Take a moment right now and imagine this divorcing couple:
One person earns $400,000 a year in a high-powered job. The other is staying home with the kids and taking a career break. The stay-at-home spouse wants financial support from the working spouse. Seems logical, right?
But, who is the woman and who is the man and should that make a difference?
Traditionally, the man has been the one earning the big bucks while the woman puts her career on hold to take care of the kids.
Today, more and more women are considered the breadwinners of their family. In fact, in some households, the women are making all the money. That's fine in a healthy marriage, but when the couple is heading to splitsville, the equation becomes very, complicated and the parties... beyond bitter!
I see this type of situation all the time with women who are successful business owners, CEOs and executives. They've been the top, or only earner in the family. Then, all of a sudden, they're getting a divorce and are expected to support their husbands with what's now being dubbed as manimony. Let's just say my clients that fall into this category aren't too pleased about supporting their exes.
There really are two valid sides to this argument. If you think about it, men have been paying spousal support for years to their ex-wives who are staying home to raise the kids. Many of these stay-at-home moms have argued they gave up a career to raise a family and are entitled to compensation for that sacrifice.
After all, the goal of spousal maintenance is to financially support someone who cannot support himself or herself after the marriage ends. So does it really matter if that someone is a man or woman?
Women argue even if they are the CEO of their own company, for example, they are still often the CEO of the house as well. The school calls them when the kids are sick. These moms still take the kids to the dentist, doctor and extracurricular activities and often wake up in the middle of the night when the child is sick. These high-powered female executives argue because they are moms, by definition, the bulk of the care seems to rest on their shoulders. They're doing double-duty, so to speak, and don't want to send a check to their ex every month because they don't believe he bares the brunt of the single parent job.
So, you see, the debate is heated. The players have changed sides and therefore, changed the game when it comes to spousal support. How do you avoid the contention? It's simple: a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement. Sure these documents may seem unromantic or unnecessary for a couple that is "so in love." But, when it comes to matters of the heart, it can pay-off to use your head. I've surely worked with men and women who wished they had!
I believe alimony for partners of either sex should have a time limit and should be in place to help the partner who is not equal in earnings be able to support themselves. It's very different from child support which should be paid until the child is 18 or out of school. I believe it should be determined by a formula instead of at the whim of a judge who bring their prejudices to each case.
As more and more women are forced to pay alimony, more and more states will revise their alimony laws to be more fair. You can take that to the bank.
Out of necessity, I became the breadwinner and my ex became the primary physical custodian. (I was a stay-at-home mom for about 8 years before we seperated) The reality is that couples, married or divorced, have to decide how to manage a family physically AND financially. When it comes down to it, who really cares who does what, as long as both parenting roles are filled.
My ex shuttles the kids to afternoon sports events and oversees homework, which is a pretty hard and thankless job, and I actually don't mind handing over the reigns of what are traditional "motherhood" responsibilities. I am for all intents and purposes, the "divorced dad".
What is sad, is how a woman is percieved when she works and pays child support to the father instead of being primary custodian. The stigma is, when woman who does not have her kids full time, she is less of a parent. It is often assumed she is neglegent or selfish, that she somehow "abandoned" her children.
We strive for equality, but can we truly get our minds around what that means for families after divorce?
Read my article, "When Mommy Has to Man Up"
http://bit.ly/jVshB3
which is why they're hell to live with--
Why is divorce so expensive?
Because it's worth it.
Just FYI, I don't think the women in the above article are correct.
I am bitter because my alimony allows him to continue on a horrible path of alcoholism and I fear for my child if he continues this path. I'm bitter because as my child's custodial parent, I see directly how he is taking not just money from me, but from her as well. I am saddened that as she gets older and we discuss domestic violence, I will have to explain to her how my abuser ( her father) was rewarded for his abuse by the courts and not punished. Lastly I am bitter that when my alimony ends and he self-destructs, she will be old enough to witness it and be harmed by it. Without alimony he would succeed or fail on his own merits, and by the time she would be affected he would have either gotten on his feet, or gotten out of the picture. If his fate is to crash and burn, alimony is making it a slow motion train wreck with our daughter as a passenger.
Please talk to a psychologist before you have the discussion with your daughter. It's generally not a good idea to berate the other parent, no matter how bad the situation is. The child knows their parents shortcomings - she knows yours too. Running her dad down will only make her feel badly about herself, and resent you for making her feel that way. It's not constructive. Vent your anger at your ex elsewhere.
But let's take the feminist argument about your situation - it must have been your working all the time that drove him to drink, and he stayed home and got drunk and took care of answering the telephone at home, so you should pay him alimony for the rest of his life. :)
Feel fortunate that the judge didn't give him lifetime alimony or that you don't live in a state like MA that allows it.
As a stay-at-home dad (who also scrapes a bit of extra cash from sidework to make ends meet), I do not have the luxury or privilege or ability to also work a job. Parenting IS a job, and last I heard, it was a very important one. it also happens to take up most of my waking day, as well as a good chunk of what should be my sleeping night. I should also get a job on the side? Sorry, my wife is making enough.
In a society constantly weighted down by the issues caused by so many kids not getting enough parenting, you would think alimony was solid idea.
I come from divorced parents, and one of the things my mom did when I was 16 was give me the divorce papers and filings. I learned a lot about both of them. Some of which I knew, and some I didn't. My father paid a whole lot more money than I thought he did for my care. That made me appreciate him more. But my stepmother, was actually my mother's best friend, saw all he pictures of her and my mom at their graduation. And that made me dislike him and my step mother. But the history of their divorce is the history of my childhood, since it was me who labored under the back and forth of the visitation schedule. I have a right to know, when I was angry about the schedule, who wanted it that way and who didn't.
Spousal support is for lazy spouses who want to play martyr and say they could have been CEO of IBM if it weren't for their spouse.
We raised two children and worked very demanding careers. It can be done, and life is quite good - even working 60+ hours a week. Parenting and housekeeping are not full time jobs.
I'd buy your trade off plan if both parties agreed to it - which every non-working spouse always says happened, and then the working one says it didn't happen that way - so why not outline the agreement in a document?
Otherwise - I'd be inclined to say that there was no such agreement. What person would agree to pay spousal support upfront? That just doesn't make sense. If something doesn't make sense, it's probably not true.
I'm curious. How would you define such?
Adults dependent on other adults is just plain laziness. If the guy was a janitor and married a nuero-surgeon, should he live like a nuero-surgeon's spouse after the divorce - even though he hasn't the talent of a nuero-surgeon? I don't think so. Of course he'll whine and say - Oh I could have been the CEO of Janitor.com or whatever, that comes under "woulda coulda shoulda." In other words - BS.
The money should stay with the one who EARNS it.
I'll be interested to see: 1) To what degree author comments matriculate and 2) What these authors have to say.
Waiting....
I lost everything to the man I was with. I have two chairs and and a desk. 3 plates, 3 forks, a pan and a pot and other odd's and end's purchased from second hand stores. What he didn't take he broke. And until I can get back on my feet and on top of the bills he also left me with I live like this.
I dont hate all men because of this. I dont define all men by the poor choice I made in a mate and I would be nice if we could all not generalize... there are nasty individuals in both genders, but that does not define the gender, just that sorry individual.