Examples of alimony

[Anonymous]

Increased child support in a SAHP situation? Totally agree with that.

But when I got divorced I knew I’d have to adjust my standard of living. That was part of the territory that came with getting divorced and I knew that. Same for anyone else, even a SAHP who hasn’t worked in awhile. Sure you won’t be able to afford some things, even like a new suit or going for a dinner date with friends. I couldn’t afford those things for awhile. But I worked and I chose an apartment that was within the means of my salary. I couldn’t afford cable. That was okay. I didn’t expect an ex to subsidize my freaking Netflix. I did without, until I could afford to do with. Stop freeloading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

You are missing a major point which is that she chose to sacrifice those things.

Yes! And she did so knowing the very publicly available laws- which assured her alimony.

He presumably did as well.

Marriage is a contract. Those are some of its terms risks and rewards. They entered into marriage willingly. Who is anyone then to say taking what they are legally entitled to is showing “no pride”? It’s the fulfillment of the terms of a voided contract.

The law is changing, and not in alimony's favor. Look, if you have no issue being subsidized by someone who doesn't love or respect you, that's on you. I personally wouldn't ever put myself in that situation. Revenge is a life lived well, and all that. Does his new wife drop off the check too? *shudder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increased child support in a SAHP situation? Totally agree with that.

But when I got divorced I knew I’d have to adjust my standard of living. That was part of the territory that came with getting divorced and I knew that. Same for anyone else, even a SAHP who hasn’t worked in awhile. Sure you won’t be able to afford some things, even like a new suit or going for a dinner date with friends. I couldn’t afford those things for awhile. But I worked and I chose an apartment that was within the means of my salary. I couldn’t afford cable. That was okay. I didn’t expect an ex to subsidize my freaking Netflix. I did without, until I could afford to do with. Stop freeloading.

THIS, my friends, is a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

You are missing a major point which is that she chose to sacrifice those things.

Yes! And she did so knowing the very publicly available laws- which assured her alimony.

He presumably did as well.

Marriage is a contract. Those are some of its terms risks and rewards. They entered into marriage willingly. Who is anyone then to say taking what they are legally entitled to is showing “no pride”? It’s the fulfillment of the terms of a voided contract.

The law is changing, and not in alimony's favor. Look, if you have no issue being subsidized by someone who doesn't love or respect you, that's on you. I personally wouldn't ever put myself in that situation. Revenge is a life lived well, and all that. Does his new wife drop off the check too? *shudder

I will make $275k this year and I negotiated an incontestable alimony schedule in exchange for limiting the duration to only 3 of the 8 years I was due. I bet on myself succeeding in that time and I banked every dime I got as alimony. It’s going directly into college savings for the kids, since he emptied theirs.
He isn’t remarried, he is an addict.

I appreciate that you would not put yourself in that situation. Revenge is indeed a life lived well- but when you haven’t worked in some time and you have kids and you are trying to keep some semblance of normalcy - rather than being thrust immediately into daycare I could transition into a job that worked as a single mom as I have custody.

Look if it’s not for you that’s totally fine and I get it. I just get the sense that you find alimony a moral issue. I don’t, I see it as simple contract law. Everyone has a different risk tolerance why should I care about yours as it doesn’t affect me in any way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

You are missing a major point which is that she chose to sacrifice those things.

Yes! And she did so knowing the very publicly available laws- which assured her alimony.

He presumably did as well.

Marriage is a contract. Those are some of its terms risks and rewards. They entered into marriage willingly. Who is anyone then to say taking what they are legally entitled to is showing “no pride”? It’s the fulfillment of the terms of a voided contract.

The law is changing, and not in alimony's favor. Look, if you have no issue being subsidized by someone who doesn't love or respect you, that's on you. I personally wouldn't ever put myself in that situation. Revenge is a life lived well, and all that. Does his new wife drop off the check too? *shudder

I will make $275k this year and I negotiated an incontestable alimony schedule in exchange for limiting the duration to only 3 of the 8 years I was due. I bet on myself succeeding in that time and I banked every dime I got as alimony. It’s going directly into college savings for the kids, since he emptied theirs.
He isn’t remarried, he is an addict.

I appreciate that you would not put yourself in that situation. Revenge is indeed a life lived well- but when you haven’t worked in some time and you have kids and you are trying to keep some semblance of normalcy - rather than being thrust immediately into daycare I could transition into a job that worked as a single mom as I have custody.

Look if it’s not for you that’s totally fine and I get it. I just get the sense that you find alimony a moral issue. I don’t, I see it as simple contract law. Everyone has a different risk tolerance why should I care about yours as it doesn’t affect me in any way?

How is this relevant given you are a high earner? Why would you even get alimony on that income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increased child support in a SAHP situation? Totally agree with that.

But when I got divorced I knew I’d have to adjust my standard of living. That was part of the territory that came with getting divorced and I knew that. Same for anyone else, even a SAHP who hasn’t worked in awhile. Sure you won’t be able to afford some things, even like a new suit or going for a dinner date with friends. I couldn’t afford those things for awhile. But I worked and I chose an apartment that was within the means of my salary. I couldn’t afford cable. That was okay. I didn’t expect an ex to subsidize my freaking Netflix. I did without, until I could afford to do with. Stop freeloading.

A man is better off paying alimony as there are tax breaks for him paying alimony that he doesn't get with child support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend going through a divirce. She is almost 60-one child still underage and living at home. She has been married for over 30 years. Quit work over 20 years ago when they started a family as husband worked insanely long hours in Big Law—as husband wanted her to do. It worked best fir the family and for his career fir her to remain home throughout the years. Now she is pushing 60, no job prospects, no marketable skills—she damn well deserves alimony. He benefited from few responsibilities at home and liked it that way. Fortunately, he agrees and will do the right thing by this woman he is throwing away because he wants to feel young again.

How in the world does a 60 yo woman have an underage child?! And how could this child be so young and needy as to prevent her from working? If she has more than 50% custody, she would be getting child support and she should go get damned job. Being a SAHM is a benefit of marriage: that ends when the marriage ends.

At 60, she (and her ex-husband both) should be nearing retirement..... when both would live off their retirement assets... that were already split 50/50 upon divorce. In other words, neither one would have any income, neither would deserve (or be able to pay) alimony, both are living off their retirement...and they have equal retirement.

As to all those benefits he received while they were married: why do you think he should provide ongoing benefits to her (alimony) while she has ceased providing any benefits to him?

If (if) any alimony is deserved, the law should require her to work an equal number of hours per week as her alimony-paying ex-husband. Oh and the day she retires from work, he too can retire (and stop paying alimony). Anything else would be totally unfair to him.

The man in this instance has no interest in retirement. He loves his work and plans to continue indefinitely--so retirement won't be touched and likely left for children. With regard to nearing 60 and still having a child at home--happens all the time. Last child at 42 and and 56-58 --easy. He definitely believes he should pay alimony so it is non-issue here. He knows he benefited from her being home so he could pursue his career. Not all men are assholes.

It's not "being an asshole" to expect your able-bodied ex spouse to have a freeking job, rather than living off the continued hard work of a former husband. In fact, I would argue the opposite: SHE is the asshole to not be working fulltime like any other normal person does (including her ex husband).

He agreed for her to stay home. She is not an asshole for not working full-time. Many people don't work full time. She stayed home to raise their kids, which is equally if not more valuable than working given they can afford it. Would it be better to have two working parents whom the kids don't see? Why have kids a that point. Assuming he cheated, he failed their marriage contract, not her and he should support her life long. There is a huge difference getting divorced at 30 and at 60.

His agreement that she stay home was in exchange for some supposed benefits that she was providing that enabled him to succeed in his career (or so that’s the prevailing argument in favor of alimony). But those benefits to him ended when the marriage ended. You can’t continue to hold him accountable to that agreement: she is no longer providing any benefits to him.

Kids are in school most of the day so why isn’t she working fulltime? Only wealthy people, or married people who provide mutual support, have the luxury of choosing for one spouse to not work a full time job. She isn’t married or rich so she does not deserve the option to not work full time at his expense.



His cheating is irrelevant. Courts don’t care about that and you don’t know his reasons, perhaps she no longer wanted sex.

Cheating is relevant and counts to his character. So, its ok a man just decides to up and cheat/divorce and should not be accountable for his prior obligations to his family.

There are plenty of things she can be doing during the day when kids are at school. Kids are not at school year round, get sick, holidays, etc. A real man wouldn't cheat on his wife and abandon his family. So yes he should be held accountable. Just like a woman who cheats and leaves for her AP should not be entitled to alimony as let the new man care for her. And, if he's working that much, he probably isn't that active with the kids or does anything for the house. Depending on her income, a nanny and housekeeping could cost a lot more. And, in our case, my taking care of his mom... its not always that easy to replace a spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

You are missing a major point which is that she chose to sacrifice those things.

Yes! And she did so knowing the very publicly available laws- which assured her alimony.

He presumably did as well.

Marriage is a contract. Those are some of its terms risks and rewards. They entered into marriage willingly. Who is anyone then to say taking what they are legally entitled to is showing “no pride”? It’s the fulfillment of the terms of a voided contract.

The law is changing, and not in alimony's favor. Look, if you have no issue being subsidized by someone who doesn't love or respect you, that's on you. I personally wouldn't ever put myself in that situation. Revenge is a life lived well, and all that. Does his new wife drop off the check too? *shudder

I will make $275k this year and I negotiated an incontestable alimony schedule in exchange for limiting the duration to only 3 of the 8 years I was due. I bet on myself succeeding in that time and I banked every dime I got as alimony. It’s going directly into college savings for the kids, since he emptied theirs.
He isn’t remarried, he is an addict.

I appreciate that you would not put yourself in that situation. Revenge is indeed a life lived well- but when you haven’t worked in some time and you have kids and you are trying to keep some semblance of normalcy - rather than being thrust immediately into daycare I could transition into a job that worked as a single mom as I have custody.

Look if it’s not for you that’s totally fine and I get it. I just get the sense that you find alimony a moral issue. I don’t, I see it as simple contract law. Everyone has a different risk tolerance why should I care about yours as it doesn’t affect me in any way?

How is this relevant given you are a high earner? Why would you even get alimony on that income?

Because I wasn’t working and hadn’t worked for over a decade when I finally got him out. I used alimony as a helpful and earned bridge to get me back into the workforce.
You must deny severance packages at work as well. I wouldn’t. It’s just a different perspective but it’s silly to paint all women and all situations with one brush. Yes alimony is changing but it’s because there are less long term sahp and custody is trending more towards 50/50.

I can tell you as a long term sahm with custody it was helpful. It’s not easy to go from unemployed to providing for multiple kids and yourself and trying to maintain the kids standard of living. Let’s not pretend alimony is waning because the concept is “gross” or intended for women with “no pride”. It isn’t. It’s rehabilitative. It’s severance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increased child support in a SAHP situation? Totally agree with that.

But when I got divorced I knew I’d have to adjust my standard of living. That was part of the territory that came with getting divorced and I knew that. Same for anyone else, even a SAHP who hasn’t worked in awhile. Sure you won’t be able to afford some things, even like a new suit or going for a dinner date with friends. I couldn’t afford those things for awhile. But I worked and I chose an apartment that was within the means of my salary. I couldn’t afford cable. That was okay. I didn’t expect an ex to subsidize my freaking Netflix. I did without, until I could afford to do with. Stop freeloading.

A man is better off paying alimony as there are tax breaks for him paying alimony that he doesn't get with child support.

Not after Jan 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

You are missing a major point which is that she chose to sacrifice those things.

Yes! And she did so knowing the very publicly available laws- which assured her alimony.

He presumably did as well.

Marriage is a contract. Those are some of its terms risks and rewards. They entered into marriage willingly. Who is anyone then to say taking what they are legally entitled to is showing “no pride”? It’s the fulfillment of the terms of a voided contract.

The law is changing, and not in alimony's favor. Look, if you have no issue being subsidized by someone who doesn't love or respect you, that's on you. I personally wouldn't ever put myself in that situation. Revenge is a life lived well, and all that. Does his new wife drop off the check too? *shudder

I will make $275k this year and I negotiated an incontestable alimony schedule in exchange for limiting the duration to only 3 of the 8 years I was due. I bet on myself succeeding in that time and I banked every dime I got as alimony. It’s going directly into college savings for the kids, since he emptied theirs.
He isn’t remarried, he is an addict.

I appreciate that you would not put yourself in that situation. Revenge is indeed a life lived well- but when you haven’t worked in some time and you have kids and you are trying to keep some semblance of normalcy - rather than being thrust immediately into daycare I could transition into a job that worked as a single mom as I have custody.

Look if it’s not for you that’s totally fine and I get it. I just get the sense that you find alimony a moral issue. I don’t, I see it as simple contract law. Everyone has a different risk tolerance why should I care about yours as it doesn’t affect me in any way?

How is this relevant given you are a high earner? Why would you even get alimony on that income?

Because I wasn’t working and hadn’t worked for over a decade when I finally got him out. I used alimony as a helpful and earned bridge to get me back into the workforce.
You must deny severance packages at work as well. I wouldn’t. It’s just a different perspective but it’s silly to paint all women and all situations with one brush. Yes alimony is changing but it’s because there are less long term sahp and custody is trending more towards 50/50.

I can tell you as a long term sahm with custody it was helpful. It’s not easy to go from unemployed to providing for multiple kids and yourself and trying to maintain the kids standard of living. Let’s not pretend alimony is waning because the concept is “gross” or intended for women with “no pride”. It isn’t. It’s rehabilitative. It’s severance.

Your post is indecipherable because you conflate 2 completely different concepts: alimony =/= child support
I can’t get a single clear thing from above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

You are missing a major point which is that she chose to sacrifice those things.

Yes! And she did so knowing the very publicly available laws- which assured her alimony.

He presumably did as well.

Marriage is a contract. Those are some of its terms risks and rewards. They entered into marriage willingly. Who is anyone then to say taking what they are legally entitled to is showing “no pride”? It’s the fulfillment of the terms of a voided contract.

The law is changing, and not in alimony's favor. Look, if you have no issue being subsidized by someone who doesn't love or respect you, that's on you. I personally wouldn't ever put myself in that situation. Revenge is a life lived well, and all that. Does his new wife drop off the check too? *shudder

I will make $275k this year and I negotiated an incontestable alimony schedule in exchange for limiting the duration to only 3 of the 8 years I was due. I bet on myself succeeding in that time and I banked every dime I got as alimony. It’s going directly into college savings for the kids, since he emptied theirs.
He isn’t remarried, he is an addict.

I appreciate that you would not put yourself in that situation. Revenge is indeed a life lived well- but when you haven’t worked in some time and you have kids and you are trying to keep some semblance of normalcy - rather than being thrust immediately into daycare I could transition into a job that worked as a single mom as I have custody.

Look if it’s not for you that’s totally fine and I get it. I just get the sense that you find alimony a moral issue. I don’t, I see it as simple contract law. Everyone has a different risk tolerance why should I care about yours as it doesn’t affect me in any way?

Most women are not in your situation where they will make $275K after being a SAHP. At best, I'd make $40K.

[Anonymous]

Yes but you knew that when you decided to stay at home. Either way you should have rehabilative maintenamce and find a way to earn more money, or else become adept at downsizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend going through a divirce. She is almost 60-one child still underage and living at home. She has been married for over 30 years. Quit work over 20 years ago when they started a family as husband worked insanely long hours in Big Law—as husband wanted her to do. It worked best fir the family and for his career fir her to remain home throughout the years. Now she is pushing 60, no job prospects, no marketable skills—she damn well deserves alimony. He benefited from few responsibilities at home and liked it that way. Fortunately, he agrees and will do the right thing by this woman he is throwing away because he wants to feel young again.

How in the world does a 60 yo woman have an underage child?! And how could this child be so young and needy as to prevent her from working? If she has more than 50% custody, she would be getting child support and she should go get damned job. Being a SAHM is a benefit of marriage: that ends when the marriage ends.

At 60, she (and her ex-husband both) should be nearing retirement..... when both would live off their retirement assets... that were already split 50/50 upon divorce. In other words, neither one would have any income, neither would deserve (or be able to pay) alimony, both are living off their retirement...and they have equal retirement.

As to all those benefits he received while they were married: why do you think he should provide ongoing benefits to her (alimony) while she has ceased providing any benefits to him?

If (if) any alimony is deserved, the law should require her to work an equal number of hours per week as her alimony-paying ex-husband. Oh and the day she retires from work, he too can retire (and stop paying alimony). Anything else would be totally unfair to him.

The man in this instance has no interest in retirement. He loves his work and plans to continue indefinitely--so retirement won't be touched and likely left for children. With regard to nearing 60 and still having a child at home--happens all the time. Last child at 42 and and 56-58 --easy. He definitely believes he should pay alimony so it is non-issue here. He knows he benefited from her being home so he could pursue his career. Not all men are assholes.

It's not "being an asshole" to expect your able-bodied ex spouse to have a freeking job, rather than living off the continued hard work of a former husband. In fact, I would argue the opposite: SHE is the asshole to not be working fulltime like any other normal person does (including her ex husband).

He agreed for her to stay home. She is not an asshole for not working full-time. Many people don't work full time. She stayed home to raise their kids, which is equally if not more valuable than working given they can afford it. Would it be better to have two working parents whom the kids don't see? Why have kids a that point. Assuming he cheated, he failed their marriage contract, not her and he should support her life long. There is a huge difference getting divorced at 30 and at 60.

His agreement that she stay home was in exchange for some supposed benefits that she was providing that enabled him to succeed in his career (or so that’s the prevailing argument in favor of alimony). But those benefits to him ended when the marriage ended. You can’t continue to hold him accountable to that agreement: she is no longer providing any benefits to him.

Kids are in school most of the day so why isn’t she working fulltime? Only wealthy people, or married people who provide mutual support, have the luxury of choosing for one spouse to not work a full time job. She isn’t married or rich so she does not deserve the option to not work full time at his expense.



His cheating is irrelevant. Courts don’t care about that and you don’t know his reasons, perhaps she no longer wanted sex.

Cheating is relevant and counts to his character. So, its ok a man just decides to up and cheat/divorce and should not be accountable for his prior obligations to his family.

There are plenty of things she can be doing during the day when kids are at school. Kids are not at school year round, get sick, holidays, etc. A real man wouldn't cheat on his wife and abandon his family. So yes he should be held accountable. Just like a woman who cheats and leaves for her AP should not be entitled to alimony as let the new man care for her. And, if he's working that much, he probably isn't that active with the kids or does anything for the house. Depending on her income, a nanny and housekeeping could cost a lot more. And, in our case, my taking care of his mom... its not always that easy to replace a spouse.

Practically speaking, you are wrong that cheating is relevant.

During the day she should have a job like all normal people who aren’t wealthy. Being an ex wife does not entitle her to not support herself by working for a living. If her wages are inefficient, that may be augmented by some limited duration spousal support while she gets established. Your ideas on divorce are about 40 years dated. Please don’t offer any advice, other than they should see a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

This is why being a SAHP is a scam. Do it for a couple years when they're really little and then GO BACK TO WORK. AAH is not a viable career option and when your spouse leaves you or dies and you claim they "made" you stop working, you look like the fool you are.

My husband could leave me or die tomorrow. No way in hell was I going to or myself and my kids at risk by staying home well imo their school hears and having no skills, no income, and no way to support us should that (God forbid) ever come to pass.

You choose to leave the workforce and pretend cleaning your kitchen and volunteering at the PTA and making appointments is a career, you do so at your own detriment, as many people in this thread are illustrating.

[Anonymous]

No woman should quit work to stay home and take care of the kids without a post-nup. That's just common sense.