When I was a kid, growing up in the sixties, I remember how our local bank offered a Christmas Club savings account. You could deposit as little as $1 a week and by the end of the year, you'd have more than enough cash to buy gifts for everyone.
Some banks may still offer a Christmas savings account. But, if you ask me, it would have been nice if banks also offered a Divorce Club savings account. Imagine if my parents had had the foresight to start such an account for me when I was just seven, I would have had enough money to get divorced in style. I mean, a dollar a week, multiplied by 30 years, add in the two percent average interest rate, amortized, and well, I'm no financial whiz by any means, but that would have given me a tidy bundle.
I'm pretty sure that by the time my marriage hit the skids, I would have had enough funds to hire any one of the attorneys who represented Tiger Woods, Rupert Murdoch or even Mel Gibson, for at least a week. A friend had once suggested I hire an attorney that would go for the jugular. I assumed he meant my ex's jugular, but lawyers like that were certainly beyond my means. Yet, if I'd had a divorce savings account, I might have been able to afford one who could give my ex a slap on the wrist.
Divorce is pricey, and the meter starts running right out of the gate, the moment you decide to separate and live apart. It's enough to give the term, "separation anxiety," a whole new meaning. In fact, I happen to know at least one couple who decided to stay together, simply because they could not afford the hefty price tag of divorce.
For starters, in one fell swoop, you and your spouse go from paying the rent/mortgage on one home to paying for two, not to mention all the other costs associated with maintaining two households. And this is before you have even hire a lawyer! If you ask me, two of everything is over-the-top expensive.
Which is why my ex and I tried to do it on a shoestring. Instead of moving out, he moved across the hall. This didn't last long, though. It became too much for me when I overheard him planning a weekend getaway with the other woman. Which is when it hit me:
Unless you're six degrees from living on the streets, saving money isn't a good enough reason to live under the same roof with a spouse who no longer feels anything for you, not even a modicum of compassion.
The way I see it, if he had time to plan a romantic vacation, then he should have enough time to find a place to live. And, sure enough, 48 hours later, he did just that and began packing up his things.
To help with the costs of two households, I took a page from Kate and Allie. For those of you who don't recall, "Kate & Allie" was a popular sitcom during the 80's, about two divorced moms who moved into a New York brownstone together, with their kids in tow. Perhaps they did it in order to give each other much needed emotional support. I think they did it to save money. Either way, it was a smart idea.
With my ex now out of the house, I had to contend with the mortgage. I had a friend who was just separating from her husband, so I invited her and her children to move in. Between her three, and my two, we had a full house. Together, not only were we able to save money, but we could also commiserate, sharing our "war" stories, while taking turns watching each other's kids, when needed. And, at least once a week, we'd try to gather for a family meal.
We were a new kind of family. A Kate and Allie plus five, and for a year this proved to be an admirable solution. I was able to pay the mortgage, stress-free, while searching for a job. Meanwhile, living with me helped my friend save up enough to get a place of her own. And, once the house was sold, and the proceeds divvied up, I was able to move out and find a small place for me, and my kids. The divorce tab was running, but thanks to these actions, it was running at a much slower speed.
So, despite not having a divorce savings account, I made it through, with the help of a housemate. And, if you ask me, it was just what we both needed to get us through the high-cost of divorce.
Follow Monica Medina on Twitter: www.twitter.com/monicastangled
The typical divorce story goes like this: "Nobody in the family wanted divorce except the mother. She got it. She's happier. Everybody else isn't."
This is not to say, Monica, that your experience follows this model. But that's usually how it goes: A woman prosecuting divorce in the pursuit of her personal happiness to the detriment of the health and happiness of everyone else in the family. Why they do this, when serious breaches of marital vows such as violence and infidelity are cited as reasons in a small minority of divorces, is a puzzle.
What is it that causes women to seek divorce so much more readily than men, despite the harm it brings to their children and the person they publicly swore to love and support forever?
The father must be able to prove that the money is being paid or face jail. Fathers cannot escape support obligations in almost any circumstances. Bankruptcy, unemployment, even jail do not end support obligations. To say that the obligation is one-sided is kind of like saying most babies are borne by women.
Whatever else it does, divorce initiates a huge, long-lasting flow of funds from fathers to mothers. Most states do not call for old-fashioned lifetime alimony, although most do permit some form, even it's retitled "spousal support." But child support is always required everywhere, the penalty for not paying is going to jail, and the payers are almost always fathers.
Yes, fathers can be threatened with jail for not paying child support but very few judges will actually put them behind bars. If they are put in jail, the fathers won't be able to work so there is no possibility of them paying child support - therefore, judges are reluctant to jail the non-paying fathers but usually make them reappear in court weekly or monthly until they have a job.
I know a lot of women who got the old alimony, who have had live-in partners for many years and continue to get their monthly alimony checks from their former husbands. Some have even told me that they'd remarry but they don't want to lose that check. I also know some husbands who have gone back into court and got their alimony reduced when their former wives had to testify under oath and they admitted to having a live-in partner who was paying bills or contributing to the former wife's lifestyle. It's not fair to drain a man for 30 or 40 years - alimony should help those who can't support themselves but it's not a gravy train until eternity.
Yeah, right. Most people go bananas -- i.e, get emotional and fight in court with lawyers -- when they get divorced. Gee, this lady did when her husband found greener pastures. Going bananas costs money. Pure and simple.
"So, despite not having a divorce savings account, I made it through, with the help of a housemate. "
to this:
"So, despite not having a divorce savings account, I made it through, with the help of a housemate, child support, and especially, the alimony my husband was forced to pay."
Are you ashamed of receiving alimony or what?
She conveniently left these details out of her story.
However, does anybody else find it odd that the children's father is not paying child support? Surely he must not be or she would have mentioned it, since support is usually the single largest financial consequence of divorce.
Support for two children would typically equal 25 percent of their father's after-tax income. The author of this article would receive this payment without tax obligation. The net result would be that he is now surviving on something like two-thirds of an income, while she is surviving on something like one and two-thirds of an income.
No doubt, she has additional expenses because she is, if this is a typical case, the primary custodian of the children. However, the largest expense of raising kids to 18 is real estate, and her ex-husband is not exempt from this.
I realize that a number of studies have concluded that men profit financially from divorce. However, these studies always include a nebulous "standard of living" fudge factor that is subjectively derived. If you just look at the actual flow of dollars, there is no question whatsoever that divorce results in a huge, extremely well-documented transfer of money from men to women. I'm surprised that this author neglected to address the issue of the financial support she is almost certainly receiving from the children's father.
How much alimony are you forced to pay? (I notice there's not a lot of male commentators bragging about how thrifty their divorces were.)