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: 10-18-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:03am

If the SAHP loves the WOHP wouldn't she be especially nice anyway?


<

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: 12-07-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:04am
Perhaps, you should be "absolutely suprised" instead "at the lack of gratitude on the part of" WOHPs that SAHPs' ability to stay at home with the kids and give up his/her career plans is "what enables them the luxury" of pursuing their career to the fullest.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:06am

Thanks, but you're wrong.


I do receive spousal support and I did ask for it. But he doens't *support* me. I could do without that money. I don't need it to survive. I don't need it to be capable of caring for my kids. I asked for it as a return on an investment; not need based.

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
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:08am

Because for me personally, if I quit, I wouldn't contribute materially more to my family than I do now in any way, and they'd be without my income.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:10am
My DH couldn't pursue his career any more fully if I were AH than now when I WOH FT.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:15am

How do you define a power struggle?

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:22am

No, it's not the only benefit, but it is the main benefit.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:23am
"No. I am absolutely surprised though at the lack of gratitude on the part of SAHMs that the WOHPs' work is what enables them the luxury of not pursuing paid employment, "

Gratitude?! You mean I was supposed to bow down in gratitude every day that I was a SAHP in spite of the fact that it was dh's job preferences that dictated whether or not I could WOH? It is just as much a luxury for someone to be able to pursue one's dream career at the potential expense of another's career. There are two things that you clearly don't get, and I seriously wonder if you will ever be able to comprehend this.

1) Most often the decision to have a SAHP is not based on some extreme desire or obsession on the part of the SAHP, it is the best way that family functions structurally. In other words, *everyone* benefits from the structure of having a SAHP, not just the SAHP him/herself. Therefore, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a SAHP to bow down to the WOHP every day for the "privledge" of staying at home. There are reasons why it works best for the SAHP to have that structure AND there are equally good reasons why it works best for the WOHP to have that structure. I am enormously grateful to dh for his intelligence, kindness, warmth, sense of humour and for just plain who he is and the feeling is mutual. Neither one of us is grateful to the other for being a "good provider", we take it for granted that we (as a single economic unit) have the duty to support our family, however the actual structure goes. We have food on the table, a good roof over our heads and clothes on our back, and we have structured our family both with one SAHP and two WOHPs depending on what worked best for us as a family at any given point in time. I certainly don't think that having a SAHP is a universally applicable benefit, some families definetly function better with a SAHP, others don't....just as having two WOHPs is not a universal need but many families definitely function better with two WOHPs.

2) You effectively have a SAHP in your family in the form of your nanny (no, she doesn't replace you as the actual parent, but she does basically the job that a SAHP otherwise would: childminding, light cleaning, shopping, cooking dinner etc.). SAHPs are actually doing something at home besides wallowing in the luxury of whatever goofying off it is you think they must be doing all day. But of course, given your attitude towards secretaries I can imagine that you don't think that what your nanny is doing is very important either. Should she be bowing down in gratitude for your support in the form of a paycheck? Or do you see her as performing an essential service that should be suitably recompensed?

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:26am
OK, that was embarrassing, LOL, I took your post saying he doesn't and hasn't ever supported you to mean that you did not receive support.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 10:26am
Are you saying a divorce could never be your fault, and are you now admitting that you view your spousal support as punishment?

Pages