Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, you still don't get it. The couple made a joint decisionthat DOES affect the future, possibly beyond the marriage. It is a situation purely of equity. And that is EXACTLY how the courts view it. Go talk to a judge about it. No point in going on with this here.
Yes, a joint decision during the marriage. His part is that he supports the family and he has done that. Once there is no family, he's done. Now he supports his kids and they each support each other. That she chose to take this risk with his blessing doesn't change the fact she was the one who chose to take the risk. She knew what was at stake. She knew it wasn't necessary but did it anyway. You're painting women as helpless and too stupid to make a decision here.
I said I don't agree with the courts on this one. I think this will change in time. It's an archaic law. Women are not helpless anymore. Just because laws are on the book doesn't make them right. I do believe the rule of thumb is still on the books but that doesn't make beating your wife with a thumb thickness stick ok. IMO, this is a law that needs to be changed. Another is the one that makes a child born during a marriage his even if DNA proves it isn't.
And no this is not an equity situation. If it were, she'd owe him for supporting her all those years and the fact she didn't contribute to the children's support all those years. You are not taking into account what he has already paid. For the entire time she's not working, he is paying her half of the children's financial support on top of supporting her. He's already paid and probably paid more than she lost in future earning potential but that loss was her choice.
Unless staying home is necessary, I don't think he owes her anything. There are some situations where an obligation outlasts the marriage but they have to do with one partner helping the other build a career or extenuating circumstances that derailed one partner's career like my cousin who has no choice but to stay home because of the specialize care her son will need for the next 40 or so years until he dies.
Yes, a joint decision during the marriage. His part is that he supports the family and he has done that. Once there is no family, he's done. Now he supports his kids and they each support each other. That she chose to take this risk with his blessing doesn't change the fact she was the one who chose to take the risk. She knew what was at stake. She knew it wasn't necessary but did it anyway. You're painting women as helpless and too stupid to make a decision here.
I said I don't agree with the courts on this one. I think this will change in time. It's an archaic law. Women are not helpless anymore.
And no this is not an equity situation. If it were, she'd owe him for supporting her all those years and the fact she didn't contribute to the children's support all those years.
It has nothing to do with women "being helpless". It's actually a GENDERLESS issue. Seriously...go talk to a few justices. I know several, and a couple of attorneys. I've heard every crappy divorce story there is. You need a dose of reality, Ivory.
No, you still don't get it. The couple made a joint decisionthat DOES affect the future, possibly beyond the marriage. It is a situation purely of equity. And that is EXACTLY how the courts view it. Go talk to a judge about it. No point in going on with this here.
Worth repeating myself - well said ChessieMom
Please GOD, I mean mod, let this be the end of this thread!
Seriously though: I don't really think alimony should be given in childless situations.
You marry someone and they support you? Super! Now you're divorced, and you need to support yourself.
IMO, alimony should only be given in situations where one spouse has a vested interest in the other's career. Say he put her through med school or law school or she helped him start a business or by pre nuptual agreement. This, really, would be a great thing to have a pre-nup for. That way no one feels burned.
Alimony isn't for the children. Child support is for the children. And that's another reason I disagree with alimony. The courts will calculate child support based on income disparity so they've already factored in the income limitations of the lower earning spouse. Alimony on top of that is just a slap in the face.
It has nothing to do with women "being helpless". It's actually a GENDERLESS issue. Seriously...go talk to a few justices. I know several, and a couple of attorneys. I've heard every crappy divorce story there is. You need a dose of reality, Ivory.
I don't need to talk to justices. I'm not debating what's legal. I'm debating what's right.
And this is genderless. Men can have a vested interest in a wifes career too. IMO, that's the only time alimony should be paid. When one party has invested in the others career. You do that assuming you'll still be together to reap the benefits.
The case of the stay at home mom is one of instant benefit. She gets taken care of during the marriage and does not have to contribute to her children's support during the marriage. She's already been paid.
It has nothing to do with women "being helpless". It's actually a GENDERLESS issue. Seriously...go talk to a few justices. I know several, and a couple of attorneys. I've heard every crappy divorce story there is. You need a dose of reality, Ivory.
Clearly anyone who thinks alimony is about somebody being "helpless" doesn't truly understand the subject
I said I don't agree with the courts on this one. I think this will change in time. It's an archaic law. Women are not helpless anymore. Just because laws are on the book doesn't make them right. I do believe the rule of thumb is still on the books but that doesn't make beating your wife with a thumb thickness stick ok. IMO, this is a law that needs to be changed. Another is the one that makes a child born during a marriage his even if DNA proves it isn't.
I agree the laws need to through a de novo review it would likely have to start at the legislative level. If one is to see some much needed reform.
It can be. It absolutely can be...and often is. I agree. But as long as two human beings make a marriage, there will always be injustices. And for some of them, spousal support is the right thing.
It's about having lost earning ability due to a mutual decision while having children belonging to both people, not just to one!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Go talk to a judge about it. No point in going on with this here.
Seriously...go talk to a few justices. I know several, and a couple of attorneys. I've heard every crappy divorce story there is. You need a dose of reality, Ivory. 
