Let's Talk Divorce

[Athena]

While marriage may be about love, divorce is all about the money. Division of property, alimony, child support payments...Perhaps the most recognizable phrase related to divorce is "taken to the cleaners". But, with two spiteful, warring factions, how much of this is fair?

Last year, Michael Strahan was the victim of a divorce settlement that heavily favored the wife (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-strahan080207&prov=yhoo&type=lgns), Jean. In fact, the judge awarded Jean even more than she was asking for. Sure, Strahan was an awful husband by any measure. The 6 year relationship was marred by infidelity on his part, among other things. But, is divorce-as-revenge particularly moral?

What about child support? A couple decades ago, the feds passed laws establishing guidelines for determining child support payments because they were, often, too low. These new guidelines (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/126250/determining_child_support_payments.html) typically take into account net income (that is, income after taxes and similar expenses). This is absolutely reasonable. However, if child support is about the cost of caring for a child, wouldn't it also be reasonable to have a cap? In the Strahan divorce, not only did he have to give up the house and pay over 90% of the kids' private school costs, he was ordered to pay $18,000 a month in child support.

What justifies indefinite alimony??? I can agree with alimony in a few cases. For example, if it was determined that a wife stay home with the kids, or she is disabled, she should be eligible for alimony for a period when the couple splits. But, indefinitely? I view alimony like welfare. If it's simply due to a lack of work, there should be a time limit on that shit. However, outside of those circumstances, I can't think of a single reason for alimony to be awarded. Legally, "standard of living" during the marriage is considered by the courts when determining alimony. WTF? What kind of world do we live in if, say, a spouse cheats, causing a divorce, and is subsequentially awarded a claim for alimony that was based of standard of living? If that's a possibility, I've just come a step closer to sympathizing with people who kill their spouses.

Lastly, I don't understand the aversion to pre-nups. So many people seem to think, "If we love each other and plan to be together forever, what's the point?" What a bunch of bullshit. Down here on earth, the divorce rate is near 50%, and financial issues are the number one cause of divorce, by a long shot. Marriage is a legal contract...and what's a contract without financial terms of agreement?

[Dakota Valkyrie]

There was a pre-nup and the judge followed it. She got 50 percent of their joint marital assets and 20 percent of his yearly income from each year they were married. Strahan WROTE the pre-nup and signed it and now wants to go back and say "oops". Too bad, Mike! (even though he has been great for my fantasy football team)

She got the N.J. mansion, the one with the 22,000-square feet, 12 bedrooms, seven baths and a garage big enough for 20 cars. She has to pay him back for half the price (I would imagine when it's sold). He still has the other 3 homes.

He has to pay the back child support just like the common joe. It just happens to be more ($3000,000+) than many folks make in a year... or two, or many, or ever.

There is a cap on child support - it's income based. I see no reason Strahan's kids lives should be hugely downscaled because of a divorce... no matter who caused it or who has custody. Not their fault they have a high-paid Daddy.

When he is no longer playing in the NFL, he can go back to court for a readjustment. He will owe everything accrued to that point but (in theory) support would be adjusted to reflect his new income. I imagine if he gained income due to a superstar contract or a post-retirement TV job (neither of which is likely) that his ex would take him back to court for a readjustment UP.

I don't think alimony was granted in this case. I personally know of only one woman who has ever received it... and then only for a year while she got on her feet. In the lives of normal Americans (not Strahan types) I think alimony is rare.

The problem is that when settlements start getting into numbers that most Americans can not imagine in a lifetime, everybody thinks a shaft was passed out somewhere. Given the Strahan pre-nup, family worth, and Dad's current income, I'm not sure the percentages are that out of whack.

[Athena]

I generally agree with you, although I will continue to find it odd that the judge awarded Jean more than she was asking for. Yes, I know there was a pre-nup...Which just goes to show that not even those are foolproof. :p

I don't mean to suggest that I, in any way, feel bad for Strahan, or even that the judge did something wrong. In fact, I don't think anyone really feels as though Strahan got shafted unfairly. All the articles I read had a snickering tone to them. He cheated, he got caught, he got what was coming to him. I just figured it was a good enough example to get discussion going. My points regarding alimony and pre-nups were independent of the Strahan example.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

I can't seem to find where it says what she originally asked for, but if it was less than awarded I think it was because the judge kept to the pre-nup and child support guidelines.

I don't know that alimony enters the picture that often but would be curious to know. As I said, I think it is rare and is probably on a case-by-case basis. Indefinite? I know nothing about ... but would think that any decent lawyer could get that fixed if it has no basis.

Pre-Nups? Hmmm.. always good. Not used enough. I didn't do one. I just didn't care and knew that I would be top dog in that fight (sorry Bob). I understand the law and was willing to pay/accept things as laid out in the law.

I was the major income at the time of our marriage but we really had no assets. Anything worth protecting would have been community property. Now that I don't work and only he does, I still believe it will all come out just if - heaven forbid - we split.

Maybe it has to do with many divorces in the family (none mine). But I have never seen a case of lop-sided victory. But I have also never seen a nasty divorce in our family... Maybe nicey-nice civil people just marry same around here.

Of course there are always the horror stories (not colored by one side or the other) that happen... but again, how often is that?

[Nell]

When I got divorced he got custody of the kids through an agreement between the two of us. We didn't want to go through a nasty divorce and believe it or not, sometimes the father is the better parent. He is at this time and I realized that. I do pay him child support and it was based on my income potential. I say potential because I didn't work for the whole marriage, so they had no job to go on. He also got the house and furnishings, but that was because he has the kids.

I was going to get alimony for three years but I decided to have him take all the debt from the marriage instead. It was going to be about the same amount and honestly since I pay child support they each would have canceled each other out. It wasn't awful but I did kinda get shafted because he has the kids. Oh well.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Bummer Nell... but also bravo! for doing what you felt was right! Divorce is rough on kids and parents who are at lest civil to each other does a lot to help things and not make it all worse.

Too often folks get caught up in the money aspect and miss the collateral damage done to kids and themselves.

[Nell]

I have to say thank you only because in 2008 I still have to explain to skeptical people that no, I did not have the kids taken away. Just because the Mom doesn't have them doesn't mean she sucks.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

I married a guy with custody. Neighbor guy had custody. Dad of a daughter's best friend had custody. (All in a town of 600... where everyone knows everyone's business LOL) And sister's second husband had custody. My brother has custody but his son could be with him or his mom at any given time (they live a block apart... on purpose)

All had custody for a variety of reasons but not one of them because the mom was a bad mom. Every last one of them was because with Dad was the best place for the kids at the time.

OK - I admit - Hubby's ex was a bad mom in my book. But not in any way that would hold up in court :) but we're friends by force so all is OK.

[Nell]

I don't have regrets. He was a crap husband but a really good dad. He is very attentive most of the time and alot sillier and fun than I am. They usually look like ragamuffins cause he doesn't care and some of the haircuts? Oh boy. The only thing I worry about is him getting a girlfriend and her killing one of my kids because he is too trusting with women. I worry about that ALOT.

[ImmortalOne]

While marriage may be about love, divorce is all about the money. Division of property, alimony, child support payments...Perhaps the most recognizable phrase related to divorce is "taken to the cleaners". But, with two spiteful, warring factions, how much of this is fair?

Divorce isn't about the money. It is about "being done with it" for many. The legal paper that allows them to try to heal and move on with their lives.



What about child support? A couple decades ago, the feds passed laws establishing guidelines for determining child support payments because they were, often, too low. These new guidelines (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/126250/determining_child_support_payments.html) typically take into account net income (that is, income after taxes and similar expenses). This is absolutely reasonable. However, if child support is about the cost of caring for a child, wouldn't it also be reasonable to have a cap? In the Strahan divorce, not only did he have to give up the house and pay over 90% of the kids' private school costs, he was ordered to pay $18,000 a month in child support.

Child support is based upon the incomes of both parents. What right does a father have to make millions a year and only pay $1,500 a month in child support when IF that child lived with him it would have all the benefits of the full cash available from that parent. If it was his option to put a child in private school, then hell yes he should pay for that. The house, in my opinion, should go to whichever parent has the children. Period. That gives them stability while their parents are getting their own lives together.



What justifies indefinite alimony??? I can agree with alimony in a few cases. For example, if it was determined that a wife stay home with the kids, or she is disabled, she should be eligible for alimony for a period when the couple splits. But, indefinitely? I view alimony like welfare. If it's simply due to a lack of work, there should be a time limit on that shit. However, outside of those circumstances, I can't think of a single reason for alimony to be awarded. Legally, "standard of living" during the marriage is considered by the courts when determining alimony. WTF? What kind of world do we live in if, say, a spouse cheats, causing a divorce, and is subsequentially awarded a claim for alimony that was based of standard of living? If that's a possibility, I've just come a step closer to sympathizing with people who kill their spouses.

Stay-at-home-mom who has no skills outside the house, especially in today's economy, cannot provide the way that both parents did/could. That is pretty normal. Again, alimony is based upon the standard the parties are accustomed to, the length of the marriage, the ability of each party to work and earn a respectable income, the cause for the divorce and many more things. If a woman has been in the home all these years (especially common for some of the older couples), and the divorce takes place and the husband is extremely well off. Why shouldn't she get some form of payment? She did after all stick around all those years. She did earn what he has to pay by raising his kids, cooking his meals, washing his clothes, etc. That is at least till she is married again.


Lastly, I don't understand the aversion to pre-nups. So many people seem to think, "If we love each other and plan to be together forever, what's the point?" What a bunch of bullshit. Down here on earth, the divorce rate is near 50%, and financial issues are the number one cause of divorce, by a long shot. Marriage is a legal contract...and what's a contract without financial terms of agreement?

Marriage isn't just a "legal contract", it is more than that. Pre-Nups are like insurance, someone is betting that the marriage is going to end before it ever begins. Which can be rather insulting. Why get married at all?

[Athena]

Divorce isn't about the money. It is about "being done with it" for many. The legal paper that allows them to try to heal and move on with their lives.

Fair enough. You'll have to excuse me, as I have never been witness to a divorce where finance was the focus.


What right does a father have to make millions a year and only pay $1,500 a month in child support when IF that child lived with him it would have all the benefits of the full cash available from that parent.

The point I was trying to make is that, if a kid lived with dad, it would not necessarily cost 25% (or however much) of his salary to raise. If a kid has historically cost $1,500 dollars a month to raise, the custodial parent should get $1,500/month or less, if that parent is working. Perhaps anything over that they judge feel like awarding (if dad is a millionaire) should go into a trust that mom can't touch.


Why shouldn't she get some form of payment? She did after all stick around all those years. She did earn what he has to pay by raising his kids, cooking his meals, washing his clothes, etc. That is at least till she is married again.

I don't believe a spouse deserves payment for willingly putting up with their other half. If a spouse is UNABLE to do for themselves, they deserve alimony. But that's it. Certainly not because Spouse B made the better portion of money and Spouse A won't enjoy the same standard of living upon ending the marriage.


Marriage isn't just a "legal contract", it is more than that. Pre-Nups are like insurance, someone is betting that the marriage is going to end before it ever begins. Which can be rather insulting. Why get married at all?

Marriage is primarily a legal contract. You are free to get married in front of God without ever getting a marriage license. But if you get legally married, it is for legal reasons and you should have legal protections. And, lordy...Pre-nups are no more a trust issue than seat-belts are. When I get into a car, I certainly don't fail to buckle up to prove my trust to the driver, and any driver who would be insulted by me buckling up is being absolutely ridiculous. I'm not betting he or she will crash, but you better believe I'm going to err on the side of caution.

[ImmortalOne]

The point I was trying to make is that, if a kid lived with dad, it would not necessarily cost 25% (or however much) of his salary to raise. If a kid has historically cost $1,500 dollars a month to raise, the custodial parent should get $1,500/month or less, if that parent is working. Perhaps anything over that they judge feel like awarding (if dad is a millionaire) should go into a trust that mom can't touch.

In my ex-husbands current child support requirements, it is $518.00 per month (including cost for his 19k in back support). Out of that, they say they will withhold up to 65% of his check to obtain this amount of money per month from him. Is it unreasonable for him to work harder to support himself? Does it cost me more than $518.00 a month to provide food, clothing, housing, electricity, etc a month? With today's cost of living constantly rising, the cost of medical/dental care, and so on - $1,500 a month in child support for a guy who makes $100,000 a year (mind you this is based on a real case I know). Is honestly a drop in the bucket. The child wouldn't get 25% of his income if the child lived with the more financially set parent, they would have the full benefit of that money. To include the expensive house, clothing, schools, medical care, car when they are 16, college fund, etc.


If a spouse is UNABLE to do for themselves, they deserve alimony. But that's it. Certainly not because Spouse B made the better portion of money and Spouse A won't enjoy the same standard of living upon ending the marriage.

I was being a little humorous about the putting up with the other spouse, of course. So pardon me if it sounded more serious. However look at it this way.

Husband A and Wife A are married for 15 years. During that time, husband A makes $125,000 a year, and has provided a nice home, new car, etc. Now divorce takes place and that same wife who has no job skills (plenty of life skills), now cannot afford that same type of car or home, or anything 1/2 as well off as previously. Especially if she didn't cause the divorce (meaning cheated, etc) - Why should she have to suffer with subpar standards of living compared to the ex husband who is now wining and dining women 15 years younger than her? Why should she live in a substandard home or have a less than decent car all because she doesn't have the career time, the job experience/skills, or education that he did?

[Nell]

I don't know about other states but it is hard to get awarded alimony in Oregon. I was going to get it because I was a housewife for 7 years and I was only going to recieve it for three years, not forever. That way I could go back to school for job training or whatever. And I pay half of my check to child support. I don't mind, they are my kids, but I barely live. I think it should be more on a scale that takes into consideration not only what I make but how much he makes compared to me. He really doesn't need my money and has said so, but it is state law that I must pay.

You wanna hear a ridiculous story of alimony? My boyfriends mom gets over $100,000.00 a year to sit on her butt. Forever!

[Athena]

In my ex-husbands current child support requirements, it is $518.00 per month (including cost for his 19k in back support). Out of that, they say they will withhold up to 65% of his check to obtain this amount of money per month from him. Is it unreasonable for him to work harder to support himself? Does it cost me more than $518.00 a month to provide food, clothing, housing, electricity, etc a month? With today's cost of living constantly rising, the cost of medical/dental care, and so on - $1,500 a month in child support for a guy who makes $100,000 a year (mind you this is based on a real case I know). Is honestly a drop in the bucket. The child wouldn't get 25% of his income if the child lived with the more financially set parent, they would have the full benefit of that money. To include the expensive house, clothing, schools, medical care, car when they are 16, college fund, etc.

I'm not sure that you're understanding my point. So, please allow me to rephrase:

Mom and dad are married with one child. All expenses for that child average out to, say, $500.00/month. Mom and dad split. The kid goes with mom. It still only costs $500.00/month on average to support the kid, but dad actually owes much more than that because he makes six figures. $500/month goes to mom for the kid, but the other $1000 he owes every month goes into a trust for the kid.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from with this - I've known women who are awarded rather generous child support payments, who spend the excess on themselves. As a result of this type of thing, I've known men who go out of their way to make it look like they earn less so they aren't contributing to the ex's lifestyle. This could ultimately hurt the kid. So, why can't we eliminate the concern by putting the excess money into a trust?


Why should she have to suffer with subpar standards of living compared to the ex husband who is now wining and dining women 15 years younger than her? Why should she live in a substandard home or have a less than decent car all because she doesn't have the career time, the job experience/skills, or education that he did?

Because that's life. She made her wager and she lost. If she is unable to support herself, she should be taken care of. But if she can't take care of herself as well as she was living before the divorce? Tough cookies. You shouldn't get paid for investing love into a failed relationship. Alimony shouldn't be some consolation prize.

[ImmortalOne]

I'm not sure that you're understanding my point. So, please allow me to rephrase:

Mom and dad are married with one child. All expenses for that child average out to, say, $500.00/month. Mom and dad split. The kid goes with mom. It still only costs $500.00/month on average to support the kid, but dad actually owes much more than that because he makes six figures. $500/month goes to mom for the kid, but the other $1000 he owes every month goes into a trust for the kid.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from with this - I've known women who are awarded rather generous child support payments, who spend the excess on themselves. As a result of this type of thing, I've known men who go out of their way to make it look like they earn less so they aren't contributing to the ex's lifestyle. This could ultimately hurt the kid. So, why can't we eliminate the concern by putting the excess money into a trust?

By spending on themselves, what exactly do you mean? That they use that money to go out and party with? Buy themselves a car, or clothing, or something like that? I am interested to hear because as a former single mother, I do have a side on that.

First of all, there is no set expense for children per month. There honestly isn't and there honestly can't be. Currently the figure to raise a child from birth through college is something like 1,000,000.00 - who has this? Who should bare the load? The wealthier of the parents, and the absent parents, are the only ones who seem to "pay" for their children because that is what is on record. There is no list of payment of everything the custodial parent pays for on an every day basis. Things come up, school stuff comes up, the children need various things from day to day. I cannot possibly put an amount of what I have spent on my children over the years out of my own pocket because I didn't get child support (the laws need enforcement, severely).

When I did get child support did I buy myself things? Yes, because when I didn't get support I made plenty of sacrifices. I personally feel that 1/2 of all child support (no matter the amount) should be put directly to the child or into a trust *IF* it is possible.

However, the absent parent should have absolutely no say where the money goes once it leaves his hands. The absent father not know the financial situation at hand because they are not directly involved; (my ex husband tried to justify not paying child support because I had a horse once - it wasn't his place to say shit, because he didn't know my financial situation at all.)

However if Dad is paying $1500 a month and mom makes $2,000 a month after taxes, that extra $1,000 a month actually can make a huge difference in lifestyle not just for the children - but life a lot less stressful for the mother/father (and therefore a potentially better home life). Therefore, the parents should be allowed to spend the money how they see fit (with the exception of drugs/alcohol/etc).

Child support is for housing, electricity, heat, etc. No ones bills are the same. No ones needs are the same, that is what makes us uniquely different as human beings. And how do you exactly figure out what part of rent is actually belonging to that child? 1/2 for a single parent with one kid? How about the electric bill for 3 children and a single parent - is that then a 1/4 of the cost apiece?

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Awesome post, Athena. Good subject too, and as always, I dont have the time to put into it, damn you.

But yeah....in short, mom can go get a fucking job and pay some bills too, and when has the child support ever really gone to the children?

There are two responsible parents who need to look after the child, and too often, divorce is just a means to an end for women to get what they can so they have to do as little as they can. Not always, but more often than not.

Toodoloo, I gotta run!:D

[Athena]

Awesome post, Athena. Good subject too, and as always, I dont have the time to put into it, damn you.

But yeah....in short, mom can go get a fucking job and pay some bills too, and when has the child support ever really gone to the children?

There are two responsible parents who need to look after the child, and too often, divorce is just a means to an end for women to get what they can so they have to do as little as they can. Not always, but more often than not.

Toodoloo, I gotta run!:D

Oh, man. @_@


Here I go out of my way using "Spouse A" or "Parent A", suggesting it can go both ways, only for you to implicate me.

But, hey, let's be real - It doesn't normally go both ways.

[TheLittleFriend]

You wanna hear a ridiculous story of alimony? My boyfriends mom gets over $100,000.00 a year to sit on her butt. Forever!

*sighs* *dreamy eyes* That will be nice.....

J/K. Yes, it's ridiculous. She should do something instead sitting on her butt....maybe take classes.

[Nell]

That would cut into her constant vacationing!! You are just evil. When would she get her shopping done, or have time to call us every day and tell her son I am an illiterate redneck who needs a good smack!

[TheLittleFriend]

Next time she call you, tell her shut up and buy you a nice, big house.

Hee he. :D

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Oh, man. @_@


Here I go out of my way using "Spouse A" or "Parent A", suggesting it can go both ways, only for you to implicate me.

But, hey, let's be real - It doesn't normally go both ways.


Heh, I apologize if I implicated you. That was my quick jaded man speech.

Although, Ive never been married or divorced, and when I had my big split with my longterm girlfriend, I made out very well, so I got lucky.

I know theres more to this than just women getting a cut for themselves, but really...I had a mother who milked that shit. I have friends who are women, who milk that shit.

All in all, I find the notion of alimony absurd unless the woman gave up an existing career to help support the family structure. Anything other than that? Eh. Stay at home mom? Its the age of working women, man...go get a job, ladies. :o

[Becca]

Okay, I'll finally jump in after enjoying reading all the other posts.

I have been divorced and have never thought of alimony because (to me) it's bullshit. There is nothing wrong with me to prevent me from being a reasonable adult and providing for myself.

The child support situation I have been in (in NC) has been freaking ridiculous, to both extremes. When it was first discussed I had a great job and ex had a shitty job but figured together, based on a basic formula NC uses, the amount of monthly child support was insanely high. Keep in mind this was a man I had a LOT of anger and revenge-type feelings towards, and yet I argued with the court to lower the amount bcs it was soo stupid, plus I knew being that high I'd never see a fucking penny.

Fast forward a few years and I am no longer employed (by choice) so it's re-figured but since I'm not working they give me "credit" for minimum wage (not this earning 'potential' thing someone else mentioned) and now it's insanely low and there was nothing I could do about it. "The basic formula" again. Now I could go have it refigured again since I'm working again but I figure why waste my time and money to do that when he can't/ doesn't pay it now so realistically is he going to when it's a higher amount?

And to rebutt some of the comments about the money doesn't actually go to the kids..I totally agree that typically it doesn't and it's sad and just shows that the mothers are bitchy selfish whores and it chaps my ass that women will fight for a high child support amount then go out and buy a new Beamer. $15,000 a month is child support? I fucking wish. I'd be happy to get enough to cover her lunch money.

But, having seen friends who abuse the system, I look at this way. Divorced, dad is dead, whatever - I would need to provide for my child no matter what. That is MY responsibility as her mother. From the day I started getting it to whenever it sporadically comes in, whatever child support I get is taken out of my account and put into a savings account for her to have when she turns 16 and wants a car, goes to college, whatever, and that way I'm not tempted to go 'well, I could pay more on the credit card' or what have you, bcs to me, it's not my money, it's HER money.

Too bad not all mothers think that way. IMO.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

In my ex-husbands current child support requirements, it is $518.00 per month (including cost for his 19k in back support). Out of that, they say they will withhold up to 65% of his check to obtain this amount of money per month from him. Is it unreasonable for him to work harder to support himself? Does it cost me more than $518.00 a month to provide food, clothing, housing, electricity, etc a month? With today's cost of living constantly rising, the cost of medical/dental care, and so on - $1,500 a month in child support for a guy who makes $100,000 a year (mind you this is based on a real case I know). Is honestly a drop in the bucket. The child wouldn't get 25% of his income if the child lived with the more financially set parent, they would have the full benefit of that money. To include the expensive house, clothing, schools, medical care, car when they are 16, college fund, etc.



I was being a little humorous about the putting up with the other spouse, of course. So pardon me if it sounded more serious. However look at it this way.

Husband A and Wife A are married for 15 years. During that time, husband A makes $125,000 a year, and has provided a nice home, new car, etc. Now divorce takes place and that same wife who has no job skills (plenty of life skills), now cannot afford that same type of car or home, or anything 1/2 as well off as previously. Especially if she didn't cause the divorce (meaning cheated, etc) - Why should she have to suffer with subpar standards of living compared to the ex husband who is now wining and dining women 15 years younger than her? Why should she live in a substandard home or have a less than decent car all because she doesn't have the career time, the job experience/skills, or education that he did?

Wife A needs to go find work. Or find another rich guy to latch on to. Wife A needs to go aquire skills. Wife A sounds like a loser, and so now Husband A has to pay for her being a loser.

Thats just bullshit. And if your husband is suffering 65% of his check being taken away to pay you money? You should be ashamed of yourself.

[crimenthusiast]

When I got divorced he got custody of the kids through an agreement between the two of us. We didn't want to go through a nasty divorce and believe it or not, sometimes the father is the better parent. He is at this time and I realized that. I do pay him child support and it was based on my income potential. I say potential because I didn't work for the whole marriage, so they had no job to go on. He also got the house and furnishings, but that was because he has the kids.

I was going to get alimony for three years but I decided to have him take all the debt from the marriage instead. It was going to be about the same amount and honestly since I pay child support they each would have canceled each other out. It wasn't awful but I did kinda get shafted because he has the kids. Oh well.

I divorced at 21. My ex was 23 and our son was 4. He was already involved with someone and of course she got pregnant right before the divorce. I voluntarily gave him custody because at 21 I didn't think I was going to be resonsible enough. Plus I didn't have the support of family and basically had no where to go. I ended up paying child support, but it was basically low. It was hard when I got married again, and then divorced years later when I was a single mom. But I still paid it and never complained.

17 years later, I have no regrets. My son is a good kid/adult.....He is almost 21 so guess he ins't a kid anymore. I truly beleive that I did the right thing. Fortunately, I was never judged by my friends or other people. But you are right Nell, it sucks that everyone assumes that the mother was "bad".

[ImmortalOne]

Thats just bullshit. And if your husband is suffering 65% of his check being taken away to pay you money? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why should I be ashamed of myself?

It was HIS choice to work for $2.50/hr as a waiter - when he was making $40,000 a year. It was HIS choice to take a job that he thought he could get out of paying support with. It was AFTER after he ran out of jobs to change to when he was avoiding child support all together (every time they were about to deduct from his checks, he would suddenly quit one job and move to another).

It wasn't my choice for him to not pay a single dime for 3 years. Do you think that she didn't need clothing, or a roof, or food, school lunches, or glasses, or dental care, or anything else during those three years? Where do you think that money came from? Did it come out of my paychecks or some magical hole in the sky? 100% of my money goes to paying for my kids, their home, their food, their clothing, their needs.

It wasn't my choice for him to not act like an adult and take care of his child. I gladly do it every day. There is a reason I divorced this guy, and just because she doesn't live with him (for very good reasons the court gave me custody) - does not mean he is not responsible for monies owed over the years. 65% is nothing, especially when its taken 3 years for him to have to pay ANYTHING because of what he did.

[Nell]

He was already involved with someone and of course she got pregnant right before the divorce.-quote by crimenthusiast

That sucks! Luckily my exhusband got fixed so I never have to worry about that. I am pregnant right now and he is pissed! Hahaha! And I was almost 30 when I got divorced but I had no job, no money, I was couch surfing with friends, and honestly I had some other problems I don't like to talk about. So I took them with me at first but yeah, he was way better able to handle full time care for 2 toddlers.

[TheLittleFriend]

Why should I be ashamed of myself?

It was HIS choice to work for $2.50/hr as a waiter - when he was making $40,000 a year. It was HIS choice to take a job that he thought he could get out of paying support with. It was AFTER after he ran out of jobs to change to when he was avoiding child support all together (every time they were about to deduct from his checks, he would suddenly quit one job and move to another).

It wasn't my choice for him to not pay a single dime for 3 years. Do you think that she didn't need clothing, or a roof, or food, school lunches, or glasses, or dental care, or anything else during those three years? Where do you think that money came from? Did it come out of my paychecks or some magical hole in the sky? 100% of my money goes to paying for my kids, their home, their food, their clothing, their needs.

It wasn't my choice for him to not act like an adult and take care of his child. I gladly do it every day. There is a reason I divorced this guy, and just because she doesn't live with him (for very good reasons the court gave me custody) - does not mean he is not responsible for monies owed over the years. 65% is nothing, especially when its taken 3 years for him to have to pay ANYTHING because of what he did.


What a dickhead. Anyone (men and women) avoiding taking their responsibilites for caring their children, is deadbeat. Period.

[Athena]

Why should I be ashamed of myself?

It was HIS choice to work for $2.50/hr as a waiter - when he was making $40,000 a year. It was HIS choice to take a job that he thought he could get out of paying support with. It was AFTER after he ran out of jobs to change to when he was avoiding child support all together (every time they were about to deduct from his checks, he would suddenly quit one job and move to another).

It wasn't my choice for him to not pay a single dime for 3 years. Do you think that she didn't need clothing, or a roof, or food, school lunches, or glasses, or dental care, or anything else during those three years? Where do you think that money came from? Did it come out of my paychecks or some magical hole in the sky? 100% of my money goes to paying for my kids, their home, their food, their clothing, their needs.

It wasn't my choice for him to not act like an adult and take care of his child. I gladly do it every day. There is a reason I divorced this guy, and just because she doesn't live with him (for very good reasons the court gave me custody) - does not mean he is not responsible for monies owed over the years. 65% is nothing, especially when its taken 3 years for him to have to pay ANYTHING because of what he did.

That's an unfortunate situation you've been left with. I really wish that the state did more to enforce child support payments.

That being said, you seem to keep throwing out this falsehood that 100% of your money goes to your kids. This would suggest that it costs absolutely no money to take care of yourself.

Now, I have some experience with the child support business. When I took over custody of my little sister, my parents paid me child support. But, to get this money, I had to prove the increase (or reasonable anticipation thereof) in utilities, groceries, etc. Some expenses are static - things like rent, for example. I was renting a two-bedroom before she ever came to live with me, so there was no rent increase. That, I did not get compensated for. Everything else, though, was either tracked or estimated so that we could determine a fair payment. We agreed on $300.00/month, which was actually a bit generous. After all, I usurped custody, so I shared some financial responsibility for that custody, yet my father took care of well over half of what it cost to raise her.

Now, I take no pity on someone who spend so much effort attempting to dodge child support payments. If he doesn't like 65% of his check being garnished, he should have thought about that back when it was more reasonable a percentage, and just paid it. Still, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the parent with custody is paying 100% of their income toward the child. That simply isn't true.

[CPL CHUD]

I'm never getting married. It sounds too confusing and costly. I'll get a motorcycle instead.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I'm never getting married. It sounds too confusing and costly. I'll get a motorcycle instead.

Smart man. Motorcycles are quieter anyway...

[Athena]

Smart man. Motorcycles are quieter anyway...

...and, depending on the style, WAY sexier than even the most expensive trophy wife.

But that may just be my bias talking. I'm never getting married either, but I will eventually require a motorcycle...with a man on it. Odds are, though, he'll be more quiet than the bike, so I'm still safe.

[w8ng4msrgt]

I have sort of stayed out of this thread hoping someone else would bring it up. What about the ones that say I have 3 or 4 baby daddies? They get at least in Texas 20% from each of them. That is more than they could probably earn.

Child support is not income so they get the earned income credit and other benefit packages.

[ImmortalOne]

I have sort of stayed out of this thread hoping someone else would bring it up. What about the ones that say I have 3 or 4 baby daddies? They get at least in Texas 20% from each of them. That is more than they could probably earn.

Child support is not income so they get the earned income credit and other benefit packages.

Please don't lump all women who have children with different men in this "baby daddy" stigma. Sometimes people cannot control circumstances in their lives, different stages of their lives can bring different things.

[Athena]

I have sort of stayed out of this thread hoping someone else would bring it up. What about the ones that say I have 3 or 4 baby daddies? They get at least in Texas 20% from each of them. That is more than they could probably earn.

Child support is not income so they get the earned income credit and other benefit packages.

I know one of those! She's got four kids by four different men (all of whom pay child support), two of whom are living with the grandparents (under the table, so to speak), she's living with a sister (who she doesn't claim as a roommate) and she's drawing welfare. Granted, an extreme example, but they exist...

Immortal One - If a woman has three or four kids, each by different fathers, AND is not working? It seems to me that poor judgment is the only circumstance to be considered, and it's far from uncontrollable. :p

Seriously, though - Maybe it's just me, but it didn't seem by his post as though he was addressing, say, a woman whose got a kid or two from a failed marriage and decides to procreate with her next husband, for example.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Please don't lump all women who have children with different men in this "baby daddy" stigma. Sometimes people cannot control circumstances in their lives, different stages of their lives can bring different things.

Cannot control circumstances in their lives?

Certainly we can all control who we FUCK, right? Marriage is about through better or worse, but of course when it comes to the worse, most bail, right? The better is so much more convenient.

And as far as women...AND men, who have multiple marriages, certainly more than TWO anyway, to me that is a tremendous sign of weakness on their parts...and, quite frankly, a mental illness.

[Athena]

And as far as women...AND men, who have multiple marriages, certainly more than TWO anyway, to me that is a tremendous sign of weakness on their parts...and, quite frankly, a mental illness.

Everyone I've known who has been married more than twice is bat-shit crazy. How could you put yourself through that so repeatedly and still hope to qualify as sane? :confused:

[swivel]

Everyone I've known who has been married more than twice is bat-shit crazy. How could you put yourself through that so repeatedly and still hope to qualify as sane? :confused:

Because "this one" is different!

[Athena]

Because "this one" is different!

LMAO, my my step mom is on her fourth marriage...And my dad was offended when the G-Unit handed him a pamphlet from her lawyer's office dealing with pre-nups. :rolleyes:

My father is a brilliant man, but like all too many brilliant men I know, lacks severely in the common sense department.

[ImmortalOne]

That's an unfortunate situation you've been left with. I really wish that the state did more to enforce child support payments.

That being said, you seem to keep throwing out this falsehood that 100% of your money goes to your kids. This would suggest that it costs absolutely no money to take care of yourself.

Now, I have some experience with the child support business. When I took over custody of my little sister, my parents paid me child support. But, to get this money, I had to prove the increase (or reasonable anticipation thereof) in utilities, groceries, etc. Some expenses are static - things like rent, for example. I was renting a two-bedroom before she ever came to live with me, so there was no rent increase. That, I did not get compensated for. Everything else, though, was either tracked or estimated so that we could determine a fair payment. We agreed on $300.00/month, which was actually a bit generous. After all, I usurped custody, so I shared some financial responsibility for that custody, yet my father took care of well over half of what it cost to raise her.

Now, I take no pity on someone who spend so much effort attempting to dodge child support payments. If he doesn't like 65% of his check being garnished, he should have thought about that back when it was more reasonable a percentage, and just paid it. Still, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the parent with custody is paying 100% of their income toward the child. That simply isn't true.

Perhaps I mistyped on that. 100% of my income goes to supporting the family and my kids. No I don't have things I get myself except once a year (tax season) then I get one large item and some new clothes. Everything else does go to supporting my family

[Nell]

I think what Athena is trying to point out and I agree is that it is impossible for 100% of your income to go to raising your kids. Maybe it is 90% but honestly, 100%? Do you never eat out for lunch, or buy a new lipstick, maybe some nice tampons, I don't know? When I was married we were on a very strict budget because we had 4 kids and my mom and dad living with us and every once in a while I would get my hair trimmed or something!

[ImmortalOne]

Cannot control circumstances in their lives?

Certainly we can all control who we FUCK, right? Marriage is about through better or worse, but of course when it comes to the worse, most bail, right? The better is so much more convenient.

And as far as women...AND men, who have multiple marriages, certainly more than TWO anyway, to me that is a tremendous sign of weakness on their parts...and, quite frankly, a mental illness.


Marriage is supposed to be about for better or worse, agreed. Also agreed that 50% of marriages do end.

However what I refer to is the teen mother who makes a mistake and "daddy" runs out. She takes care of that child and raises it properly then tries to get married. That marriage lasts what... 6 years, during which time she has one baby that both parties wanted and try for... then divorce happens (maybe his fault maybe hers). Now 6 years later maybe she finally finds the real guy, and gets married and has another child but stays with him till death do them part.

My point was that life changes, the world changes, and people grow and change. Doesn't make her a bad person. Maybe a little misguided, and certainly a lot lost in the early years.


Several marriages (I think the "acceptable" seems to be 2) is a sign of something. Mostly I would have to agree mental illness. My ex-husband's father has been married *has to count* 5 times, I think. He's a bitter sorry old man with a major alcohol problem. Most is caused by such things as that, or being far too needy and dependent upon defining ones self by their mate.

[Rotten Apple]

As a person who is currently going through this WONDERFUL process, I think it is interesting that only women are being demonized in this thread.

Marraige takes 2 people to make it work.

Just as the women are taking a "gamble" when they choose to marry someone who may later on turn out to be an ass, so are the men. There are penalties to be paid on both sides.

As far as child support. If I work and I get paid child support for my daughter, as long as I keep my daughters standard of living up to par with the amount of child support I get and provide for her education in the future, it is no one's business if I decide to go out and buy myself a new mink coat. Just because I have a child and am no longer married does not mean I have to give up all the little pleasures in life. I work too dammit and I deserve something for myself every now and then. Now realistically, this will not happen, but if it did, so what? Should my daughters father be relieved if his duties to provide financially for his child just because I make a decent living? Hell no! And any good father would want to provide for their child.

And women with more than one babies daddies, those men know very well what is going on when they stick their penises inside that woman. Just as the woman controls who they sleep with, so do the men. If they do not want children with these women, they are in control of their own reproductive capabilities.

I have a relative in Texas who currently pays out 60% of his income to 3 different babies mommas. Who feels sorry for him? Not me. Nobody told him to go make those babies. Yet, instead of demonizing him for having 3 different babies mommas, like we would if he were female and collecting child support. We consider him a stand up guy for supporting his kids to his own financial detriment...which by the way isn't something noble. It's something you are supposed to do when you choose to bring a life into this world.

And as far as alimony. If I stayed home for 20 years providing and keeping a home for a man and raising our children into adulthood because that is what he wanted me to do, all the while neglecting my education and any usable work experience (or building up my OWN 401K for that matter) because I thought we were gonna be together forever and HE decides he want to trade me in for something newer, hell yeah, he better come up with some alimony to help me get back onto my feet as well as my half of the marital assets. My investment was in the relationship and the marriage. Being a stay at home mother isn't all sitting on your ass eating bon-bons and watching soaps you know.

Personally though, I think alimony would allow the ex spouse to have too much say in your life. I wouldn't want it. :p

There, rant over.

[ImmortalOne]

I think what Athena is trying to point out and I agree is that it is impossible for 100% of your income to go to raising your kids. Maybe it is 90% but honestly, 100%? Do you never eat out for lunch, or buy a new lipstick, maybe some nice tampons, I don't know? When I was married we were on a very strict budget because we had 4 kids and my mom and dad living with us and every once in a while I would get my hair trimmed or something!


No, I honestly don't. I know it sounds strange, but I don't. I feel guilty every time I get myself anything (needed for me or not) and either don't buy it or take it back and get something for the kids. We live on my income alone (especially when I was a single parent), there was no luxuries for that; it was hard enough finding the money to pay bills.

[Nell]

We lived on my ex husands income only and as you can see he was supporting people with very, very random help from my mom. I know when you have kids it is tight. At times we had to get help from our church. And I also buy things and take them back because I feel bad for buying them when the money could be spent elswhere. But in the whole 365 days in a year I ate! I bought some little things occasionally. You never cut your hair? Never mind, I don't wanna argue.

I do see your point, I have been on both sides of this. I pay child support now. I sporadically got it in the past. It has sucky points on both sides.

[Athena]

As a person who is currently going through this WONDERFUL process, I think it is interesting that only women are being demonized in this thread.

Marraige takes 2 people to make it work.

Just as the women are taking a "gamble" when they choose to marry someone who may later on turn out to be an ass, so are the men. There are penalties to be paid on both sides.

As far as child support. If I work and I get paid child support for my daughter, as long as I keep my daughters standard of living up to par with the amount of child support I get and provide for her education in the future, it is no one's business if I decide to go out and buy myself a new mink coat. Just because I have a child and am no longer married does not mean I have to give up all the little pleasures in life. I work too dammit and I deserve something for myself every now and then. Now realistically, this will not happen, but if it did, so what? Should my daughters father be relieved if his duties to provide financially for his child just because I make a decent living? Hell no! And any good father would want to provide for their child.

And women with more than one babies daddies, those men know very well what is going on when they stick their penises inside that woman. Just as the woman controls who they sleep with, so do the men. If they do not want children with these women, they are in control of their own reproductive capabilities.

I have a relative in Texas who currently pays out 60% of his income to 3 different babies mommas. Who feels sorry for him? Not me. Nobody told him to go make those babies. Yet, instead of demonizing him for having 3 different babies mommas, like we would if he were female and collecting child support. We consider him a stand up guy for supporting his kids to his own financial detriment...which by the way isn't something noble. It's something you are supposed to do when you choose to bring a life into this world.

And as far as alimony. If I stayed home for 20 years providing and keeping a home for a man and raising our children into adulthood because that is what he wanted me to do, all the while neglecting my education and any usable work experience (or building up my OWN 401K for that matter) because I thought we were gonna be together forever and HE decides he want to trade me in for something newer, hell yeah, he better come up with some alimony to help me get back onto my feet as well as my half of the marital assets. My investment was in the relationship and the marriage. Being a stay at home mother isn't all sitting on your ass eating bon-bons and watching soaps you know.

Personally though, I think alimony would allow the ex spouse to have too much say in your life. I wouldn't want it. :p

There, rant over.

I'm sorry to hear that, Kathy. :(

For the record, I don't think anyone but my buddy Lieman is attempting to demonize women. Sure, there are some generalizations being made, here. The fact is, divorce generally impacts men very differently than it does women, financially. There are reasons both good and bad for this. More women claim alimony than do men. More women claim child support than do men. More women collect welfare than do men. More women post in this thread than do men. That's why women are being focused on (I hesitate to say "demonized").

As for the rest of your post, you make some great points. However, assuming that at least some of this is in response to my posts, I think you've misconstrued some of my points.

1.) I don't mean to suggest that women drawing child support lose their right to buy themselves things. My point was that child support would be more accurate if it reflected the actual cost of raising a child, rather than x% of the spouses paycheck. I think this would be advantageous because it would not only guarantee that the court didn't award too little, but also that it didn't aware too much, sometimes causing the non-custodial spouse to report less earnings.

2.) I don't pity men who pay child support. Not one bit. It is absolutely their responsibility. However, there are women out there who use this income as their sole income. Not a large percentage, I don't figure, but I've known a couple.

3.) I agree with your assessment of alimony. Having a stay-at-home-mother myself, growing up, I realize just how much it takes. Had my parents gotten divorced, she would have absolutely deserved alimony. But, even under those circumstances, there comes a point at which one must assume full responsibility for themselves, which is why I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "indefinite" alimony. Perhaps he pays while she gets a degree up until she gets a job. But no spouse should have to pay for the other's post-divorce existance forever.


Immortal One - My point is, certain things, you would be paying for regardless of having kids or not. Your rent, the electricity YOU consume, the toiletries you consume, the food you consume. You may not buy yourself luxuries, but that still doesn't mean that 100% of your income is going toward raising your kids. One has to account for the products and services they consume as an individual, that's all. It was a minor point. :)

[Zora]

If I stayed home for 20 years providing and keeping a home for a man and raising our children into adulthood because that is what he wanted me to do, all the while neglecting my education and any usable work experience (or building up my OWN 401K for that matter) because I thought we were gonna be together forever and HE decides he want to trade me in for something newer, hell yeah, he better come up with some alimony to help me get back onto my feet as well as my half of the marital assets. My investment was in the relationship and the marriage. Being a stay at home mother isn't all sitting on your ass eating bon-bons and watching soaps you know.

(My ears are burning, Kathy. You talkin' about ME? LOL)

I loved your post there, my Friend. You do have a gift for telling the truth.

But even if I were to get half of everything, plus some alimony, after 30 years of marriage ... I wouldn't expect (or want) infinite alimony. Sooner or later, I'd like to think I could come up with a way to support myself in the Assisted Living Home.

[Rotten Apple]

Sooner or later, I'd like to think I could come up with a way to support myself in the Assisted Living Home.

Of course you will! We'll be roommates to save on the expense. I'm moving in as soon as T graduates college. We'll be the drunk whores of Shady Acres Assisted Living community! ;)

[Raq me darkly]

I resisted posting as I am an observer and not really a participant in the marriage/divorce issue.

My parents split when I was 8. Mom was working and Dad was working. No alimony and no child support. Later they added in support, if he wanted to see their children, he had to help support them. (that is how it was explained to me years later)

Support was $25/week per kid. Not a lot of money, nothing by today's standards. Did he deadbeat. You bet he did. When I started college, mom would give me my "share" to help for books, food, rent, etc.

Then my sister ran away from home. Back to court because he thought he did not have to pay support anymore since my sister had split.
"But what about your other daughter?"
"I haven't been paying for her since she turned 18. All that money went for 'T'."
Not according to the judge. The checks were changed to be made out to me.

Then I changed schools. Back to court. He wanted to stop paying because he thought I was dragging out my education so that he would have to keep paying. Dad found out that he had to keep paying until I turned 23 or graduated college, whichever came first. So he took the school to court to make them release my records because he was "paying my tuition". :rofl: He lost because I denied permission. Maybe if he had asked, but to go right to court. I do not think so.

That was another perspective on the alimony/support issue.

[TheLittleFriend]

Marriage is supposed to be about for better or worse, agreed.* Also agreed that 50% of marriages do end. However what I refer to is the teen mother who makes a mistake and "daddy" runs out.* She takes care of that child and raises it properly then tries to get married.* That marriage lasts what... 6 years, during which time she has one baby that both parties wanted and try for... then divorce happens (maybe his fault maybe hers).* Now 6 years later maybe she finally finds the real guy, and gets married and has another child but stays with him till death do them part.* My point was that life changes, the world changes, and people grow and change.* Doesn't make her a bad person.* Maybe a little misguided, and certainly a lot lost in the early years.* Several marriages (I think the "acceptable" seems to be 2) is a sign of something.* Mostly I would have to agree mental illness.* My ex-husband's father has been married *has to count** 5 times, I think.* He's a bitter sorry old man with a major alcohol problem.* Most is caused by such things as that, or being far too needy and dependent upon defining ones self by their mate.I do agree with "little misguided, and certainly a lot lost in the early years.." But I do not agree with teenagers or women have babies with different daddies on purpose. My husband's former friend came here from UK to be with the woman he met from internet. But for real, he came here for better living. That woman, have two children with two different fathers....none of them pay child support. So, my hubby's former friend...I'll call him "Sean".....he pay her kids what they needs. They have a daughter together. Sean was leaving her because she was being really psycho. I had to call CPS on her because she hit my son....fearing that she hit her kids, too. She got pregnant again with fourth daughter.....that leave Sean no choice...stay married to her...she lied being on BC. Later, Sean finally gave up....getting ready to move back to UK....but.....she got pregnant again for fifth time. She openly admitted that she did that on purpose. We don't speak them anymore....they're nuts. I don't appreciate women who keep popping out unwanted babies to trap the men. And men who keep impregnanting women, having many different children....needs to keep penis inside their pants.

[Nell]

She trapped him! Was she fucking him while he slept to get these children? My ex husband decided he didn't want anymore kids with me or anyone after our second so he got a vasectomy at 24 years old. We didn't split up for 2 more years but you could see it coming. I have 4 soon to be 5 kids with 4 different dads. I almost never got child support, and now that they don't live with me I pay 60% of my check for them in child support willinglly because they are my children. I sold my car because I pay out so much money I couldn't even afford gas.

I may have alot of kids but I take care of each and every one of them. And because I know how babies are made, so if I didn't want more I should have kept my legs shut. Now let the bashing begin. Nell is a baby momma.

[TheLittleFriend]

She trapped him! Was she fucking him while he slept to get these children? My ex husband decided he didn't want anymore kids with me or anyone after our second so he got a vasectomy at 24 years old. We didn't split up for 2 more years but you could see it coming. I have 4 soon to be 5 kids with 4 different dads. I almost never got child support, and now that they don't live with me I pay 60% of my check for them in child support willing because they are my children. I sold my car because I pay out so much money I couldn't even afford gas.

I may have alot of kids but I take care of each and every one of them. And because I know how babies are made, so if I didn't want more I should have kept my legs shut. Now let the bashing begin. Nell is a baby momma.

No, he is a fucking idiot to say NO to her...I guess he follow what his penis tell him to. She's very good manipulative. She conviced me that my husband made a move on her. Not true.

But Nell, you're different than her. You are willing to pay child support because you know that children are your responsible. You take care of them....you love them. Not her. She sit on her fat ass, expecting other man to pay kids that is not their. Also, she expect them to pay her rent, food, and clothes. She never have a job since she graduated high school and liked being on welfare. I told her to go to court to get her first two children's fathers to pay the child support...but she's too fucking lazy. Sean have been paying all of children for four years now.

[Nell]

I ranted, I'm sorry. I get alot of shit for all the kids I have and how many dads they have. I am not a typical baby's momma, you're right. But I still get painted with the same brush. And men that think women "got pregnant" piss me off! How do they think that happens? By magic? Anyway, after all this my boys dad wouldn't even let them call me on Mothers Day cause he's hating on me right now. So I'm crabby. Sorry.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

My point was that child support would be more accurate if it reflected the actual cost of raising a child, rather than x% of the spouses paycheck. I think this would be advantageous because it would not only guarantee that the court didn't award too little, but also that it didn't aware too much, sometimes causing the non-custodial spouse to report less earnings.Just wondering where the "actual cost of raising a child" comes from...

If you take a national average, kids in North Dakota would be sitting pretty because the cost of living here is so much less. If you took a state average, kids in rural North Dakota would be sitting pretty because of the costs in Fargo.

If you take the actual costs based on what the custodial parent pays, I guarantee you that the custodial parent could realistically pump up that amount where it would be out of hand. (name brand vs. generic, horse camp vs. day camp, private school vs. public...) Setting it at half the actual cost would cause people to inflate costs... just as some try to hide income on income based. It could also be lop-sided if either parent had a low paying job.

Income based (on the income of both parents) with weight given to percentage each earns is the only realistic way to calculate it. Just as in an intact marriage, the money spent on the kids rises and falls with the income of the parents. Once the amount is set parents have to return to court if adjustments +/- are needed but usually a lawyer is not needed (around here anyway).

As a once-single mom, I raised my kids in very different circumstances than my sister did. She too was a once-single mom... but she made in excess of $75,000 a year. Yes, she could have raised her kids using the same budget I did, but her income afforded her and her kids a different lifestyle. Neither of us got child support EVER. Mine by choice, hers by happenstance.

[ImmortalOne]

I do agree with "little misguided, and certainly a lot lost in the early years.." But I do not agree with teenagers or women have babies with different daddies on purpose.

I don't agree with having children for the support and welfare purpose either. I have met women like that and they thoroughly disgust me. While during my years as a single parent, I did have to swallow my pride and accept help from the state (food stamps, insurance, etc). It is only a stepping stone to a better life that we make for ourselves. Women (and some men) who use it as a way of life is where people start placing labels.

However I do have 3 children, from 3 different fathers (15, 10, 8months). One when I was a junior in High School - she is 15yrs old now and I have been blessed with a wonderful daughter. One who is 10yrs old now - conceived during my first marriage after 2 years of trying, and then 4 years after our marriage ended. And now my miracle baby who is 8 months from my current husband (and we are hoping for 1 more in the next few years God willing).

I just didn't want everyone to start giving the "well she has 3 kids, 3 different fathers, therefore she has no morals, etc" out as a stigma and label. Because just as my life changed and circumstances evolved and time passed, things do and can happen. I have been more than blessed with my 3 daughters, they are my life and every day I am thankful for them. Every child is a blessing, and every life is a celebration.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Woah now, Im not trying to vilify women, or demonize them. If this subject was palimony, Id say the same thing, even with a harsher tone.

I'm just saying. Women want to be treated equal, which I agree with: as a matter of fact, let me get this out of the way first and foremost---I will admit, that the strongest woman trumps the strongest man almost every time. I LOVE strong women. I love a woman that is fierce, that knows what she wants, and will stop at nothing to get it. I respect strippers, for God's sake, because they make their livings off of dumb shlubs like us. My ex was a gorgeous stripper, who always talked about using her body, because it was worth lots of money, and spoke of men being gullible enough to tip her hundreds of dollars a night because shes got nice tits and a hot ass. So what. Go for it, girls.

BUt what I am also saying, is that with equal treatment comes the bad, too. Don't go to man, marry man because hes got money, and you're too fucking lazy to find work, and expect that when shit doesn't work, you should get money from man because you're used to living like that. You're used to living that way because man worked to EARN that shit, no you. You sucked his dick, had some kids, and washed a few dishes, and probably made him do laundry.

CHild support is different, although I think its terribly flawed, and that comes from someone who couldve gotten support from the EX GF if I wanted to, but I NEVER wouldve crippled her with that disgusting system. She contributes, she loves her girls, and although Im better for the girls now, and its why I have full custody of them, I allow them at ANY time to visit, her at ANY time to come, and help HER when she needs it, just like she does me, and the girls.

Eh....Ive pretty much said my piece...


Also, in a divorce, if one cheats? Fuck them. I think they should get SHIT. Not even half. A quarter, or what. Im so sick of men and women who cheat, then get their relationships fuck up because of it, and cry when shit is hard, and wish shit could be like it was. Youre going to do that shit, especially with KIDS!? Youre fucking their lives up, man...

Ok, NOW Ive said my piece.

[Rotten Apple]

BUt what I am also saying, is that with equal treatment comes the bad, too. Don't go to man, marry man because hes got money, and you're too fucking lazy to find work, and expect that when shit doesn't work, you should get money from man because you're used to living like that. You're used to living that way because man worked to EARN that shit, no you. You sucked his dick, had some kids, and washed a few dishes, and probably made him do laundry.



Really? Are you serious? Most of the women who qualify to collect alimony married these men way before they had any money. It was when they were young and right out of college and eating ramen noodles for dinner that the women fell in love with them and agreed to marry their asses without a pot to piss in. It is when they got rich that they left the women for a younger piece of ass.

Being a stay at home mother is nothing like you make it seem. If that wife didn't do half that shit they would have to pay someone to do it because while they are out doing a job they get paid for, that shit would remain undone. Fuck, I work and I never get to turn off. As soon as I get home it is a whole new job. And you, having full custody of your kids should KNOW that there is more to kids than just birthing them. those little fuckers are WORK. Jesus christ, your disgust for stay at home moms really is amazing.

I tell you what. When I get into my house, you go ahead and move in with me and be my stay at home wife. However, the first time my dinner is late or my work clothes are wrinkled, I am planning on beating your ass. And when I get tired of you, I will put you out on the streets with no work experience and no money, tell you to get off your lazy ass and find a job. Not my problem that it takes money to start all over again. You can sleep in your car...but I paid for that too...so no you can't.




Also, in a divorce, if one cheats? Fuck them. I think they should get SHIT. Not even half. A quarter, or what. Im so sick of men and women who cheat, then get their relationships fuck up because of it, and cry when shit is hard, and wish shit could be like it was. Youre going to do that shit, especially with KIDS!? Youre fucking their lives up, man...

Ok, NOW Ive said my piece.

Soooo, if the main breadwinner cheats on the stay at home mom, he forfeits his rights to EVERYTHING? he gets nothing...or a quarter of it?

Woo hoo! There are alot of women out there that would love that!

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Really? Are you serious? Most of the women who qualify to collect alimony married these men way before they had any money. It was when they were young and right out of college and eating ramen noodles for dinner that the women fell in love with them and agreed to marry their asses without a pot to piss in. It is when they got rich that they left the women for a younger piece of ass.

But its not as black and white as that, and Im not suggesting it is.

During the divorce, she'd get money. She'd get a chunk to set her up on, if this guy was rich like you suggest, and like I said earlier, if she helped him build this empire, or helped in any way shape or form build the money theyre getting, then she gets a large chunk. BUt I dont agree with her being able to cintinue to gouge wages earned.


Being a stay at home mother is nothing like you make it seem. If that wife didn't do half that shit they would have to pay someone to do it because while they are out doing a job they get paid for, that shit would remain undone.

Ah, bullshit. My dad and step mother are two very rich motherfuckers. They do their own work. They both have high paying jobs, (shes a Partner in a large lawfirm in Tampa, and hes an editor for the St. Pete Times) and they dont have maids. And they have three children of their own.


Fuck, I work and I never get to turn off. As soon as I get home it is a whole new job. And you, having full custody of your kids should KNOW that there is more to kids than just birthing them. those little fuckers are WORK. Jesus christ, your disgust for stay at home moms really is amazing.

Heh, Kathy, I dont have disgust for stay at home moms. Dont confuse me not agreeing with alimony with having a disgust for moms who dont work.

But yeah, theyre HARD damn work. But I do it. And I work an intensely stressful job...my own business for that matter, so that shit doesnt end either. And Im sorry you dont get to turn off...a husband and wife should make DAMN sure they get to both have times where they just get to be with themselves..and relax. Stay at home moms, dads, or not. Kathy, I just dont like the idea of taking money from the check of husband OR wife after the marriage is done.


I tell you what. When I get into my house, you go ahead and move in with me and be my stay at home wife.

HEY! NOW you made me MAD! I'll be your stay at home HUSBAND!!! :mad:


However, the first time my dinner is late or my work clothes are wrinkled, I am planning on beating your ass.

Ok, I see where this is going, and its an extreme way to make your point.


And when I get tired of you, I will put you out on the streets with no work experience and no money, tell you to get off your lazy ass and find a job. Not my problem that it takes money to start all over again. You can sleep in your car...but I paid for that too...so no you can't.

Sigh. No, because the car will be fought for in court. Thats not alimony, thats distribution. And you beat me, so now Ill use that in a court of law to show that I became afraid, and my psychological make up was that of that I could NOT get work, hell, I had black eyes, and if I didnt get dinner on time I was going to get whipped. So Ill get the house too, because I DONT have a job. But, I will have to go out and get one now, because I dont have to cook dinner, I dont have to worry about black eyes, and I DO have to work to support myself like most normal human beings who dont try to use someone else's earned money to do it.







edited the last quote out I didnt see..addressed it a few posts down.

[Athena]

I love it when people trade ridiculous extremes. :)

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Soooo, if the main breadwinner cheats on the stay at home mom, he forfeits his rights to EVERYTHING? he gets nothing...or a quarter of it?

Woo hoo! There are alot of women out there that would love that!

Oops, didnt see this.

But yeah. I mean, yeah. Pretty much the way it is NOW. Many wealthy men who have been caught cheating have to give up the bank to their ex wives. Yeah.

And if he cannot just go his seperate ways and not respect the pact they made when they got married, then yeah, he gives it up. He's rich. He'll get a lot back. Because thats different than alimony. Im not saying the woman or man shouldnt get shit and be left out in the street, thats ridiculous. Im saying checks shouldnt be garnished because a marriage didnt work, and the woman or man decided to sit on their ass for the most part.

[TheLittleFriend]

Woah now, Im not trying to vilify women, or demonize them. If this subject was palimony, Id say the same thing, even with a harsher tone. I'm just saying. Women want to be treated equal, which I agree with: as a matter of fact, let me get this out of the way first and foremost---

I will admit, that the strongest woman trumps the strongest man almost every time. I LOVE strong women. I love a woman that is fierce, that knows what she wants, and will stop at nothing to get it. I respect strippers, for God's sake, because they make their livings off of dumb shlubs like us. My ex was a gorgeous stripper, who always talked about using her body, because it was worth lots of money, and spoke of men being gullible enough to tip her hundreds of dollars a night because shes got nice tits and a hot ass. So what. Go for it, girls. BUt what I am also saying, is that with equal treatment comes the bad, too. Don't go to man, marry man because hes got money, and you're too fucking lazy to find work, and expect that when shit doesn't work, you should get money from man because you're used to living like that. You're used to living that way because man worked to EARN that shit, no you. You sucked his dick, had some kids, and washed a few dishes, and probably made him do laundry.
CHild support is different, although I think its terribly flawed, and that comes from someone who couldve gotten support from the EX GF if I wanted to, but I NEVER wouldve crippled her with that disgusting system. She contributes, she loves her girls, and although Im better for the girls now, and its why I have full custody of them, I allow them at ANY time to visit, her at ANY time to come, and help HER when she needs it, just like she does me, and the girls. Eh....Ive pretty much said my piece...Also, in a divorce, if one cheats? Fuck them. I think they should get SHIT. Not even half. A quarter, or what. Im so sick of men and women who cheat, then get their relationships* fuck up because of it, and cry when shit is hard, and wish shit could be like it was. Youre going to do that shit, especially with KIDS!? Youre fucking their lives up, man...Ok, NOW Ive said my piece.

Stay at home mommy, is a JOB. Here is what my sister do daily (she have four children under seven) Wake them up, make breakfast, drop them off at school, clean house, do laundry, fix something at house, pay bills, pick them up at school, drop them off at after school activies, do some errads, pick them up, cook dinner, give kids baths, help with homeworks....then finally bedtime. It is like a job....being stay at home is not to sit on butt, eat bons-bons and watch shows all day. Some women do that. Or worse, they spend all day, spending their husbands' money like wind.

My husband work for drilling company....yes, it is very very stressful job. I UNDERSTAND that. That's why I make the house clean, clothes ready, and dinner ready for him to come home. I want the place for him to feel like he is loved, comfortable, and happy. Make him feel he is appreciated for the hard work he do for us. He does that same thing for me.....he make me feel appreciated for what I do at home. We work together, like team....that's what marriage should be about.

[Rotten Apple]

I just want to clarify that I don't agree with indefinite alimony. It seems vindictive. And in my current situation, I am refusing alimony, though under SC law I am "entitled" to it. But that is because I am willing to adjust my standard of living and I have job skills and my own retirement savings, etc. But if I didn't, I would go after it GLADLY. Especially since the current hubby made it impossible for me to further my education therefore making it impossible to increase my earning potential.

My assumption that you harbored a disgust for stay at home moms came from this:


You're used to living that way because man worked to EARN that shit, no you. You sucked his dick, had some kids, and washed a few dishes, and probably made him do laundry.


Those are some strong words there.

Also for the record, when I beat your ass, I'll be sure not to leave any marks.

or I may not even beat you . I'll just act all pissy and make your life a general living hell.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I just want to clarify that I don't agree with indefinite alimony. It seems vindictive. And in my current situation, I am refusing alimony, though under SC law I am "entitled" to it. But that is because I am willing to adjust my standard of living and I have job skills and my own retirement savings, etc. But if I didn't, I would go after it GLADLY. Especially since the current hubby made it impossible for me to further my education therefore making it impossible to increase my earning potential.

My assumption that you harbored a disgust for stay at home moms came from this:



Those are some strong words there.

Also for the record, when I beat your ass, I'll be sure not to leave any marks.

or I may not even beat you . I'll just act all pissy and make your life a general living hell.

ROTF! GodDAMN, you ladies have that shit down to a science, don't you?

Kathy, you're tough as nails, and I dig you because of it, that and the fact that you said you wanted to kick me in the balls a long time ago...come to think of it, you've threatened me a few times. THat's pretty cool--but I understand you don't want alimony. And my quote above was maybe a bit too strong, and a bit degrading.....I can admit that, but the point remains the same....

[Raq me darkly]

Speaking of alimony, former New Jersey governor McGreevey (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDo7RlIzAogFu-WdYiksEmyXPhHwD90LL1800) is going through this joyful debate:


Matos McGreevey is asking the court to award her alimony and additional money based on the contention that McGreevey committed marriage fraud. She says she was duped into marriage by a gay man who needed the cover of a wife to advance his political career.

McGreevey counters that his wife, whom he married in 2000, should have known he was gay and that for most of their marriage, she made more money than him.

[Athena]

You're soaking up a lot of thanks from me today, Raq. :)

I can't believe that shit. She made more money for the better portion of the relationship?

This bitch is just mad that she doesn't get to be a Governor's wife any longer.

[Rotten Apple]

OPEN INVITATION TO GPRIME:

Quit fucking groaning me and spit it out already. PLEASE let me in on what you know about love, marriage, and divorce.

Since obviously you know better than someone like me who has experienced (or is experiencing) all three...

[Nell]

Oh man! Gprime are you groaning more and more cause I pointed it out? Or just being a butt? You are highly entertaining though, I like ya!:D

[gprime]

OPEN INVITATION TO GPRIME:

Quit fucking groaning me and spit it out already. PLEASE let me in on what you know about love, marriage, and divorce.

Since obviously you know better than someone like me who has experienced (or is experiencing) all three...

I don't think I've claimed at any point to have a monopoly on the truth, or to have experienced marriage and divorce. My issue with the position you've taken throughout this thread is that you're essentially defending alimony on the grounds that during a marriage, one partner may work in the home, and thus lose means to provide for themselves or be competitive in the working world should they have to enter it after divorce. Frankly, that strikes me as their problem, not that of their spouse.

If a woman chooses not to pursue higher education or gain work experience due to marriage, and the assumption that she is better served by a domestic role, then she must be willing to assume the consequences of such a decision. Among those is the threat that, as is statistically likely, the marriage will end, and she will need to provide for herself. Accordingly, she assumes the lower income potential and reduced job options. The husband should not be forced to pay for that choice.

[TheLittleFriend]

There! How do you feel now, gprime?

:D

[Rotten Apple]

If a woman chooses not to pursue higher education or gain work experience due to marriage, and the assumption that she is better served by a domestic role, then she must be willing to assume the consequences of such a decision. Among those is the threat that, as is statistically likely, the marriage will end, and she will need to provide for herself. Accordingly, she assumes the lower income potential and reduced job options. The husband should not be forced to pay for that choice.


What you don't seem to understand gprime is that in a marriage most choices are made jointly.

When a wife decides to stay home with the children, it is not something that she decides for herself. The husband has to fully support that decision. They are legally and contractually bound which means that all financial decisions affect BOTH of them.

Sometimes, it is in the best interest of the family that the mother stay at home to care for the children because her income would not offset the costs of childcare and all expenses associated with that. there are alot of things considered when awarding alimony to a spouse. Everything isn't as black and white as you would like it to be.


Look here are YOUR words with MY twist.

If a man chooses to allow his wife not to pursue higher education or gain work experience due to marriage, and the assumption that she is better served by a domestic role, then he must be willing to assume the consequences of such a decision. Among those is the threat that, as is statistically likely, the marriage will end, and he will be responsible for helping her provide for herself. Just because she assumed the risk of the lower income potential and reduced job options due to a JOINT DECISION, she should not be forced to be the only one to suffer the consequences.

[gprime]

It may well be a joint consideration, but it is one over which she would ultimately have say, since even if bound by union, a woman has individual rights and equal access to their joint funds.

But really, I'm not even speaking just of that. Take a girl who gets married before finishing college. If she chooses to drop out and be left without a degree so that she can have a family, why is it that her husband should be paying alimony following divorce because she couldn't wait a few more years to get something as basic and important as a BA? In this country, women have a choice over who they marry, and when they do so. If a woman makes a bad choice, and marries at a stage that forces her to give up certain options, she must assume the consequences that follow with divorce.

[Rotten Apple]

It may well be a joint consideration, but it is one over which she would ultimately have say, since even if bound by union, a woman has individual rights and equal access to their joint funds.

But really, I'm not even speaking just of that. Take a girl who gets married before finishing college. If she chooses to drop out and be left without a degree so that she can have a family, why is it that her husband should be paying alimony following divorce because she couldn't wait a few more years to get something as basic and important as a BA? In this country, women have a choice over who they marry, and when they do so. If a woman makes a bad choice, and marries at a stage that forces her to give up certain options, she must assume the consequences that follow with divorce.

Well, wouldn't the choice of the man they are marrying be just as bad? If a man chooses to marry a woman without something as "basic as a BA" is he not also taking a risk?

Before long, you are going to try to convince me that women reproduce asexually.

[Athena]

If a man chooses to allow his wife not to pursue higher education or gain work experience due to marriage, and the assumption that she is better served by a domestic role, then he must be willing to assume the consequences of such a decision. Among those is the threat that, as is statistically likely, the marriage will end, and he will be responsible for helping her provide for herself. Just because she assumed the risk of the lower income potential and reduced job options due to a JOINT DECISION, she should not be forced to be the only one to suffer the consequences.

Maybe it's a generational thing. I don't know. I'm totally on board with this line of thinking for older generations, when the man had more influence over the decision-making and women had fewer options career-wise, but these days, given that men and women are on fairly equal standing, it doesn't hold as much water.

It seems like, in any other context, if an individual consciously gambles with their future, they're not entitled assistance when that risk they took manifests. Going forward, I think alimony should be slowly dissolved and that 50% of the assets should generally suffice.

Out of curiosity, I wonder at what rate stay-at-home fathers file for alimony.

[Rotten Apple]

Maybe it's a generational thing. I don't know. I'm totally on board with this line of thinking for older generations, when the man had more influence over the decision-making and women had fewer options career-wise, but these days, given that men and women are on fairly equal standing, it doesn't hold as much water.

It seems like, in any other context, if an individual consciously gambles with their future, they're not entitled assistance when that risk they took manifests. Going forward, I think alimony should be slowly dissolved and that 50% of the assets should generally suffice.

Out of curiosity, I wonder at what rate stay-at-home fathers file for alimony.


I don't get the generational comment Athena. There are many stay at home mothers your age. It still was a joint decision that either party could have vetoed. This is a huge thing in a marriage, usually a deal breaker if they can not come to some to agreement. Children are not even born at this point.

But yeah, indefinite alimony, I don't agree with.

Stay at home fathers do file for alimony. There is just a whole lot less of them, because even today, people tend to stick to traditional gender roles. In comparison to stay at home mothers, I bet there wouldn't be much of a difference percentage wise. Not every divorce ends with t he female going after her husband for alimony.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

What you don't seem to understand gprime is that in a marriage most choices are made jointly.

When a wife decides to stay home with the children, it is not something that she decides for herself. The husband has to fully support that decision. They are legally and contractually bound which means that all financial decisions affect BOTH of them.

Sometimes, it is in the best interest of the family that the mother stay at home to care for the children because her income would not offset the costs of childcare and all expenses associated with that. there are alot of things considered when awarding alimony to a spouse. Everything isn't as black and white as you would like it to be.


Look here are YOUR words with MY twist.

If a man chooses to allow his wife not to pursue higher education or gain work experience due to marriage, and the assumption that she is better served by a domestic role, then he must be willing to assume the consequences of such a decision. Among those is the threat that, as is statistically likely, the marriage will end, and he will be responsible for helping her provide for herself. Just because she assumed the risk of the lower income potential and reduced job options due to a JOINT DECISION, she should not be forced to be the only one to suffer the consequences.

Kat, I just don't see it as the woman being the only one to suffer the consequences. All of a sudden, if there are children, he has to get child care and pay for it, he has to worry about everything that the woman has taken care of, or get it paid for. It's suffering all the way around, just in different ways for both.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Maybe it's a generational thing. I don't know. I'm totally on board with this line of thinking for older generations, when the man had more influence over the decision-making and women had fewer options career-wise, but these days, given that men and women are on fairly equal standing, it doesn't hold as much water.

It seems like, in any other context, if an individual consciously gambles with their future, they're not entitled assistance when that risk they took manifests. Going forward, I think alimony should be slowly dissolved and that 50% of the assets should generally suffice.

Out of curiosity, I wonder at what rate stay-at-home fathers file for alimony.

I belive it's called palimony, and I would guess hardly any, due to social stigma. I also think the thought of alimony is based on old social stigmas as well....

[Athena]

I don't get the generational comment Athena. There are many stay at home mothers your age. It still was a joint decision that either party could have vetoed. This is a huge thing in a marriage, usually a deal breaker if they can not some to agreement. children are not even born at this point.

But yeah, indefinite alimony, I don't agree with.

Stay at home fathers do file for alimony. There is just a whole lot less of them, because even today, people tend to stick to traditional gender roles.

Well, the generational comment comes from the fact that a woman my mother's age kind of had an excuse for putting herself in a position that would jeopardize her future. The divorce rates weren't nearly as high when she got married and women had just recently become legally equal. Someone my age, on the other hand, looks at stay-at-home motherhood as less of a duty and more of an option. As such, I'm forced to consider potential consequences. My mom, not so much.

[Morbid]

Someone my age, on the other hand, looks at stay-at-home motherhood as less of a duty and more of an option. As such, I'm forced to consider potential consequences. My mom, not so much.

Yeah, and numbers show that this generation of married mothers are deciding to stay at home.

[Athena]

Yeah, and numbers show that this generation of married mothers are deciding to stay at home.

"Numbers show"? If you can't post those numbers, don't mention those numbers. ;)

That aside - This isn't about women choosing to stay home. It's about women taking some responsibility for the position that puts them in. If I choose to stay home, it's my responsibility to prepare myself for potential fallout. I don't buy the whole, "if a man allows his wife to stay home" line of thinking, is all. Unless he can force her to work, which he can't, he shouldn't be financially responsible for her choice to stunt her future in the event they get divorced.

If I ever have children, I fully intend on staying home, at least until they go to school. What I'm not going to do is place myself at the mercy of another individual's financial status.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

It's strange. Kathy advocates it, but doesn't ask for, or get it.

I don't, yet I help my ex financially quite a bit. And will continue to do so...even though she worked when we were together...it's just that she's fallen on very hard times with her job....

I don't know. I just saw my friend have to sell his home to pay alimony AND child support to a woman who built an empire with that shit, and yet he still had to pay for schooling as a seperate court appointed decision.

If I were married to Hillarie when we split, and some dipshit judge decided to simply award her everything because she's the woman, and that's how it normally goes, I'd be ruined.

But because a judge never got involved, my children are better off for it, and have a much more stable environment from the both of us.

[Morbid]

"Numbers show"? If you can't post those numbers, don't mention those numbers. ;)

I can post the numbers, I choose not to. I am not in the mood to teach. Use Google. ;)

[Rotten Apple]

If I ever have children, I fully intend on staying home, at least until they go to school. What I'm not going to do is place myself at the mercy of another individual's financial status.

There is a difference between staying at home until they go to school and staying at home until they leave for college.

And if you do stay at home until they go to school you most definitely will be putting yourself at the mercy of another individual's financial status - at least temporarily. Kids don't start kindergarten until 5 years old. The mortgage and bills aren't going to pay themselves. Not to mention the cost of all those vaccinations, well baby visits, diapers, and formula. That stuff is pretty pricey.

Unless of course you already have enough money saved up to cover all that while you are not earning a wage.

If not, you better start saving. Hopefully you'll have enough before you reach menopause.

[Athena]

There is a difference between staying at home until they go to school and staying at home until they leave for college.

There sure is. There's also a difference between staying home until a kid goes to college and planning on never working again. If I stay home, whether it be until primary school or college, that does not mean I need to cease personal growth. During this time, I can certainly continue to polish my work skills or get extra education. My point is, no matter what length of time you choose to stay home, it does not have to be detrimental to future earning potential. It's that impaired earning potential that tends to necessitate alimony - and it's because today's women can anticipate and prevent that, they do not deserve alimony should they choose not to.


And if you do stay at home until they go to school you most definitely will be putting yourself at the mercy of another individual's financial status - at least temporarily. Kids don't start kindergarten until 5 years old. The mortgage and bills aren't going to pay themselves. Not to mention the cost of all those vaccinations, well baby visits, diapers, and formula. That stuff is pretty pricey.

Obviously. I was speaking post-divorce. I'm not going to cripple myself by not pursuing skills while staying home, which could result in me requiring alimony.

[Rotten Apple]

There sure is. There's also a difference between staying home until a kid goes to college and planning on never working again. If I stay home, whether it be until primary school or college, that does not mean I need to cease personal growth. During this time, I can certainly continue to polish my work skills or get extra education. My point is, no matter what length of time you choose to stay home, it does not have to be detrimental to future earning potential. It's that impaired earning potential that tends to necessitate alimony - and it's because today's women can anticipate and prevent that, they do not deserve alimony should they choose not to.



Obviously. I was speaking post-divorce. I'm not going to cripple myself by not pursuing skills while staying home, which could result in me requiring alimony.

Ok. Athena. We will have to agree to disagree. Caring for your children is the most time consuming job in the world. It is 24 hours a day. Pursuing additional education or polishing work skills is not as simple as just saying you will.

I could go on and on about how you are oversimplifying staying at home to raise children, but I don't think I can get it across to you. It is something you have to experience.

[nurseronda]

There sure is. There's also a difference between staying home until a kid goes to college and planning on never working again. If I stay home, whether it be until primary school or college, that does not mean I need to cease personal growth. During this time, I can certainly continue to polish my work skills or get extra education. My point is, no matter what length of time you choose to stay home, it does not have to be detrimental to future earning potential. It's that impaired earning potential that tends to necessitate alimony - and it's because today's women can anticipate and prevent that, they do not deserve alimony should they choose not to.



Obviously. I was speaking post-divorce. I'm not going to cripple myself by not pursuing skills while staying home, which could result in me requiring alimony.
Athena, most colleges have classes when your children are in school. Start out by taking a few classes at a time. It will get you out there and you will improve your life socially and intellectually and then when they leave the nest to start one of their own, you will be able to get out there and get the job you want.

[Athena]

I can post the numbers, I choose not to. I am not in the mood to teach. Use Google. ;)

:rolleyes:

So, then, since you *can* post those numbers, I'm sure you noticed that the overwhelming majority of mothers work in some capacity, be it full or part time?

67% of women with kids pre-school age (3-5yro) work. 80% of women with kids middle school aged or older work. Given those facts, I'm not sure that your statement about "this generation of mothers" is entirely accurate.

Source (http://www.now.org/issues/mothers/facts.html)

Of course, that's not even the point. The point is, staying home does not have to mean an end to earning potential.

[Athena]

Ok. Athena. We will have to agree to disagree. Caring for your children is the most time consuming job in the world. It is 24 hours a day. Pursuing additional education or polishing work skills is not as simple as just saying you will.

I could go on and on about how you are oversimplifying staying at home to raise children, but I don't think I can get it across to you. It is something you have to experience.

Raising a child IS a 24 hour a day job. Yet, millions of American families raise children while working or going to school (or both, like my grandmother did). How much sense does it make to say, "You can work while raising a kid, but if you choose not to work, you won't be able to find time to do anything else". If a woman (or man) can manage to find the time to work, even part time, they can find the time to take the occasional online course or do some volunteer work as their schedules allow, if they choose to stay home.

If that's what you're disagreeing with, then, yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

As far as that "it's something you have to experience" bit, I suppose some folks will just never accept the fact that there is accurate knowledge outside of personal experience. That being said, my mother stayed at home until we left the house. I've witnessed first-hand what staying home entails. It's far from impossible to maintain your skill set. I never said it'd be simple, though.

[Rotten Apple]

I worked full time and continue to work full time while I raise my daughter. While I am not raising her I am PAYING someone else to do what I would be doing if I stayed at home.

Once they start school, you do have more time to devote to volunteering or taking classes, but until then, unless you stick them in daycare, you don't.

If you stick them in daycare, you might as well work, no?


As far as that "it's something you have to experience" bit, I suppose some folks will just never accept the fact that there is accurate knowledge outside of personal experience.

When it comes to raising children from infancy, yes. Sorry. You will never change my mind on that. There are emotional implications involved that you will never get unless you are parenting a child.

[Luci]

"When it comes to raising children from infancy, yes. Sorry. You will never change my mind on that. There are emotional implications involved that you will never get unless you are parenting a child."

i TOTALLY Agree with this statement! This is a "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" type of deal.. I thought I knew everything there was to know about being a mom, etc.. and learned that the street smarts and winging it only go so far when raising children. It takes experience to finally get going good, whether it be 3 weeks into parenting or what. You have to adapt and grow into it.. some people lack this and that's how most of those parents end up on the front page of DD.. They never tried to become a "Parent" worth a damn.

[Athena]

I worked full time and continue to work full time while I raise my daughter. While I am not raising her I am PAYING someone else to do what I would be doing if I stayed at home.

Once they start school, you do have more time to devote to volunteering or taking classes, but until then, unless you stick them in daycare, you don't.

If you stick them in daycare, you might as well work, no?

This has come down to semantics.

My point is this - staying at home does not have to result in diminished earning capacity in the event that you return to work, eventually. If it has, it's likely as the result of decisions you made for yourself (choosing to have children before attaining a degree or failing to pursue skill-building activities when you've got time). In these cases, it doesn't make sense to me that the spouse should be responsible for your financial well-being, beyond splitting up the assets, post-divorce.


When it comes to raising children from infancy, yes. Sorry. You will never change my mind on that. There are emotional implications involved that you will never get unless you are parenting a child.

There are emotional implications, alright... ;)

Seriously, Kathy, on that point, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[Athena]

Well, look at this - As is the folks at CNN were reading my mind. Behold! We've got numbers. :)

Some ex-wives have to pay 'manimony'

By Anna Jane Grossman

(LifeWire) -- When Susan Harris divorced her husband of five and a half years last December, she got the apartment, extra closet space and the covers all to herself.

Her ex? He got $37,440.

That money is being doled out in 48 monthly alimony payments. Or, as it's called in some circles, "manimony."

Over the course of the couple's marriage, Harris, 31, who makes more than $100,000 working in ad sales in Alameda, California, brought in more than two-thirds of the household income, while her ex-husband (who declined to comment for this article) worked toward becoming a credentialed teacher.

The couple had no children or joint property other than a rental apartment. When things started getting rocky in the relationship around year two, Harris was loath to end things, partially because she was concerned that she'd be obligated to continue supporting him financially, even though he was employed.

Her concerns were well founded. Legally - under state laws - both women and men are entitled to alimony if there's a large discrepancy in spousal income.

However, that doesn't mean men seek alimony.

"Thirty-three percent of higher-earning spouses are women, but fewer than four percent of alimony payers are women," says Ned Holstein, president of Fathers & Families, a family-court reform organization in Boston, citing U.S. Census Bureau data.

Finances of marriage

For most of the history of marriage, money changed hands before the ceremony, often in the form of dowries. But as divorce started to become more common in the 1900s, so did post-separation monetary agreements.

"Traditionally, marriage was a financial arrangement. Joining hands in marriage meant joining bank accounts, and bank accounts were largely in the hands of men," says Roderick Phillips, a professor of history at Carleton University in Ottawa, and author of "Untying the Knot: A Short History of Divorce."

"The trend in the 20th century has been to allow women to recover what they had before the marriage and to compensate them for anything they sacrificed during the marriage," says Phillips.

The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act of 1970 gave men as well as women the right to ask for alimony. Up until the 1980s, however, there were only a handful of cases in the U.S. in which a woman was ordered to give money to her spouse in a divorce case. However, "in recent years there's been a greater movement towards gender equality," says Phillips.

'I'm a man! I can take care of myself'

Some husbands have settle for increased custody instead of going to the mat for money, says Holstein.

"I hear a lot of men say, 'She earns way more than I do, but I wasn't going to ask for alimony because I get the kids 40 percent of the time and I don't want to rock the boat.' Then there are a lot of men who are just ashamed to ask for it."

Nancy Chemtob, a divorce attorney and a founding partner of Chemtob Moss Forman & Talbert, a New York City law firm that focuses on divorce, family and matrimonial law, agrees. "Men don't brag about it, and women aren't proud of it."

"I think men are chided for not making money and women are not. It's not even brought up if a woman in court says she is not working. Where if it is a man, it's brought up," says Chemtob. "The law is equal, but... the mentality isn't."

Mark Berlin, 45, an office manager at Office Depot in Chicago, was awarded $250 a month in alimony on top of $925 a month in child support when he divorced the mother of his two sons in 2005.

"I didn't really even want the alimony, but she made more than me and [the court] said that's what she had to pay," says Berlin. He puts the payments, which will continue through 2010, into college savings for his kids.

"I do think that there shouldn't be discrimination against one sex or the other, says Berlin. "Still, when I first realized she was going to be paying me, I felt very embarrassed. I felt like, 'I'm a man! I can take care of myself!'"

Chemtob says close to one-tenth of her clients are women who pay alimony to their exes. "When I first started 14 years ago, that number was zero," she says.

Full article (http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/05/22/lw.manimony/index.html?iref=24hours)

________

So, as you can see, alimony is based on which spouse makes more, not necessarily who stayed home. I think that's a load of bullshit. If I marry some CEO, but I remain a lowly Quality engineer, that's my own damn fault. He shouldn't have to pay because I never made an effort to improve upon my skills, ESPECIALLY if we don't have kids (like in the first example).

And I also think it's interesting that only 4% of qualifying males actually receive alimony.