Predicting spousal support

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married 20 years and got alimony for 10 years, until youngest was 16. The decision we made TOGETHER for me to do majority of parenting was honored. Also got over 50% of his retirement and full ownership of home.
Aim high.

Are you working?

She worked for 20 years raising kids which he didn’t want to do. Now she’s retired.
Is she supposed to work till 90 yo while her ex retires ? That’s not how it works

Correct. Divorce laws recognize this in the United States. They don't always get it right, but there is usually an attempt to. For the trolls on these message boards saying otherwise, I'm not sure what their issue is or why they find it necessary to harass people and what benefit they're getting out of it. It is beyond bizarre and unproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

STOP THIS MISOGYNISTIC BS. IT’S SO GOD DAMNED TIRED.

Yes, accountability is misogyny. You go girl!

You’re the idiots they tell you not to argue with on the internet. I hope you don’t live here so I don’t have to breathe in the stench of your ignorant hatred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

Whatever. She’s an UMC American woman with all of the career options in the world. I’m sure that she doesn’t have a job that she hates or considers never ending drudgery.
It’s not like she’s some Indian guy making $5 an hour pretending to be your girlfriend on OnlyFans.

Mmmhmmm, coulda, woulda shoulda. We know, you were headed for the C-Suite in a Fortune 500, but mean ol' husband derailed your brilliance and made you stay home instead.

This right here is why women are done with men. You all suck. You are dumb, selfish, and completely unwilling to learn. Get bent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

How does Dad get compensated for the time and relationship he gave up with his children? I think of my own DH who did give up career opportunities when our kids were young to coach their sports teams by limiting travel and work dinners. He had to manage his schedule to do take on his share of pick ups/drop offs/ doc appts. All of this has made him an equal parent to me and the kids turn to both of us when they need stuff as college kids. I think he would have lost a lot if he didn’t put in the work to build this relationship with them (which didn’t actually come naturally to him). I am not unsympathetic to the argument that women who stayed home gave up opportunities for the family and should be acknowledged in a divorce. But how do you calculate the effect on the other spouse?

If you were sharing parenting duties like that, you probably wouldn’t be awarded alimony in a divorce. Alimony is designed to compensate spouses who gave up careers to do unpaid labor at home.

If only it was that easy. Going to court to argue the percentage one contributed to parenting is risky. It’s too subjective. The cost of court is too high and the outcome is too unpredictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

NP here. Let’s put it this way - his work requirements created undue burden on me. For instance, he could never be depended on to pick up on time for child care. Or stay home for a sick day. Or get them to a dr appt - even scheduled in advance. Any time I had to make a commitment to attend something out of town or after hours - I had to find the support. It gets old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

100%. I actually gave up advancement opportunities and great jobs for my family, but still worked a lot so my ex could be a SAHM. The posters on here seem to think providing fiscally and working are a vacation from the family instead of the reason a family can exist. I was unappreciated our entire marriage, never cheated and didn’t micromanage her in any way. She cheated during the day and it didn’t matter at all in court. I love my kids, but seeing them is limited, so marriage was the dumbest decision I ever made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

100%. I actually gave up advancement opportunities and great jobs for my family, but still worked a lot so my ex could be a SAHM. The posters on here seem to think providing fiscally and working are a vacation from the family instead of the reason a family can exist. I was unappreciated our entire marriage, never cheated and didn’t micromanage her in any way. She cheated during the day and it didn’t matter at all in court. I love my kids, but seeing them is limited, so marriage was the dumbest decision I ever made.

Cheating is abhorrent. I am sorry that she did that to you. I have never and would never cheat. I do not have the capacity for that kind of deception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

I was married for three years in my late 20's/early 30's, I worked way harder than my spouse, they sacrificed nothing for my career and I still did all the cleaning and taking care of the dog. We never had kids because, obviously. I had to pay alimony in Fairfax County because I out-earned him. It was ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also leads to a bigger question that I actually was debating with my DH earlier today. I don't think a DH leaves his family and wife who wants the marriage to remain intact unless he has something or someone waiting in the wings. This is where the fidelity issue comes in or the fact that something was going on that the family wasn't aware of which could help with leverage in any settlement.

The only non-infidelity story I’ve hear is my one.

Mine left after he decided he wanted to retire at 55 without telling me. Then I got cc’ed on meeting notes from a conversation he had with our joint finanical advisor who said our retirement savings were off track and he would have to do x, y and z to sustain us through retirement if he wanted to be done at 55.

Instead, exDH apparently spent a week doing the math, realized that he could retire at 55 if he cut me loose after a major raise he was anticipating, and filed a few weeks before that raise would hit. Not sure how other jurisdictions do it but in mine, income after filing date is the earners’ and no longer marital.

Highly effective retirement savings strategy, btw.

I call BS. Were you somehow a major drain on finances that divorcing and retiring would be cheaper than just retiring? Or did he intend to divorce all along, and just picked the optimal moment for him to do so? I am a primary breadwinner, and I don’t see how divorcing and giving up part of our joint assets could make my retirement more affordable.

No BS, I wish. It may have been his intention for a while but I’ll never know. Our assets were relatively compared to his salary potential. Otherwise you’re right that it wouldn’t make sense. He walked out at an inflection point.

We had also paused contributions at a higher rate and contributed the minimum for 18 months to move liquidity into buying a house he really wanted, with the plan to increase contributions after the purchase.

I believe that when he looked at the reality of investing for two versus investing for one and saw an excuse to sell the house (which he thought he wanted but was overwhelmed by) without exposing that he couldn’t handle it, and then had his promotion track confirmed, it dawned on him that he had a face-saving way out of the entire situation.

PP. it’s still a crazy story. I don’t think you are lying, but he most likely was contemplating a divorce for a while. I mean, even ignoring all the logistical and emotional benefits of staying married, from the financial standpoint, it’s definitely better to stay married unless a spouse somehow triggers costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it's scary. I'm sorry. Consult a few well-respected lawyers. They'll know better than us.

I'm in VA and I've shared this before on here. Keep in mind my ex offered this. He makes close to 7 figures and has a lot clients who have divorced. He said that anything over 16 or 17 years usually gets lifetime alimony so he just offered it -- we were married just shy of 20 years when we separated.

$10k/month lifetime alimony
$2.5k/month child support for two kids, drops to $1.8k for one
$4k month paying off my mortgage

Plus my half of the assets, some of which are rental properties that will some day make good money (but right now all the equity is sucked out by loans my ex took out -- he was always borrowing from Peter to pay Paul)

You've been married 20 years and he makes 10x as much as you do. I really don't believe a judge is going to tell you to suck it up. You are the poster child for spousal support. Fight for the support you have earned by investing in this marriage. Don't listen to the noise that is designed to make you keep sweet and obey. You were involved in a business arrangement -- marriage -- and there is a standard way to dissolve this that honors your non-monetary contributions.

I think it’s disgusting that a minor child, unable to work and with whom he shares blood, is entitled to only a quarter of the entitlement of a grown adult who could be working but chooses not to. I’m embarrassed for these women.

If you think that this mom spends 10k on herself and only 2,500 on her child, then you don’t understand how moms work.

But the alimony is indefinite. So kid leaves for college and mom still banks $10k a month. Your view is exactly why alimony shouldn’t exist, at least not beyond child rearing years. That is, if we think mom is spending a chunk of the alimony on raising kids then she doesn’t need it once they’re gone.

How would a 55 year old woman who hasn't worked in 30 years support herself? Do you want to support her thru taxes with welfare so her DH can live it up?

If she provided such an invaluable job in the household, I’m sure she’ll have no problem transitioning to a high paid role where she can be appropriately compensated for her work. /s

I for example have been out of workforce for 20 years. I'm highly educated, but couldn't climb the career ladder the same as DH as I was an immigrant when we got married. Then we had kids. I cannot get a job because I have no references. I'm not divorced but if I end up so, it'd be very difficult to join the workforce and actually get hired. I have tried. Absolutely nobody is willing to hire me without references. I mean an actual job that requires skills and education, not washing dishes or being a cashier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

How does Dad get compensated for the time and relationship he gave up with his children? I think of my own DH who did give up career opportunities when our kids were young to coach their sports teams by limiting travel and work dinners. He had to manage his schedule to do take on his share of pick ups/drop offs/ doc appts. All of this has made him an equal parent to me and the kids turn to both of us when they need stuff as college kids. I think he would have lost a lot if he didn’t put in the work to build this relationship with them (which didn’t actually come naturally to him). I am not unsympathetic to the argument that women who stayed home gave up opportunities for the family and should be acknowledged in a divorce. But how do you calculate the effect on the other spouse?

Why do you assume they aren’t? Working has nothing to do with that as it depends on the job and person. If they choose not to, that was their choice.

Well most of the arguments for alimony are based on the spouse giving up her job prospects to do all the parenting and household tasks that frees the Dad up to focus exclusively on career. Yes, it’s a choice both parties make and it isn’t without risks to either. Moms lose their earning power and Dads don’t build the relationships they could have. I actually think the latter is a bigger tragedy.

I believe that 50/50 custody split, 50% of marital property and retirement accounts, child support, funding college plans at the same rate as prior to divorce, agreement on protecting children’s inheritance through trusts, and some time limited spousal support should be markers of high net worth couple divorces. I have a hard time getting to indefinite alimony, absent a post nup agreement. Both adults know the risks they took.

Kids aren't entitled to inhertances.

No of course they are not. But if divorcing spouses can agree on inheritances for their joint kids, I think it’s a great time to get the agreement on paper.

You choose who you want your inheritance to go to and he do his. We are married and that’s what we did after each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

Because they do. My DH has never taken kids to doctors, any other appointments, parent-teacher conferences, any school functions, sport practices, nothing at all. Doesn't know teachers, coaches, doctors. Has never met any. Doesn't cook nor clean, has no idea about house management, repairs, taxes, mortgage. One of our kids got accepted to gifted program and I had to drive them to-and-from as this wasn't covered by a school bus. When kids were little, he regularly stayed in his office until 11 pm so that he didn't have to do anything. I wish I didn't get married and had a career instead as I did before getting married! No, I didn't know nor did we agree that everything will to be done by me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Married 20 years and got alimony for 10 years, until youngest was 16. The decision we made TOGETHER for me to do majority of parenting was honored. Also got over 50% of his retirement and full ownership of home.
Aim high.

depends if your degree was considered that you are eligible to get a reliable job. In my case that was the reason and I was able to save paying for spousal support because she had Masters degree and chose not to work even when parenting wasn't a major responsibility and kids are out of house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

STOP THIS MISOGYNISTIC BS. IT’S SO GOD DAMNED TIRED.

Sorry the truth hurts. Most of these women would work dead end retail jobs for the rest of their lives.