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.
Let's say a wife put aside her own aspiration and worked to put her husband through med school. Then upon beginning to practice, a cute little RN catches his eye and they begin playing doctor in the linen closet at the hospital. Divorce ensues. In a situation like that, I think it's perfectly fair.
The same is true for women who, by mutual agreement of both spouses, stayed at home and raised children while the husband built a business. That business isn't just his business, but their business, for she sacrificed and sweated and everything else. So alimony is perfectly appropriate.
If, on the other hand, both spouses worked and had careers, then no.
Let's say a wife put aside her own aspiration and worked to put her husband through med school. Then upon beginning to practice, a cute little RN catches his eye and they begin playing doctor in the linen closet at the hospital. Divorce ensues. In a situation like that, I think it's perfectly fair.
.
No fault divorce means it's irrelevant why a marriage breaks down. The breakdown of assets should factor the above in.
Yes, in certain situations alimony should be awarded but it should be capped at a couple of years at the most and at an affordable rate to the salary of the person paying it.
Why get married if you could end up destitute paying alimony and child support if things don't work out? Or potentially in jail if you can't pay.
Man and woman married and had 2 children. He was a successful businessman and built his business while she stayed home and raised their children by mutual agreement. He had a temper and often came home angry because he either had lost a big sale or he was jealous she was home with the kids while he was on sales calls or the kids' did some perceived slight to him. One day he was so angry he shoved his wife while she was at the top of the stairs and she fell, breaking her wrist (as told by her daughter who was in her bedroom at the time and heard the altercation). More bruises show up over the next few months (she is NOT a clumsy woman).
She eventually moves out with the children and files for divorce.
IMO, he should pay, pay, and pay some more.
Her siblings have hired an amazing attorney for her.
But anyone (male or female) who has been out of the job market for a length of time is going to have a hard time jumping right back in and earn enough to support themselves. If you made the decision as a couple to have one of you stay home while the other supports the family, it's only fair (in the event of divorce) for the other one to have some time to get back on their feet.
I think there should be some way to legally document that it was a joint decision and (similarly to a prenup) outline what will happen in the case of divorce, depending on the ages of the children, length of time out of the job market etc. To show it was a joint decision that the spouse supported and to acknowledge that the non-working spouse had value and will be hurt financially if forced back into the job market. No more arguing about anyone sitting home eating bonbons when it was a financial decision in the best interests of the children and to not pay childcare.
Similarly, if one spouse is the primary breadwinner (male or female) while the other spouse takes steps to get more education/training that benefit should be documented and quantified.
I think there should be some way to legally document that it was a joint decision and (similarly to a prenup) outline what will happen in the case of divorce, depending on the ages of the children, length of time out of the job market etc. To show it was a joint decision that the spouse supported and to acknowledge that the non-working spouse had value and will be hurt financially if forced back into the job market. No more arguing about anyone sitting home eating bonbons when it was a financial decision in the best interests of the children and to not pay childcare.
Similarly, if one spouse is the primary breadwinner (male or female) while the other spouse takes steps to get more education/training that benefit should be documented and quantified.
I guess from the Courts' perspective, if one spouse stays home for X number of years, it's a reasonable assumption that it was a joint decision, particularly when caring for young children was involved.
Man and woman married and had 2 children. He was a successful businessman and built his business while she stayed home and raised their children by mutual agreement. He had a temper and often came home angry because he either had lost a big sale or he was jealous she was home with the kids while he was on sales calls or the kids' did some perceived slight to him. One day he was so angry he shoved his wife while she was at the top of the stairs and she fell, breaking her wrist (as told by her daughter who was in her bedroom at the time and heard the altercation). More bruises show up over the next few months (she is NOT a clumsy woman).
She eventually moves out with the children and files for divorce.
IMO, he should pay, pay, and pay some more.
Her siblings have hired an amazing attorney for her.
I'm sure he'll get taken to the cleaners and absolutely rightly so in that case.
No fault divorce means it's irrelevant why a marriage breaks down. The breakdown of assets should factor the above in.
Yes, in certain situations alimony should be awarded but it should be capped at a couple of years at the most and at an affordable rate to the salary of the person paying it.
Why get married if you could end up destitute paying alimony and child support if things don't work out? Or potentially in jail if you can't pay.
I think that hiding behind the term 'no fault divorce' is a way to rationalize some terrible behavior.
I'm a 53-year-old guy. And I've seen a lot of women who blithely went through life assuming they were in a partnership for life.
They held up their end of the bargain, raising the kids, et al, until they were blindsided by a husband who spent months and years preparing the escape pod.
A guy I grew up with went on to built a successful company worth millions. He insisted that his wife stay at home and raise the kids, something she dutifully did. Meanwhile he started banging the babysitter, spent several months getting his affairs in order, then lowered the boom on her. Despite all his millions, he divorced her and she got very little. The guy is scum. So I have zero issues with alimony in that situation.
As far as capping it for a couple of years, I think that's baloney. What if the guy is worth millions? What if the divorce occurs when the spouse is older and just can't start a career from scratch? Lots of late-life divorces are happening. Are you saying that a woman in her 60s just gets dumped onto the sidewalk and told "thanks for the memories"?
And if you're truly complaining about paying child support, then I don't know what to tell you. A man who has kids supports his kids. Or he isn't much of a man at all, more of a overgrown boy who lives for his own pleasure.
Let's say a wife put aside her own aspiration and worked to put her husband through med school. Then upon beginning to practice, a cute little RN catches his eye and they begin playing doctor in the linen closet at the hospital. Divorce ensues. In a situation like that, I think it's perfectly fair.
The same is true for women who, by mutual agreement of both spouses, stayed at home and raised children while the husband built a business. That business isn't just his business, but their business, for she sacrificed and sweated and everything else. So alimony is perfectly appropriate.
If, on the other hand, both spouses worked and had careers, then no.
Lol. She sure worked pretty hard on that business.
Lol. She sure worked pretty hard on that business.
Must not know much about small business ownership. It's tantamount to a marital asset.
And, if you really want to know the truth, the all-in nature of entrepreneurship does mean that the spouse indeed makes sacrifices in that situation. When cash flow is bad, the family cuts back. When loans are needed, the family's assets are on the line. When the business owner is working insane hours, the spouse workload at home increases a great deal as well, for they are effectively a single parent a great deal of the time raising the kids, taking care of the house, and a great deal more.
So even if the spouse doesn't perform a lick of work at the other spouse's business, they do support it in ways large and small. You would have to be willfully blind to not understand that.
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.
