The legal guidelines should be the same whether it is a man or women asking for alimony. Why should it be different. If things are ever going to be equal, the need to be equal across the board, whether positive or negative.

It's called spousal support in most states.

"Should the legal guidelines shift based on gender?"

Look up "Equal Protection".

How about if men get 66-70 percent of what the women petitioning usually get? That way, there will be reciprocity for the fact that women are traditionally paid less for doing the same work.

How about if men get 66-70 percent of what the women petitioning usually get? That way, there will be reciprocity for the fact that women are traditionally paid less for doing the same work.

I'm with Happy Dad. Fair's fair.

Men also rarely report spousal abuse.

"However I learned a lot of priceless lessons, including the fact that most U.S. divorce laws are as nutty, unfair and incomprehensible as love itself. "

Divorce laws in the 50 states are state laws. .

This topic is yet another rehash of a previous WSJ's Juggle topic:

http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/?s=alimony&x=4&y=4

Tsk, tsk.

"How about if men get 66-70 percent of what the women petitioning usually get? That way, there will be reciprocity for the fact that women are traditionally paid less for doing the same work."

False.

Statistics show that women are paid about 77% percent of what men make for what some judge to be EQUIVALENT work; that is, work that requires the same level of educational background and experience.

There are no statistics of which I'm aware that show, for example, that female math teachers make 77% of what male math teachers make. Or that female police officers with 10 years of experience make 77% of what male police officers with 10 years of experience make.

NOT "the same work".

I think alimony/spousal support should be genger neutral. Its (should be) about compensating a spouse who has sacrificed earning power for the sake of the family. Probably not really on topic for this chat, but, while I understand that people make sacrifices for their kids, I do think that at some point alimony should end. At some point, you should be able to support yourself. Maybe that's when the youngest child gradutes from high school (or college) or a few years after for the spouce receiving support has time to brush up on job skills. Or, if there are no kids, time for the spouse to go back to school.

I see nothing wrong with it, but I do think that alimony in cases where the petitioning spouse has not been a SAHM/D is silly. This is yet another reason to get a prenup in my book. Regardless of how in love you feel, so many marriages fail that you might as well be prudent before doing the deed.

I kind of agree with babsy1. I make much less than my husband, due to being employed in a more lucrative career and having voluntarily "mommy-tracked" myself. And yet I still probably wouldn't ask for alimony if we divorced. I can support myself, and see no reason why I should live off his income if we're not a family any more. Alimony is for spouses who have little or no earning potential on their own, because of sacrifices they've made for the family.

I'd push for child support if I got custody, though I think we'd both want joint custody. My husband's a very good father, and my son's best off with both of us involved in his life. He's a very good husband, too, which is why I think the possibility of divorce is remote - but even if he divorced me tomorrow, he'd still be a good dad, and my son would still need him.

To anon @ 8:35 - many states DO put limitations on spousal support. In the case where one spouse is a stay-at-home, the spousal support for the first few years takes into account that spouse's earnings of "0". But then the stay-at-home's educational qualifications and prior work experience are used to calculate an "imputed income" for that spouse - "this is what he or she could reasonably expect to make." And that's factored into the long-term spousal support.

A friend of mine got divorced recently. I'll use fake numbers that are in the ballpark. He made 110 K per year. His wife was a stay-at-home for 7 years. Prior to the kids being born she had worked for the Feds and made 60K.

The court ordered him to pay spousal support of 38K (roughly 1/3 of his income) for three years. After that, the court assigned her an "imputed income" of 75K per year, because they figured that's what she should be able to make at a job based on her education and previous work experience. So his spousal support dropped to 12K (1/3 of the difference).

Her request to keep the higher level of support so that she could be a stay-at-home until the kids graduate from high school was denied.

This was separate from the question of child support (he pays that until the kids turn 18), and division of marital property.

All spousal support stops if she remarries, or if she acquires a boyfriend who is financially committed to supporting her.

Marriage is a risky financial arrangment in a lot of ways. It is based on the idea of trust and lifelong partnerships. Often this is not the case.

I thought when payments are made to a man, it was called palimony.

Anyway, I think it should be gender neutral. I don't see why if women on average earn less then men, should factor into it. Because alimony is based on just that one couple. How other people are compensated for their work does not have a lot to do with how that one individual couple has lived their life.

I do think alimony (paid to a man or women) is appropriate when one person clearly sacrificed to raise a family or support their spouses career. Like if your a married to a military person and moving every 3-4 years. It is hard to really stay with one company and move up. So you sacrificed a lot of piece meal work to support your spouses career.

Certainly staying home to raise kids for a substantial amount of time, does deserve consideration in alimony support.

The other big area if your close to retirement and you get divorce. It is not the same to say go out and earn an income when your 25 versus 55. At 25, you have years to build up skills and move up. At 55, you have about 10 more good working years left.

I know a lot has to do with how much money that you have accumlated prior to getting married. For the feds, you have to have your spouse sign a waiver if you don't want them to have 50% of your TSP (retirement acct) in the event of divorce. Usually people only waive if it is a second or third marriage or the other spouse is so wealthy that they don't need your $$.

But now with couples marrying later, being more educated, more and more couples are entering marriage with considerable assets. I had a lot more assets ( a home, more then twice as much in retirement, and way more in investments) then my husband. We decided not to do a prenup, as it was our first marriage, and I generally felt we are in this together. I also believe our marriage will last. But I can understand why some couples choose prenups, waivers, or other ways of protecting assets that were accumlated prior the marriage.

Again, marriage is risky financial situation. It has a lot of rewards (both emotionally, legally, and financially). But like all good things, there are the risks as well.

foamy "I thought when payments are made to a man, it was called palimony."

No, "palimony" is support paid to a live-in to whom you were never legally married. It originated in the Lee Marvin-Michelle Triola-Marvin case in the late '70s.

The term was coined, IIRC, by her lawyer, whose name escapes me at the moment (Wikipedia, here I come :-). It's a blend of "pal" and "alimony" because it's "alimony" paid to a "pal" or "friend".

FWIW, there are cases of alimony paid to men dating back quite a few years. There's a (distant) side of my mother's family that's very wealthy. When one of my mother's cousins divorced her husband in the late 1930's, she was forced to pay him alimony for about 5 years or so, until he remarried.

Was it Raoul Felder who coined the term "palimony"?

Marvin Mitchelson

This is purely anecdotal, but, in instances where the kids are school-age and the divorced spouse is capable of work, I am not seeing alimony awarded for more than 2 - 5 years. Generally, alimony's not a penalty any more, e.g., it's not awarded to teach a lesson or penalize the paying spouse. The purpose of alimony is to provide a financial bridge for a limited period of time while you update your skills, take recent courses or obtain a degree and move on. In the Triangle, this approach holds true even if the paying spouse committed adultery.

"Was it Raoul Felder who coined the term "palimony"?"

Wikipedia says it was Marvin Mitchelson.

Interestingly, Michelle Triola LOST that case because she couldn't prove that there was a valid contract in place. I didn't remember her losing; I had thought that she got some kind of a settlement. Ah well, senility is setting in. :-)

Alimony laws should be gender-neutral. It should be a short-term proposition to allow a spouse who sacrificed career goals for the family to get back on his/her feet. Presuming that's possible -- a 30-yr-old who's gone part-time for a couple of years is in a very different situation from a 50-yr-old who hasn't worked in 25 yrs.

Personally, I doubt either of us would ask for or receive alimony, because we've both made sacrifices at various times. I've had more years of lower-paying and very part-time positions when we moved for his job, but I'm also currently making more, so it all balances out. Most importantly from the alimony perspective, both of us are able to support ourselves; no one has had long breaks from careers, or taken low-pay-but-family-friendly jobs.

Oh, and BTW, the pride issue isn't just male-specific. When my dad left my mom @ 1970, she did NOT want to be financially dependent on him. She refused all alimony, and only grudgingly let her lawyer convince her to accept a little child support (but she insisted that that be limited to her calculations of half the cost -- which may have been half in 1970, but sure wasn't 10 yrs later!). We were poor for a number of years, but she was proud that everything she had was because of her own hard work and determination. Of course, she also was young enough to be able to start over, too.

Yes, I agree it should be gender neutral. However, the criteria for getting it should be much more stringent. One shouldn't profit just for being married to a person who made more money for a long time. If there was an agreement between married parents for one parent to stay home to take care of children, in that case, alimony might be necessary for a limited time. That person should be planning to be self-sufficient as soon as possible. I can't see the justification for any adult feeling ok with living off of another person in any other circumstance and certainly not for the a state government/court mandating it.

Generally, alimony's not a penalty any more, e.g., it's not awarded to teach a lesson or penalize the paying spouse.

Does anyone think there are instances where it OUGHT to be a penalty still?

Someone said:

"Generally, alimony's not a penalty any more, e.g., it's not awarded to teach a lesson or penalize the paying spouse.

Does anyone think there are instances where it OUGHT to be a penalty still?"

No, it shouldn't be a penalty. What if the person who "acted up" doesn't have any money? Yes, some crimes are punishable by fines. But if we are going to declare certain marital misconduct as criminal, it should be clearly legislated that way with fines and/or jail time as the punishment. However, I personally don't think there should be any kind legislation against sex between consenting adults, which I'm sure many people would like.

IMO, alimony should be based on individual family need/case and be gender neutral. Although I believe in true love and happy ever after, I agree with a poster above who said that marriage is a partnership and financial matters have been known to undo partnerships. Especially in a case where one spouse is bringing a lot more to the marriage financially than the other, I would support the idea of a pre-nup, certainly for my kids in the future. And I am totally gender biased here because I have one of each. I used to think differently until I saw a few divorces end in a complete financial meltdown for both spouses. The more acrimonial the divorce, the greater are the attorney fees.

Foamgnome, LOL re: the TSP statement. I remember a "mid-career retirement planning seminar" that my agency put on when I was still a Fed. The financial planner they brought in to conduct the seminar had this advice re: divorce and retirement:

1. Don't get divorced
2. If you have to get divorced, hire Johnnie Cochran as your lawyer (this was shortly after the OJ trial)
3. If you have to get divorced and Johnnie's not available to take your case, introduce your ex-spouse to any eligible friend you have. Whatever it takes to get your ex-spouse remarried.

Then the planner went into the rules of what happens when a career Fed divorces. It ain't a pretty sight. As foamgnome notes, regardless of gender the default is that your ex-spouse gets half your retirement (TSP, CSRS, whatever). AND, your ex-spouse has to approve any career moves that impact your retirement - meaning your ex-spouse can prevent you from moving to another Fed job that would result in lower retirement, because it would negatively impact his/her future income. Whew!

(Off-topic, geek alert: Yea, FedEx's website says the new computer's on the truck and will be delivered today. We used the tax refund to finally upgrade the old, barely-qualifies-as-a-computer in the office. And DW's out of town this weekend, chaperoning a chorus trip. Which means after I get the other kids to bed, it's geek heaven in the ArmyBrat household this weekend!)

(Further off-topic: you've heard about why it's great for an engineer to have both a wife and a mistress, right? Because if you can't be found, the wife will assume you're with the mistress; the mistress will assumer you're with the wife; and you can really be in the lab, getting some productive work done without being interrupted by either! :-)

"I had police reports and family court documents to prove why we were splitting -- that he'd physically abused me for four years.
Despite these factors, he could still apply for alimony -- financial support from me. "

By Leslie Morgan Steiner '87 | April 16, 2008; 7:00 AM ET

Seventeen posts so far, and not one has used the word, "fault." A guy who beats up his wife, and she divorces him for it, should not get a penny from her. A guy who cheats on his wife, and she divorces him for it, should not get a nickel from her. A guy who deserts his wife, and she divorces him for it, should not get a dime from her. Marriage is a deal -- a contract, if you will. Implicit in the deal is that you don't beat up your wife or cheat on her or run out on her. "[P]hysically abused me for four years" means that he broke the deal, breached the contract. Where else in the law can a man break his contractual promise, and profit from his breach?

But you'll say, "She earns more than he does, so she's got the ability to pay alimony. And he makes less money, so he's got the need for alimony, even though he beat her up. So she should pay him." Folks, this is nothing more than Marxism.

There's Britain, and then there's the Continent. Britain is where our laws originated. The Continent is where Marx (copying Louis Blanc) came up with, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Why should our Anglo-American system of law and equity follow Marx's rule instead of the English rule of rewarding promise-keepers and punishing promise-breakers?

I would prefer never to receive, or for that matter pay, alimony, as a male, but then the apt saying may be "never say never" . My impression is that women more often marry for financial security than do men. Should the financial security end with the marriage? Perhaps prenuptual agreements should be more common, since "fairness" is difficult to achieve in a divorce settlement. Alimony is just another term for the post marital division of finances, which often takes the form of property, financial assets or future income. Greed and vindictiveness often rule the day. Given the divorce statistics, a prenup makes a lot of sense these days.

How else will Federline get any Britney money?

OT to ArmyBrat - setting up computers is fun. Even with the great MS (not) trying to make things difficult, the puzzle is one I actually enjoy figuring out. The problems is akin to Sudoku (another puzzle love). Much joy to you

The wife/mistress thing applies to computer programmers also!

Leslie

"I had police reports and family court documents to prove why we were splitting -- that he'd physically abused me for four years."

4 YEARS!!!

Anybody else read the column in cnn.com and oprah.com in defense of an unbalanced life?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/15/o.balance/index.html

ooops, this was inadvertantly cut out of my last post.

The column was written in 2003, but I wonder what the motivation was/is in reprinting it now?

Fred/ArmyBrat - sigh, the wife/mistress thing doesn't apply to us heterosexual engineer/computer types.... gigolo maybe?

The problem is deeper than simply alimony. Marriage is the only contract that a person can abrogate (either by being with another person or simply saying "I don't love you anymore") and yet the abrogator is entitled to money.

dotted, "gigolo" generally implies there's a payment involved, whether explicit or implicit. I don't know; what's the right word for a male with whom a married woman is having an affair? Just "lover", perhaps?

But I do acknowledge that there are lots of female scientists, engineers and programmers who fit the caricature captured in the joke.

AB - I know you know, you know. Just couldn't resist the needling (in jest)....where is grammar police when I actually need him/her? Oh well, off to wikipedia I go

AB, that's hysterical -- don't know how I hadn't heard it already, after being married to a double-E for 12 yrs. :-)

To anon@8:35 am: In MD, rehabilitative alimony is typically 3 years, but of course the parties can "agree" to another time frame. If the former spouse can show "cause" for why she is unable to support herself after 3 years (illness, lack of education, handicap,etc.), she can petition the court for an extension of alimony or unlimited alimony (extremely rare).

MattinAberdeen - most states have moved away from a "fault" based system in divorce cases. The fault based system of the past encouraged MORE litigation, not less, more attorney fees, more anger, resentment, fighting, less compromise, more bile, more digging up old disputes, more justifications for bad behavior, more exagerrated slights. Divorce, custody disputes, child support and other family matters are traumatic and expensive enough for the parties - why not try to resolve these issues without injecting the emotional powderkeg of "fault".

just to follow up to what foamgnome and ArmyBrat said: a divorced spouse is entitled to 50% of TSP benefits. At what point? When a fed spouse starts drawing down the benefits him/her self? Or after one's death? Is naming children as beneficiaries a way around it? What about stating specifically in one's will that a spouse is NOT to get TSP? I am not planning to get divorced but as an almost mid-career fed I was not aware of this wrinkle in TSP at all. Thanks for posting about it

DC reader

"I am not planning to get divorced but as an almost mid-career fed I was not aware of this wrinkle in TSP at all."

Details are at OPM.gov .

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 -- 10:24 AM ET

Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Exection

The Supreme Court Wednesday rejected a challenge to the
lethal three-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions
during the past 30 years.

DC Reader -- I'm not a fed, but for things like TSPs, 401(k)s, and life insurance, the only thing that counts is who you list as beneficiary, not what you say in your will. You will is basically the catch-all for everything that is NOT specifically designated to someone else as a beneficiary.

You could get around it by naming someone else as beneficiary -- but, as mentioned above, for a lot of these kinds of accounts, you would have to get your spouse to sign a form agreeing not to be beneficiary (my 401(k) is the same way). In short, it's an automatic right that the wife has, and it's up to her alone whether she agrees to waive it.

Which is why, when you get divorced, it's so important to follow through changing things like the title to the house, insurance coverage, and retirement account beneficiaries to be consistent with the divorce decree. Because if the divorce decree says that you are entitled to the house/bank account/IRA/life insurance/etc., but you never got around to taking her name off the title/account/beneficiary designation, guess who is going to get it? Again, regardless of what your will says.

DC reader: "The more acrimonial the divorce, the greater are the attorney fees."

Ain't that the truth! A female engineer I worked with was getting divorced. She was still in the house; her husband had moved out. Turns out that he had cut, split and stacked three cords of firewood that was still at the house. He had his lawyer write her lawyer a letter demanding that firewood - darned if she was going to get warmth in the winter by the sweat of his brow.

She had her lawyer respond that she'd compensate him for three cords of firewood at fair market rates.

He had his lawyer respond that that was unacceptable; he wanted THAT WOOD that he had personally split and stacked.

He eventually got the wood, but by the time it was all resolved, between them they had run up over $2,000 in attorney fees, plus whatever he had to pay for the truck to come haul it away, plus other miscellaneous expenses. (And I'm not even sure he had a place at his new residence to store three cords of firewood.)

My brother, my brother-in-law, and other friends have all gone through similar experiences. It becomes a game of "you hurt me so I'm going to hurt you back worse." "Now you hurt me worse than I hurt you so I'm going to hurt you back worse to make up for it." and on and on.

I told DW not to bother divorcing me. Just arrange an "accident" and collect the insurance. It'll be cheaper and easier for both of us!

Wow - and right on cue a friend sent me this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx_WKxqQF2o

As CNN.com describes it:

" In a tearful and furious YouTube video with close to 150,000 hits to date, former actress and playwright ("Bonkers") Tricia Walsh-Smith lashes out against her husband, Philip Smith, president of the Shubert Organization, the largest theater owner on Broadway.

She goes through their wedding album on camera, describing family members as "bad" or "evil" or "nasty," and talks about how her husband is allegedly trying to evict her from their luxury apartment. She also makes embarrassing claims regarding their intimate life, and then calls his office on camera to repeat those claims to a stunned assistant."

Some lawyers are going to get very, very wealthy indeed off this one.

After 2 divorces in which I came in with money and they did not and I went out with 50% (ie, they got 50% of the money I walked in with), I decided to protect my assets a little better this time and took some steps to do so.

Now at the point of contemplating divorce again, I realize that I still didn't protect my assets well enough. I guess if I end up initiating separation and divorce, I will find out how honest he was when he said that he had no interest in my money and wouldn't take it with him when he left.

The irony does not escape me that not only did I pay for just about everything when we were married, I will also be paying him when he leaves.

Good posting, everyone.

And thanks, M-I-A. Appreciate your take.

Here's a disconnect between two disparate sets of my own research on 1) alimony decisions and 2) reportage on SAHMs who attempt to return to paid employment:

I feel I'm constantly preaching that SAHMs can go back to FT work at roughly the same income level they earned when they left. This is what women who've been home for 3-10 years tell me -- they can and do go back to work, fairly easily.

However, I get so much resistance from different factions, ala Leslie Bennetts' The Feminine Mistake, who argue that once women take time off they are screwed financially and can never get a good job again. But the courts seem to agree -- that after a few years of a financial bridge (alimony), women can return to self-sufficiency.

Who is right? Journalists and authors who caution women that we should never take time off to put our families first? Or judges who argue that women can return to economic self-sufficiency when need be?

What's your experience? Can SAHMs (and obviously, SAHDs) return to work at the same income levels?

If you haven't already, please this brief Moms At Work survey about moms who return to work: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MGKrtmhhg2AUepXCZErkaA_3d_3d

It will add your experience to the research pool. Thanks.

DCer: You can go to OPM site and check out all the details. But there are certain forms that your spouse has to sign to either waive their rights or make significant changes.

Simply stating your kids at 100% beneficiaries (if your married or have been married while a FED) is not enough. I changed over some years from a prior government service and my husband had to sign a paper stating he was aware that I was moving the years from FED job 1 to FED job 2.

In a divorce, your spouse can just contact your agency or TSP and ask for 50% of the TSP balance at the time you divorce. So if you divorce at age 45, they get 50% at age 45. Not 50% at age 70. Most people sell assets or draw down their TSPs to make a lump sum payment to their spouse. I have seen a few people have to do this in a divorce. BTW, all the people I have seen were women paying out their husbands.

Usually if your spouse is a non FED, you would work a similar deal with his/her 401K or split the assets so that it is an equal or agreeable share regardless of the make up. You take a huge hit in your retirement if you divorce. Like ArmyBrat says, it is best to stay married if your FED.

I think the military has even more stringent rules. Meaning they are entitled to 50% of your pension (defined benefit) for life. Regardless if you remarry etc.. And if your military spouse is caught cheating on you, they are in HUGE trouble.

I know this guy who was ex-career military who had this long term affair. In fact, he fathered two children by his mistress who he later married. Anyway, the ex-wife threatened to turn him into the military (he was still active at the time). Anyway, he did not want to get in trouble with the military, so he agreed to a 75%/25% split of assets when he divoreced. He wanted to divorce before retirement. he also agreed to pay off all her credit card debt, which was HUGE. But oh well, you shouldn't cheat on your spouse.

The very nasty side of me would love to see some penalty payments for abuse, cheating, gambling etc... But I think those would be hard to legislate. I think military works in an entirely different realm then the rest of the world.

But sometimes I think things are a little subtle in a marriage.

Like case 1: couple decides that it best for one spouse to stay at home the entire time their children are growing up. Other spouse works hard and supports the family. They get divorced when youngest child is 18 or in college. Should the SAHP get some alimony to retrain and compensate for the financial and career sacrifice? sure.

Case2: One spouse decides they would really like to go back to school to be X. Other spouse takes on all the bills and foots the student loans. Spouse who went to school gets great job better then the other spouse. He/She meets someone and decides to divorce. Should the spouse that held up all the bills and worked to support the schooling and the family get some payment for her investment in the other person's education? Sure (in my mind-not sure the law works that way).

Case3: One spouse thinks they really need two incomes to work and save for the future. Does everything to encourage SAHP to start working when youngest child goes to preschool/kindergarten. SAHP refuses or makes every excuse not to work. When youngest kid hits MS, the WOHP wants a divorce. Should SAHP get alimoney? Not sure because it really wasn't a joint decision to have SAHP for that many years.

In the last case, I clearly see how marriage is a risky financial position. You really can't make your spouse work or take on certain jobs. You can only hope both people think of the welfare of the family first.

At the time of my divorce, a therapist asked:

"Why are you surprised? He treated you terribly while you were married. Of course he is going to treat you terribly in the divorce!"

Duh. Another good lesson learned.

I'd rather their former spouses pay than my family. Take care of your own house.

see below:

Report: Single parents, divorce cost $112B

Published: April 15, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Print story Email to a friend Font size:WASHINGTON, April 15 (UPI) -- The high rate of divorce and unwed parenthood is costing U.S. taxpayers a minimum of $112 billion annually, a study in these areas indicated Tuesday.

"This study documents for the first time, that divorce and unwed childbearing ... are also costing taxpayers a ton of money," David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, said in a news release.

Her request to keep the higher level of support so that she could be a stay-at-home until the kids graduate from high school was denied

So she was really lazy?

lolly

"This study documents for the first time, that divorce and unwed childbearing ... are also costing taxpayers a ton of money," David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, said in a news release. "

They needed a study for this???

ArmyBrat: I knew this couple that fought over frozen corn in their freezer and another couple that had a custody battle over a dog!

I got divorced after almost 14 years of marriage--8 of which I spent home taking care of my kids full-time. Had my husband at the time have been the one to initiate the divorce I definitely would have felt entitled to alimony--I worked while he went to graduate school full-time for 10 years and then made it possible for him to never miss so much as a day of work having to be home for the kids. I earned less than him before I quit working and my earning power was severely impacted by my non-working years so I would have felt justified asking for at least restorative alimony.

However, I was the one who initiated the divorce so I didn't feel it would have been right to ask for alimony. If I had wanted him to continue to support me I should have stayed married to him--it was my decision to leave and part of that decision was accepting financially reduced circumstances and I was fine with that.

Also, more important to me than my own financial circumstances was my kids' quality of life. My ex made a decent salary but nowhere near enough to cover alimony, child support and mortgage of the house we lived in as a family. He bought me out of the house so he could stay--at least the kids could have that bit of stability, which made the divorce at least a little easier on them. No way could have have afforded to pay me alimony in addition to the substantially larger mortgage payment that came with him buying me out of the house. I wouldn't have been ok if he had to sell the house and move into an apartment because he had to pay me 1/4 of his salary in addition to the child support he was also paying.

I do have a problem with women who feel the ex-husband should have to enable them to stay home full time with the kids until they go to college. I know several SAHMs who initiated the divorce by cheating on their husbands, yet fully expected to get to keep the house, get primary custody and the resulting full child support AND be able to stay home full-time. It's one thing if your kids are babies but when you have older kids--both women I'm talking about here had 10-14 year old kids--I don't see how you can think you should be entitled to be home all day while they're in school.

It seems to me that we are mixing two values systems in this discussion. If you believe that marriage is a religious and moral institution based on a good-faith promise, the desire to dissolve the marriage is an abrogation of the promise. There will be moral consequences, particularly when children needing support are involved, but the responsibility of the departing spouse is a moral one. We do not legislate morality, only behavior (we don't say that murder is evil, we say that it is unlawful). To heal this moral breach, what is required is a moral solution (i.e., time, rather than money). If you view marriage as a legally binding contract, then a breach of the contract by the offending party should be subject to a legal remedy, such as money in compensation. Again, I think a prenup is a good solution.

Last time I looked, the military entitles divorced spouses to half the retirement as long as the marriage lasted 10 years. Fewer than 10 years, no retirement split.

My DH always says it would be too expensive to divorce me. :)

I read the book by ann crittenden the price of motherhood. Fascinating book. It discussed how women are penalized if they didn't earn a lot before staying home (well, you didn't earn that much before you stopped working, so you don't deserve so much in alimony) or women are penalized if they *did* earn a lot (no matter how much time in the workforce, the court assumed they could earn the same in going back to work) or women are penalized for not staying home (you don't need anything, you are working).

It was pretty eye opening.

No, I make less in going back to work than when I left the workforce. Of course, I was laid off from a company that was about to enter bankruptcy. The world had changed in the almost four years I had been out of the workforce, the pay was different for the same job *and* my skills weren't up to date (how much SAS or Excel programming do you think I'm going to do as a SAHM?)

Maggie - so you're just supposed to stay in a marriage that isn't good because you are financially dependent? As long as it wasn't due to cheating/abuse/whatever, yes, the spouse who stayed home *should* get something, even if that person was the one to initiate. As in, if Leslie hadn't been the higher wage earner, EVEN THOUGH she initiated the divorce, she would be entitled to something (I think she was anyway, but that's slightly off point).

That thinking is what keeps my sister in her horrible marriage. He has brainwashed her into thinking she would get nothing in a divorce (which is completely untrue, and untrue-er still in that he would probably defend himself, even though he doesn't remotely practice any kind of law that would make him win - I would suspect a judge wouldn't want to deal with him).

OT to ArmyBrat: so you didn't get a mac, huh? That's all that's allowed in our house. But I'll tell my DH that joke, he's a big geek too. It's quite amusing.
Have fun playing with the new puter.

"That thinking is what keeps my sister in her horrible marriage."

No, your sister keeps herself in a horrible marriage. Maggie has nothing to do with it.

I left my marriage of 30 years and was ordered to pay alimony to my ex-husband, but it was called maintenance, not alimony. And the purpose was to 'maintain his lifestyle', the lifestyle we (or he)had become accustomed to during the marriage.
When the divorce was final, the alimony order was canceled (the reasons are not related to this discussion). So I only had to pay it for less than 3 years. That was how long we founght in court.

One thing that's getting overlooked in all these discussions about alimony is the split of marital property. That's more of a reason for a prenup than is alimony, in my opinion. (No, we don't have one because we had pretty darn close to nothing when we married.)

There's a famous case involving Craig and Wendy McCaw. Craig built McCaw Cellular, which is now most of AT&T Wireless. The sale of McCaw Cellular fetched 12.6 billion dollars, a lot of which went to Craig.

When Craig and Wendy divorced (and a very bitter divorce it was, according to the papers), they lived in Washington state, which is a community property state, and the laws dictated that she get half of the marital property since there was no prenup. She eventually walked away with about 500 million dollars, which is still one of the biggest divorce settlements in US history.

Now move across Seattle - when Bill Gates got married, he still owned 24 percent of Microsoft. He swore he'd never make his wife sign a prenup. The Microsoft board of directors was in full-out panic mode. Imagine a bitter divorce after just a few years. With no prenup and community property, a very bitter ex-wife now owns 12 percent of Microsoft - clearly enough for at least one board seat and probably a lot more. The BoD leaned on Bill and Melinda to get a prenup in place "for the protection of the company."

"With no prenup and community property, a very bitter ex-wife now owns 12 percent of Microsoft - clearly enough for at least one board seat and probably a lot more."

So?

Another brilliant financial move by Bill Gates?

Hey -- what about postnups? Anyone tempted to ask for one, now that you are married and your financial dependence (or independence) has changed?

atlmom--I will have to think about it more to see if I agree with your point--I guess where I'm coming from is that so many people do seem to stay in a marriage for mostly financial reasons so it seems like an easy enough choice if that's a person's priority. For instance, if a woman wants to be a stay-home mom and expects to have everything provided for her--house, car, money to burn, days playing tennis or getting nails done, etc--then I don't think it's fair for her to expect to be able to have all that stuff AND be free to date/not have to take care of a husband, etc. I don't mean to sound retro and I realize my opinion is colored by my immediate experiences--in this case, my own situation and the situation I see all around me in the burbs full of stay-home moms who claim to be miserable but don't want to leave the nice house and lifestyle. I guess I have just heard the story so many times from so many different women--I'm talking women who were cheating on their husbands who fully expected to be taken care of by those same husbands whether they stayed married or not.

Maybe the people I know are not at all a good representation of the rest of the world, but I suspect not. Since I am divorced I have plenty of women approach me telling me how much they hate their husbands and wish they could leave. Invariably, though, they qualify it with the fact that they don't want to have to work or move to a lesser house or do without anything, etc. I have had more than one woman ask me "So if I ask for a divorce I get the house and the kids and he has to pay child support and alimony and the mortgage and I still get to stay home with the kids, right?"

My feeling is a) you don't want to be married so you therefore can't expect a continuation of the financial situation you were in before you got divorced and b) if the money and lifestyle are so important to you than do what tons of other people do--chalk it up to divorce being too expensive and just stay married.

Which is, I suppose, what most people do--which explains why I have the constant stream of people coming to me telling me how miserable they are but then deciding to stay married anyway.

babys1:

In your moral argument, you missed an important point of Leslie's column...was it her moral obligation to stay with her husband until he murdered her? In the US, some 1,200 women a year are

And I absolutely agree with foamy: "Marriage is a risky financial arrangment in a lot of ways." I think a marriage license is the only contract I've ever signed that did not provide the fine print. I was not financially ruined by my divorce, but only because I had been cautious after my husband stuck me with is back taxes early in our marriage (I filed separately after that).

I now live in a community property state, and I have worked too hard to lose what I have earned through marriage. I'm not having any more children, so I have no reason to marry.

Leslie writes:
Who is right? Journalists and authors who caution women that we should never take time off to put our families first? Or judges who argue that women can return to economic self-sufficiency when need be?

Provided you came into the marriage with a college degree and put a few child-free years into your profession, economic self-sufficiency is probably still within reach post-divorce. But you do lose ground having stayed at home and in some fields, your options become limited, particularly if you're a single Mom.

I think the question in my mind is to what extent your options become limited because employers have concerns about hiring working mothers.

My ex and I both spent time away from our careers. I took two years to stay home with my kids and he ended up unemployed (or marginally employed outside his field) for two years due to illness quite recently.

Both of us managed to get back on track professionally though I limit myself in what jobs I apply for because I remain primarily responsible for the kids and can't be sure if ex will relapse. I'm economically self-sufficient but who knows what exciting career options I might have considered and been considered for if not for the divorce and kids.

Your husband went to grad school full-time for 10 years? Did I read that right? I would think then he would make a more decent salary with that much education. (not trying to be snarky, really, that just bugged me.)

addendum to last post:

I lost part of my sentence: "In the US, some 1,200 women a year are murdered by their intimate partners and some 2 million seek medical treatment for assualt by an intimate partner." Those were the stats that accompanied a report on Drew Peterson...

"In your moral argument, you missed an important point of Leslie's column...was it her moral obligation to stay with her husband until he murdered her? "

FOUR years of physical abuse to a Harvard grad before she seeks a divorce??? Her Daddy is a lawyer!

Oh--and TSP--that I feel is a different matter. My ex is a fed and I do get whatever percentage of his retirement the opm mandates. There's a specific formula--the number of years he worked there while we were married divided by the years we were married, or something like that. That I do feel entitled to because it was a joint decision that I stay home to raise the kids while he worked, therefore I was not able to save for retirement. Since raising the kids was my job during those 8 years I do feel it's fair that I receive a share of the retirement he racked up while he was working and never having to worry about childcare.

Ditto marital property--he wanted me to just walk away with nothing while he got the paid off car, the house, etc. I ended up getting my share of the house but not the paid off car--something that, in retrospect, I shouldn't have given in on because it was a decision based only on my guilt for wanting to leave. But whatever--5 more years of car payments is more than a fair price to pay for not having to be married to him anymore.

I do know of a woman who supported her now ex when his depression turned serious and rendered him unemployable. He wheeled and dealed a little on e-Bay bringing in a few bucks now and then but he didn't look after kids, do the shopping, cooking, any of that. When he announced he wanted a divorce, he threatened to sue for alimony. She was so scared he'd get it, she caved on other demands, losing their house in the process. I think she's happily quit of him now and thinks apartment living is a small price to pay. But we all still wonder whether his threat would have gotten him alimony if it had gone to court.

One of rather dated intentions of alimony was to compensate the wife for her loss of virginity and loveliness as a result of the marriage.

Q--yes you read it right! Welcome to just one of the many reasons it was worth it to me to walk away from that marriage without alimony ;) Even with my 8 years out of the workforce and my lack of a PhD (or any graduate degree)I fully expect to out-earn him within the next 5 years. Nothing wrong with not being particularly ambitious, but let's just say he has mental issues that make it so his govt 9-5 job is all he could handle (not a slam on all govt workers--just his particular job). He could get--and has gotten offers for--jobs paying 50% more than he makes but he doesn't want to leave his cushy situation. He could also do consulting on the side or expert testimony or many other things but he won't do that stuff either.

But I digress...but yes, he was in school full-time for 10 years. I didn't support us 100% during that time--his parents had money (with huge strings attached)--but I did work and provide benefits, etc.

pepperjade, in the moral argument, one assumes there is an implicit promise not to abuse each other. Abuse would cancel the promise. So there is no contradiction. BTW, physical violence generally escalates when the abused leaves. Most murdered spouses or girlfriends (its usually women who are killed) are murdered after they leave, or while they are in the process of leaving. I guess you choose your poison.

First, I wasn't blaming maggie for anything. I just said it was a thought...

Maggie: yes, I understand what you're saying. You make sense. But I see my sister, with three young kids - whose spouse is abusive to her and the kids. He obviously tells her she will have nothing if they divorce (not that she has much now - she's not really allowed to go buy herself clothes - and not so much for the kids either - they all pretty much dress in rags but him, she's certainly not getting her nails done - she's busy cooking and cleaning the house (yes, might not seem like a big deal, but her spouse wanted a large house so it would be larger than everyone else's - and therefore it would be prudent to have someone come and clean, but they do not - as my mom always said: don't buy the house you can't clean by yourself if you can't afford to hire someone to clean it)).
Anyway, I'm just saying that the idea that a woman has to stay married to her spouse because she is financially dependent on him is sorta outdated - it's really why we had laws for alimony in the first place. So that women *could* get out of lousy marriages and also keep some of their dignity.

My mom was divorced after nearly 30 years. She clearly had little to no skills for the modern day workforce (no college degree, at least, she could type... - didn't know how to use a computer). She definitely deserved everything my dad gave her and more (considering he was choosing not to work...another story). He keeps telling me how he gave her more than 1/2 as if he was being noble or something - but let me tell you - she definitely deserved to get more than half (the only reason we hadn't been foreclosed on with our house was due to her pinching a penny harder than anyone I ever met - what with the way my dad likes to spend money).

Maggie - I guess we all come to this with different perspectives ... I definitely agree, though, that there should be some sort of responsibility, but as Leslie indicated - if they're a louse when you married them, they ain't gonna change when you divorce them...

Then there's my friend, whose parents divorced after 30 years. The mom and daughter moved to another town. When dad came to visit he'd stay with mom. Mom recently went to his funeral. Sometimes, things aren't so acrimonious.

"You make sense. But I see my sister, with three young kids - whose spouse is abusive to her and the kids."

Please do the right thing and call child services and take these children. Maybe that is the push your sister needs to leave him, but as their aunt, it is your obligation to think of them FIRST.

All high-flown arguments aside, I think I would feel odd if I were dating a man who is receiving alimony. I would wonder if he would expect it from me if our relationship developed, but we later divorced. I think I would feel differently if he were receiving support and simultaneously training himself to reenter the job market. Yes, I have a double standard.

atlmom

"But I see my sister, with three young kids - whose spouse is abusive to her and the kids. He obviously tells her she will have nothing if they divorce (not that she has much now - she's not really allowed to go buy herself clothes - and not so much for the kids either - they all pretty much dress in rags but him, she's certainly not getting her nails done - she's busy cooking and cleaning the house (yes, might not seem like a big deal, but her spouse wanted a large house so it would be larger than everyone else's - and therefore it would be prudent to have someone come and clean, but they do not - as my mom always said: don't buy the house you can't clean by yourself if you can't afford to hire someone to clean it))."

There is something rotten in Denmark about this situation. More emphasis on the HOUSE than on people being abused?????

Speaking with someone who used to work in child services, I was told that really, nothing is done as long as the children are fed and have a place to live. They have bigger fish to fry.

They have bigger fish to fry than taking kids off of abusive parents?

What do they do all day then? What is their purpose?

atlmom

"Speaking with someone who used to work in child services, I was told that really, nothing is done as long as the children are fed and have a place to live. They have bigger fish to fry."

For God's sake woman - DO SOMETHING!!!! You are enabling the abuser!!!!!

He obviously tells her she will have nothing if they divorce

You'd be amazed what stuff one spouse can bully another into believing. One long-married woman with two children defended the fact that he husband beat her when he was angry with her by explaining that she knew he did it because he loved her.

First, a lawyer should have advised you that in many states, if you work to help put your spouse through graduate school, you own a piece of their lifetime earning since you helped pay for it.

That said, second, why should anyone get alimony ever? Child support, sure. But alimony at all strikes me as BS.

For God's sake woman - DO SOMETHING!!!! You are enabling the abuser!!!!!

No the "abusers" because her sister is just as bad if he is abusing the kids.

atlmom

IF these kids survive and become adults, how will you explain your apathy?

The same way I explain my aunt's apathy. Sometimes, there's not much you can do.
Re: child and protective services you must not have read what I said:

IF THE KID'S are well fed and have a place to live nothing much is done.

They are more concerned with neglected kids, they only have so may resources to deal with anything. They can't do everything.

Seriously. There's only so much anyone can do. I can only control my actions, not my sister's.

but has anyone seen the awful video of the poor toddler forced to smoke pot on cnn? We clearly do not take enough kids away from their home environments in this country.

Off topic, Was that DandyLion?

IF THE KID'S are well fed and have a place to live nothing much is done.

This is not true. My cousin works for the state and they do take kids off of abusive parents. Plus, you did say they were in rags is that not neglect?

I feel like I am an anonymous witness to a crime. I am out of here.

Yes, I have a double standard.

Posted by: babsy1 | April 16, 2008 12:42 PM

Everyone here has a double standard, whether they admit it or not. Men are expected to work and pay the family expenses, even when they are removed from it. Women are not.

Atlmom, Would your sister let her kids come visit you for a week (with or without her), but in any event without her husband? Just for the respite, if not a reality check for them.

First, a lawyer should have advised you that in many states, if you work to help put your spouse through graduate school, you own a piece of their lifetime earning since you helped pay for it.

That said, second, why should anyone get alimony ever? Child support, sure. But alimony at all strikes me as BS.

Posted by: Ok, Two things | April 16, 2008 12:56 PM

Does your first point seem reasonable to anyone? Really, a LIFETIME debt for a relatively small investment?

My opinion is divorce end the relationship between spouses and any future responsibilities they have to each should only be related to their childeren (if they exist).

Well, my sister doesn't much like hearing the truth, so she's not speaking to me. It's sad. My other sister hardly speaks with her given what she has done - won't get into it now. I do feel sorry for the kids. I think my sister gets some sort of pleasure in it all - thinking that the kids will love her or something in seeing her being treated that way or in her 'protecting' them from daddy. But really, when they're adults, perhaps they'll ask the pertinent question of 'why the heck did you marry him in the first place?'

atlmom

"But really, when they're adults, perhaps they'll ask the pertinent question of 'why the heck did you marry him in the first place?'"

If the kids live that long...

What is wrong with you?

But really, when they're adults, perhaps they'll ask the pertinent question of 'why the heck did you marry him in the first place?'

Posted by: atlmom | April 16, 2008 1:15 PM

No, I think the question will be "how could you be so spineless and not leave?"

Harsh, but probably true.

atlmom, how would your sister's husband treat their kids if she weren't around? Maybe she *is* protecting them from something even worse.

Many a man owes his success to his first wife and his second wife to his success. (I put my ex through college)

My unwanted divorce was amicable. My ex did not hurt me $$ financially compared to most divorce cases. But he took away my "family". What is the price of that?

Alimony should be abolished. It is silly at best. When couples divorce, each should get half of what they accumulated during marriage, then each goes his/her own way. If parents don't even owe their adult kids such a huge monthly allowance, why should another adult? Also, most divorces are not amicable, and good will almost always absent.

Alimony perpetuates a relationship that has gone beyond sour - like leftover foods sitting in landfills for months in summer weather. It is hard for the injured party to not feel angry that he (or she, in some cases) has to send a check to someone he despises, whether he can afford it or not.

If men try to "complete" with women in this ugly business, it is a race to the bottom. And the kids will be dragged down in the process.

Divorce laws serve a good general public purpose, but also create so much unfairness, especially toward men who are non-custodial ATM machines. Alimony only belongs to cultural history classes in college. It is like slavery, although not nearly as bad, and should be a thing of the past.

"But really, when they're adults, perhaps they'll ask the pertinent question of 'why the heck did you marry him in the first place?'"

And they might ask atlmom why she didn't lift a finger to help them, but had plenty of time to chit chat on the Net!

Well, it took my mom 30 years to finally leave my dad, because the conventional wisdom back then was to wait til the kids were grown. But they didn't have statistics yet on the emotional effect it has on the kids. Conventional wisdom is different today.

My sister would never leave him. She knew exactly what she was getting into, she wanted to be married and have kids. Period.

Also, she would NEVER in a million years admit she made a mistake, no matter what, and getting a divorce would be admitting you made a mistake. She'd rather redo a mistake every day of her life than to admit she made one. I know it sounds strange, but she is most definitely NOT the only person I know like this.

To anon @ 1:15: "Does your first point seem reasonable to anyone? Really, a LIFETIME debt for a relatively small investment?

My opinion is divorce end the relationship between spouses and any future responsibilities they have to each should only be related to their children (if they exist)."

Re: your first point: Why is it necessarily a "small" investment? Ten years of someone's life as the primary support - including potentially paying tuition bills and other educational expenses - can add up to a heck of a lot of money. If he'd had to do it all as student loans, he'd be paying it back for years. Why not just consider it a "student loan" that he's obligated to pay back?

Re: your second point: that's pretty naive. Numerous posts today have talked about cases where one spouse made a tangible sacrifice for the benefit of the other spouse. So your view is that the non-sacrificing spouse should be able to say "see ya; wouldn't wanna be ya"? The comments about three years of "rehabilitative support" as discussed above seem perfectly reasonable to me.

"You'd be amazed what stuff one spouse can bully another into believing."

Right - look at the women from the cult in TX.

atlmom is from NY.

I hope that Ms. Steiner has sympathy towards those who are victims of divorce laws. She certainly seems to.

But the twist is that men suffer so much more than women in general. Our built-in gender bias preclude us from feeling naturally empathetic towards divorced dads. But they tend to not have physical custody of children, and dealing with controlling ex-wives discouraging them from being more engaged in kids' lives.

This is not to say that there are horrible dads out there (a lot!!!), who should never be near their kids. But divorce laws and social bias put men in the disadvantaged position.

I am hurt whether it is a man or woman who suffers injustice. And so should you.

What do you think is fair: to compensate a spouse for career sacrifices or expect them to suffer the financial consequences of a marriage ending?
-Leslie

Obviously, to you, if the sacrificing spouse is female, she should be compensated. If male, he should not. What is he, some kind of loser?

Should the legal guidelines shift based on gender?
-Leslie

They already are.

How many men do you know with full custody, the house and inflated child support?

ahhahahahahahahha
Southern thing indeed. I'm from NY and am the only one in my family who lives in the south.

atlmom

I can't even begin to understand your attitude about these children.

Screw your sister, she can take care of herself, but you should at least try to save these children. If for no other reason than to talk about it on this blog.

actually, i've found that thru many divorces where there are kids involved, until the kids are 18, both spouses are kind of involved with each. Wherein, apparently, thru some divorce decrees neither spouse may move more than xx miles away cause that would affect the custody arrangements, so any moves would necessarily mean that the ex spouses would have to be involved with each other's plans - it's interesting.

And my DH and I discuss all the time that we'd have five (that's three from my sis, and two from his sis) more kids living with us - and we'd take them in and treat them as our own if that's what we need to do. We sign and realize that we could handle whatever we need to if the kids need it.

Seriously, atlmom, can you invite your sister's kids to come visit for a week this summer, just to give them perspective on what constitutes normal healthy family life?

Well, really the reason for mentioning it was due to alimony and the fact that it might be needed in certain situations. *shrug* that's all.

Seriously, atlmom, can you invite your sister's kids to come visit for a week this summer, just to give them perspective on what constitutes normal healthy family life?

Yes, and then send them back to hell.

i thought that in saying that she's not talking to me would convey the fact that the kids wouldn't come visit.

Men suffer more than women in a divorce? You must be joking! In a divorce, the majority of women experience a lower standard of living; more than 80% of men end up with a higher standard of living. I know a man who married a woman jerk (verbal abuse) who outearned him, but he treated her badly (infidelity). Which of them deserved alimony? Answer: neither, only child support was granted.

and who's to say it's a normal healthy family life that i live in? I'd like to think so, and I'd like to think that my DH and I have not incorporated much of what our parents have done to raise us and/or taken what we think is healthy, disregard what we think is not, but who's to say?

atlmom |

"And my DH and I discuss all the time that we'd have five (that's three from my sis, and two from his sis) more kids living with us - and we'd take them in and treat them as our own if that's what we need to do. We sign and realize that we could handle whatever we need to if the kids need it."

What's the holdup with getting the kids? In your case, they might be better off in foster homes than being raised
by a nit wit like you.

Fine, altmom, do nothing hopefully a concerned neighbor will call the cops or child services and a nice foster family will take the kids.

We get it, you are not going to do nothing.

Re: your first point: Why is it necessarily a "small" investment? Ten years of someone's life as the primary support - including potentially paying tuition bills and other educational expenses - can add up to a heck of a lot of money. If he'd had to do it all as student loans, he'd be paying it back for years. Why not just consider it a "student loan" that he's obligated to pay back?

Posted by: | April 16, 2008 1:28 PM

Do you view a spouse who spent ten years as the primary support while the other spouse stayed home in the same light? SAHP are really expensive to the working spouse. Does the working spouse in this instance get to stay home while the other supports them for ten years? From my point of view, while in the marriage, any sacrifice you do for the family (your spouse is part of your family) need not be repaid.

As far as the student loan statement, these loans are eventually paid off (it may not seem that way to some). The statement I responded to stated the wronged spouse was "was entitled to a part of the LIFETIME earnings", Not 3 years, apples and oranges.

babsy1:

Dying because you made a poor choice in choosing a mate is a little extreme, no?

I attended an Indian Country law enforcement meeting yesterday. Prosecuting non-Natives who victimize Natives is nearly impossible. Tribal courts have no prosecutorial authority over non-Natives, and the US Attorney's Office is very selective in the caes it prosecutes. Adding to the complication: tribal courts can hand down a sentence no longer than one year, so ostensibly you can kill someone on a reservation, and if the USAO refuses to prosecute, then the tribal courts can only hand down a sentence of one year to a tribal member. When Native women are abused by non-Native boyfriends/husbands, the perpetrator is rarely punished. So I pointed out that the women can kill the abusers and may only serve up to a year for the crime. I live a half-mile from a reservation, so now I know where to dump a body (okay, sick humor...).

For all of those giving Leslie grief about the fact she stayed in an abusive marriage for four years even though she was Ivy-educated: You obviously do not have ANY understanding of the dynamics of spousal abuse. This crosses all socio-economic lines--it's not just trailer park trash. This is why Leslie's forthcoming book on this subject is important--so many folks are still ignorant about this subject.

yes, it shouldn't necessarily be lifetime earnings that someone is entitled to, but in the end, the spouse who had the career would be better off than the one who stayed home after a divorce.

And really, who cares why the spouse stayed home, perhaps it was to tend to kids - but what if there aren't kids. The spouse with the income has indicated that they will support the other spouse, regardless of the reasons. And then when the SAHS doesn't have a career or anything - you can't really blame them for not having the same earning power. Then if there's a divorce, they just get screwed? What if it's the earning spouse who was abusive? or had an affair? They just don't have to pay alimony at all - they get the good career and earning power, and the SAHS just gets nothing? That really doesn't seem fair to me. With or without kids. The SAHS really was probably supporting the earning spouse in some way - if not monetarily, then stressful wise = as in the earning spouse didn't have to worry about going to the supermarket or planning vacations or the house or whatever - and could focus on their jobs.

Pepperjade, you missed my point. Once abuse has occurred, the promise is null and void, and the abused spouse no longer has a moral obligation to the promise. I'm not suggesting people stay because they promised to, while being abused. Just be aware that leaving may lead to greater danger, and take precautions.

Men suffer more than women in a divorce? You must be joking! In a divorce, the majority of women experience a lower standard of living; more than 80% of men end up with a higher standard of living. I know a man who married a woman jerk (verbal abuse) who outearned him, but he treated her badly (infidelity). Which of them deserved alimony? Answer: neither, only child support was granted.

Posted by: babsy1 | April 16, 2008 1:42 PM

Probably because the woman enjoyed the higher standard of living due to the fact the man most likely had a higher standard of living before they got married. It is a known fact that historically, most women "marry up", what happens after divorce is that they both go back to where they would have been if they hadn't been married.

Raising girls to believe thay have a "choice" to work has many consequences and they are not all good.

clearly you have never tried to 'take' kids from someone who is being enabled by the family. Would not be a pretty picture.

Again, the kids are being fed and housed, not typically a time when they are taken away.

I wasn't suggesting that atlmom snatch her sister's children from their home. I had in mind more like luring them to come visit with the offer of a week's summer vacation in beautiful Atlanta. Maybe she could ask the kids herself, so they could work on their mother to let them come visit.

You wrote: "Which of them deserved alimony? Answer: neither, only child support was granted."

Please read your own words: she gets the children, hence the child support. She abused him and still got the kids. She probably got the house. She probably got everyone else in their lives to hate him.

Where do you think "child support" go to? Do you think that father has easy access to the kids, considering how abusive wife was WHILE they were still married? How do you know he was infidel? How often a person hears it from her and not him?

If you females want gender equality, you must play by the rules. So far you only pick and choose. When it comes to divorce, you get everything. When it comes to jobs, you work at an air-conditioned boutique stores, while men work in physically demanding jobs such as construction. Yet you complain all the time about inequality.

Be fair first.

atlmom

"yes, it shouldn't necessarily be lifetime earnings that someone is entitled to, but in the end, the spouse who had the career would be better off than the one who stayed home after a divorce."

You are STILL posting today?! Can you take a hint?

atlmom

"Southern thing indeed. I'm from NY and am the only one in my family who lives in the south."

Please give NY a break - stay in the South.

Speak for yourself, it takes one to know one.

And then when the SAHS doesn't have a career or anything - you can't really blame them for not having the same earning power.

-atlmom

why not? Especially if there are no children. You seem to want to punish the higher earning spouse for the opposite reason.

Take your post and replce SAHS with man and working spouse with woman and see if you feel the same way. Adults are adults and should be responsible for themselves, period.

So, what you're saying is I could marry a woman whom makes a lot of money, quit my job (nobody can force me, or anybody, to work in a marriage), wait a couple of years being supported, cheat on my wife, get her to divorce me and then get a portion of her earnings for life? Sssswwwweeet!

and before all of you condemn leslie, ask her why it really took four years - why? because she had to make the decision herself. She probably wasn't feeling too good about herself, she probably didn't want to admit that anyone else was right (i.e., anyone who said: you should leave him) - that she made a mistake. She may have felt that she deserved it. Any number of things.

So stop condemning her for being forthright in her sharing this with you.

Not that she needs me to defend her.

Leslie,

Yesterday, you lectured everyone on the need to be respectful of those they don't respect. Thanks, Mom. Today, you permit the following posts which, particularly the first, are offensive by almost any standards and contribute not one iota to the discourse. Is this the beginning of a new column, entitled, "atlmom -- scum of the earth"?

"You would make a perfect Nazi."

Posted by: What a phony | April 16, 2008 1:10 PM

You have an incredible character flaw, which you refuse to admit. Just like your sister...

God bless these poor kids and shame on you.

Posted by: WTF? | April 16, 2008 1:35 PM

Thank you WTF?

And altmom why don't you shut up about these kids since you are only doing it to get attention, not real advice on how to help them.

Posted by: | April 16, 2008 1:37 PM

What's the holdup with getting the kids? In your case, they might be better off in foster homes than being raised
by a nit wit like you.

Posted by: Disgusted | April 16, 2008 1:44 PM

Fine, altmom, do nothing hopefully a concerned neighbor will call the cops or child services and a nice foster family will take the kids.

We get it, you are not going to do nothing.

Posted by: | April 16, 2008 1:45 PM

MN, again: Somehow other Post blogs seem to be able to draw a reasonable line so that folks who don't feel the need to observe WWF Smackdown while at work can read without annoyance. Please learn their secret. Fast.

MN: thank you for saying what I was thinking.

I am of the opinion people feel the need to denigrate others so quickly and nastily on this blog because they lack confidence in their own decisions.

"So, what you're saying is I could marry a woman whom makes a lot of money, quit my job (nobody can force me, or anybody, to work in a marriage), wait a couple of years being supported, cheat on my wife, get her to divorce me and then get a portion of her earnings for life? Sssswwwweeet!"

1 - Nobody is saying that. At all. The "lifetime earnings" point comes into play AFTER you have supported her full-time while she goes to school and gets the degree that lets her earn all that money.

2 - It's "who", not "whom"

3 - I suspect that if you refused to work and she wanted you to, it wouldn't take a couple of years for the divorce; it would be sooner. I'm thinking a quick annulment.

4 - If she makes a lot of money and you make none, my guess is that her divorce lawyer will be better than yours. (Well, okay, she was stupid enough to marry you, so maybe she has bad taste in lawyers, too. You'd better hope so.)

I am of the opinion people feel the need to denigrate others so quickly and nastily on this blog because they lack confidence in their own decisions.

Posted by: dotted | April 16, 2008 2:09 PM

I think they feed off the attitude of the host. All of her blogs offend someone, and I think she does it on purpose. It does make for higher post count and while to some it is annoying, to others it is entertainment.

Many a man owes his success to his first wife and his second wife to his success. (I put my ex through college)

My unwanted divorce was amicable. My ex did not hurt me $$ financially compared to most divorce cases. But he took away my "family". What is the price of that?

********

Exactly! My ex hurt me with his cheating, his lies, his leaving but what hurts most of all is that he tore apart our family. My 14 month old now only sees his father a few times a week rather than every day. How do you compensate the loss of a partner to assist you with the everyday work of raising a child? How is one compensated for the child losing out on a family and the security that it brings? No amount of alimony/CS can make up for my ex's absence.
So why not have him take a financial blow for the blow he dealt us? He chose to leave, he should deal with the penalties.

"MN, again: Somehow other Post blogs seem to be able to draw a reasonable line so that folks who don't feel the need to observe WWF Smackdown while at work can read without annoyance. Please learn their secret. Fast."

Tolerating/enabling/winking at abused kids is a line for me. I'll cross it every time to protect a child. What will you do? Complain that you are "offended"?

"I am of the opinion people feel the need to denigrate others so quickly and nastily on this blog because they lack confidence in their own decisions."

That's funny -- I thought it was because they were 12 and liked feeling all big and powerful. Amazing how little of this we got when people had to put one consistent name -- even a made-up one -- to their posts, isn't it?

Sorry but I'm incredulous--what planet do you people live on? First of all, atlmom hasn't even said what this abuse consists of (unless I skimmed too fast and missed it!). There are MANY levels and types of abuse--many of which, I'm sure, CPS could care less about. Do you all honestly think that CPS intervenes in every instance where an anonymous--or not anonymous, for that matter--person calls in to report that he/she saw the neighbor hit his kid?

Last time I checked, we're still in the country where you frequently hear about kids who were murdered or treated inhumanely and even though CPS was alerted they did nothing. Either I'm jaded or those of you chastising atlmom are living in a dream world because as far as I'm concerned, even if she did take it upon herself to report whatever abuse the guy is inflicting on the family, I'm 99% sure nothing would come of it.

Also:

"Anyway, I'm just saying that the idea that a woman has to stay married to her spouse because she is financially dependent on him is sorta outdated - it's really why we had laws for alimony in the first place. So that women *could* get out of lousy marriages and also keep some of their dignity."

I agree that it's outdated--but I don't have enough fingers and toes to list the number of women I know who are financially dependent on their spouses and wouldn't have it any other way, even if they're miserable.

dotted, I am of the opinion that there is one very stupid, unhappy, insecure person with too much time on his hands who sees the Internet, generally, and this blog in particular, as an opportunity to vent without any social repurcussions. As long as Leslie lets it continue, it will.

Stupid because, with a modicum of effort, an intelligent person could rebut atlmom's viewpoints, choices and rationalizations effectively. Insulting atlmom's character is the tactic of a man or woman without a substantive rebuttal.

Maggie

"Last time I checked, we're still in the country where you frequently hear about kids who were murdered or treated inhumanely and even though CPS was alerted they did nothing. Either I'm jaded or those of you chastising atlmom are living in a dream world because as far as I'm concerned, even if she did take it upon herself to report whatever abuse the guy is inflicting on the family, I'm 99% sure nothing would come of it. "

Tell it to the dead kids...

to 2:04

If that is what your spouse has agreed to (i..e, supporting you - WHILE you are also supporting her - i.e., taking care of all the life stuff) then I wouldn't see a problem with alimony.

BUT YOU CHANGED THE EQUATION!!! *IF* you then break the contract (as indicated above by someone else) by cheating, then all bets are off...

1 - Nobody is saying that. At all. The "lifetime earnings" point comes into play AFTER you have supported her full-time while she goes to school and gets the degree that lets her earn all that money.

2 - It's "who", not "whom"

3 - I suspect that if you refused to work and she wanted you to, it wouldn't take a couple of years for the divorce; it would be sooner. I'm thinking a quick annulment.

4 - If she makes a lot of money and you make none, my guess is that her divorce lawyer will be better than yours. (Well, okay, she was stupid enough to marry you, so maybe she has bad taste in lawyers, too. You'd better hope so.)

Posted by: | April 16, 2008 2:10 PM

1 - Posted by: atlmom | April 16, 2008 1:51 PM, said exactly that

2 - uuhhh, OK, you win that one

3 - Can a man do the same thing? It is a serious question. And if he does, will the consequenses (sp?) be the same? What right does the woman have to get an annulment. Are annulments even valid under the law, I thought they were religious.

4 - Would you say this to a SAHM?

I agree that it's outdated--but I don't have enough fingers and toes to list the number of women I know who are financially dependent on their spouses and wouldn't have it any other way, even if they're miserable.

Posted by: Maggie | April 16, 2008 2:15 PM

So, it really isn't outdated. We just want to believe it is.