him the same consideration. We are human beans (ds and I are reading the BFG now :) ) Maybe I don't feel like they are power struggles because we don't keep a scorecard of who do was what. We feel it when the other isn't as focused or just plain slackin' off, but we understand that we *both* do that from time to time.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 6:45pm
A 60 hr work week or school week would work out to 12 hrs a day, or 10 hrs a day if you work 6 days a week. Being that was the low figure, working or going to school any more than that would mean more hours.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 6:56pm
I'm not sure what the minimum figure should be either. Obviously, each family determines that for themselves.

Many medical residents work very odd hours, so it's likely they could be at home while their kids were awake. In the legal profession, it's common to take work home with you and do it after kids are asleep.

You CAN work 60-80 hours a week and still spend time with your children. No, it's not as much as if you worked less than 40 or you didn't work at all. But it IS possible. Why are you so adverse to seeing that?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 7:16pm
I'm not adverse to seeing it, I just don't think it's true in the majority of cases.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Tue, 05-04-2004 - 8:06pm
>>Why are you adverse to seeing that when a choice like that is made, it IS selfish, because there are a plethora of other decisions that could be made instead that would get you to virtually the same place withOUT placing the consequence on the kids.<<

Because I don't see it as black and white as you do. Because I don't think that having a child in daycare so his parent(s) can work is selfish. Because I don't think following your dream/goal of being a doctor, lawyer, what have you, is selfish. Because I think you can be a good parent and still work 60-80 hours a week.

It's easy for you to say that there are a "plethora of other decisions that could be made instead that would get you to virtually the same place" when you have no idea what it is like to work in a field that requires long workweeks.

Pages