SAHM friend divorcing against her will

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

pretty sure she can find a job even at that age, just not a high paying one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

'Nearly 50' is not that old. And how would any job know she's a cancer survivor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

pretty sure she can find a job even at that age, just not a high paying one.

And the fact that she can't find a high paying one because she gave up her career to take care of his family is precisely why alimony and settlements exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless there is something illegal in the prenup, 3 days is plenty of time.

Don't be ridiculous. 3 days in advance of a wedding that has been planned and paid for and all your friends and family are aware of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

pretty sure she can find a job even at that age, just not a high paying one.

And the fact that she can't find a high paying one because she gave up her career to take care of his family is precisely why alimony and settlements exist.

I mean yeah, unless you stupidly ALSO sign a pre-nup. I hope it gets thrown out. Don't get me wrong. But she had ample opportunity to help herself here too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

pretty sure she can find a job even at that age, just not a high paying one.

And the fact that she can't find a high paying one because she gave up her career to take care of his family is precisely why alimony and settlements exist.

Yup. I know DCUM professional women think it’s feminist to hate on SAHMs, but this woman can’t just magically start supporting herself and her kid even with a college degree. Her husband used her and is attempting to screw her over, and I hope she takes him to the cleaners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

'Nearly 50' is not that old. And how would any job know she's a cancer survivor?

Most cancer survivors need a lot of follow-up care and appointments, i.e. a lot of sick days or other time off.

And “not that old” means different things when you’re talking about employment versus human longevity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC CUM jumping to conclusions w/limited facts. Per usual...

Exactly! We don’t know if the wife was a jerk and her husband is divorcing because of that or the husband could straight up an a..hole. We have no idea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow. I hope karma gets that man. Big hugs to your friend.

Sure. But OPs friend needs to take some responsibility here. The pre nup should have been a red flag to not make her life 100% dependent on him.

+1. plus unless the child has SN, there is really no reason a woman with a college education does not work at all if she does not have her own money. I can see a situation where the H makes tons of money and is busy and the kid has lots of activities and both parents make the decision to have the mother stay home to keep the home front working and organized while the H is busy at work. but the joint decision must be reflected in protections for the wife (i.e. significant life insurance if H dies, savings and assets that are also in her name and so on). when somebody tells you even before the marriage that what he has is his and that he does not intend to pay alimony if he leaves you, you better believe him and either move on, or get and keep a good job for yourself. OP's friend will need a very good health insurance being a cancer survivor.

Np. What is wrong with you people???

I completely agree with PP. That's how mature adults think and prepare.

So her ex should live large while taxpayers support the woman who raised his children...

You and the PP with whom you are agreeing are not mature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She had one attorney tell her that she can get the prenup thrown out.

Another told her she won’t get alimony and she’ll be responsible for her daughter’s expenses.

So she is getting a lot of conflicting information.

My question is: Is it unwise to choose an attorney that over promises? Can that drag out the divorce and make it more expensive? If you’ve gone through this, how would you advise her?

She should not choose on promised outcomes. Promising outcomes is a red flag. She should go with an attorney who makes her feel comfortable, who thoroughly explains the basis for his asserts and the various factors that will be explored by the courts.

From what you wrote her, I like the first attorney better, because he said the prenup "can" get thrown out. He's right. It can. Doesn't mean it will be, but it's possible.

I don't like that the second attorney is making categorical statements like "won't" get alimony or "will" have to pay for DD's expenses. Those statements seem extreme and unlikely.

However, I recognize that the attorneys relayed information to your friend, who relayed it to you, who is summarizing it for a message board, so it may not accurate reflect what was said.

So, I would look at what exactly they said.

I would expect the first attorney asked questions about whether the prenup was signed under duress, whether the bride had it reviewed by an attorney, whether that attorney was affiliated with the groom's attorney, and who paid for her attorney. I would expect him to have asked if the prenup just says she gets nothing, or if it had a structure where the amount she gets depends on the length of marriage or other factors. If he asked those questions and took that into account and explained what state law says and the reasons he believes it can be thrown out, I would be satisfied, but I would also expect that he explained what happens if it isn't thrown out and what the default expectations would be for a marital settlement.

For the second attorney, I would have expected him to explain why he does not believe she would get alimony. Is it because that's what it says in the prenup or is it because the state does not mandate it or some other reason. And what type of lump sum settlement or division of assets does he anticipate, if there is no alimony? I would want to know what "daughter's expenses" means. Is he saying she won't get child support because the ex-husband will get 50/50 or full custody? Is he saying that she will get child support, but that it will not cover additional funds for optional expenses like dance lessons? Or does he mean private school tuition (which in my state, a parent can be mandated to pay)? Again, would want to pay attention to the questions he's asking, how he explains, what the contingencies are if it does not go that way.

I am a lawyer and this is one of the most thoughtful posts I have seen on DCUM.

Also, +100 to the bolded. Legal advice is nuanced and tailored to specific facts and circumstances and the advice and related conditions/facts/variables can often be conflated by non-lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

pretty sure she can find a job even at that age, just not a high paying one.

And the fact that she can't find a high paying one because she gave up her career to take care of his family is precisely why alimony and settlements exist.

Yup. I know DCUM professional women think it’s feminist to hate on SAHMs, but this woman can’t just magically start supporting herself and her kid even with a college degree. Her husband used her and is attempting to screw her over, and I hope she takes him to the cleaners.

Well what do you call someone in this predicament? She kind of did it to herself. I would tell a SAH dad the same thing though. It's just not wise to put all of your eggs in one basket. I hope she gets alimony and the assets she deserves though.

[Anonymous]

I think your friend is probably (understandably) traumatized and spiraling, which is why she needs a lawyer who will sit her down and talk to her using words she can her, or she needs a friend to go with her and take notes.

I agree with the above regarding the pre-nup. Maybe it gets thrown out, maybe not, but she and her STBX made a joint decision to have her stay home while he earned money, and presumably a joint decision to build/buy a certain house and enroll the child in a certain school.

The courts will weigh that heavily, regardless of what happens to the pre-marital assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

pretty sure she can find a job even at that age, just not a high paying one.

And the fact that she can't find a high paying one because she gave up her career to take care of his family is precisely why alimony and settlements exist.

Yup. I know DCUM professional women think it’s feminist to hate on SAHMs, but this woman can’t just magically start supporting herself and her kid even with a college degree. Her husband used her and is attempting to screw her over, and I hope she takes him to the cleaners.

+1 I feel for her. That’s so tragic.

I don’t feel for the SAHMs I know that had no illnesses or disabilities and chose to have multiple affairs and get served. If you are in a situation depending on 100% financial support from a spouse you are a giant dumb@ss to betray that hand that feeds you and puts a roof over your head by banging other people—-have time for that yet no time to pitch in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow. I hope karma gets that man. Big hugs to your friend.

Sure. But OPs friend needs to take some responsibility here. The pre nup should have been a red flag to not make her life 100% dependent on him.

+1. plus unless the child has SN, there is really no reason a woman with a college education does not work at all if she does not have her own money. I can see a situation where the H makes tons of money and is busy and the kid has lots of activities and both parents make the decision to have the mother stay home to keep the home front working and organized while the H is busy at work. but the joint decision must be reflected in protections for the wife (i.e. significant life insurance if H dies, savings and assets that are also in her name and so on). when somebody tells you even before the marriage that what he has is his and that he does not intend to pay alimony if he leaves you, you better believe him and either move on, or get and keep a good job for yourself. OP's friend will need a very good health insurance being a cancer survivor.

Np. What is wrong with you people???

I completely agree with PP. That's how mature adults think and prepare.

So her ex should live large while taxpayers support the woman who raised his children...

You and the PP with whom you are agreeing are not mature.

How in the world did you get THAT from what we said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is college educated and thus there is no reason she shouldn't have a full time job. If he died she'd get a job.

You’re delusional. She is a nearly 50 year old cancer survivor. Jobs don’t actually grow on trees; it will be very difficult if not impossible for her to find gainful employment.

pretty sure she can find a job even at that age, just not a high paying one.

And the fact that she can't find a high paying one because she gave up her career to take care of his family is precisely why alimony and settlements exist.

Yup. I know DCUM professional women think it’s feminist to hate on SAHMs, but this woman can’t just magically start supporting herself and her kid even with a college degree. Her husband used her and is attempting to screw her over, and I hope she takes him to the cleaners.

+1 I feel for her. That’s so tragic.

I don’t feel for the SAHMs I know that had no illnesses or disabilities and chose to have multiple affairs and get served. If you are in a situation depending on 100% financial support from a spouse you are a giant dumb@ss to betray that hand that feeds you and puts a roof over your head by banging other people—-have time for that yet no time to pitch in.

Presumably she signed the prenup and decided to stay at home way before she got diagnosed with cancer. IF she was employed, she would have had long term insurance and FMLA while she recovered.