Does alimony still happen in VA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand that not working could be a marital perk if the marriage does not produce offspring.

However if one spouse quits his/her career in order to remain @home, providing all the childcare, then I see this as a disadvantage rather than an actual “perk.”

Leaving the work force does not bode well for anyone.
Doing so leaves a gap on your resume + it is not easy later on when you re-enter.

Plus daily childcare is a lot more work than working outside of the home.
Caring for little ones is a ton of mental/physical energy which can be very taxing on anyone.
Plus the loss of personal satisfaction along w/the isolated lifestyle may not be for everyone.

That being said, I do acknowledge that each + every situation will be completely different.

A non-working spouse is only possible during marriage due to the mutual support. My wife cleans and folds my underwear, cooks dinner, and other things I can't mention on non-explicit. Would you expect the courts to force her to do those post divorce? If not, why shouldn't she get a job? Is it fair that all of my support ends, but hers continue?

In your scenario, alimony would be awarded to allow that non-working person to get back into the workforce and become self supporting. You seem to conflate the purpose of alimony with that of child support. Everybody loses personal satisfaction, and lifestyles change during a divorce.

When one spouse is at home, the other spouse is able to be much more devoted to work pursuits than when both spouses are working paid jobs. The spouse being paid can be much more successful in the career than if that spouse did not have the other spouse taking care of everything at home. The spouse at home has given up career possibilities for the good of the family while the spouse being paid has been able to continue to enjoy career progression.

After 30 years, the spouse who has enjoyed greater career success in part because of the unpaid work done by the at home spouse should provide some kind of compensation to the at home spouse. The at home spouse will never be able to reach the same kind of career success as the paid spouse because of the long amount of time of unpaid work at home. The at home spouse will be at the bottom rung of the career ladder and will also be facing age discrimination, so it is only right for that spouse to receive compensation.

[Anonymous]

Yes my friend got it. Married under 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of her education, she will need to get a job. To “not work” is a perk of marriage that goes away when the marriage ends.

Even if she hasn’t worked for 30 years and has kids at home? That seems like precedent.

Hasn't worked in 30 years and still has kids under 18 means she's been a lazy grubber all her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand that not working could be a marital perk if the marriage does not produce offspring.

However if one spouse quits his/her career in order to remain @home, providing all the childcare, then I see this as a disadvantage rather than an actual “perk.”

Leaving the work force does not bode well for anyone.
Doing so leaves a gap on your resume + it is not easy later on when you re-enter.

Plus daily childcare is a lot more work than working outside of the home.
Caring for little ones is a ton of mental/physical energy which can be very taxing on anyone.
Plus the loss of personal satisfaction along w/the isolated lifestyle may not be for everyone.

That being said, I do acknowledge that each + every situation will be completely different.

A non-working spouse is only possible during marriage due to the mutual support. My wife cleans and folds my underwear, cooks dinner, and other things I can't mention on non-explicit. Would you expect the courts to force her to do those post divorce? If not, why shouldn't she get a job? Is it fair that all of my support ends, but hers continue?

In your scenario, alimony would be awarded to allow that non-working person to get back into the workforce and become self supporting. You seem to conflate the purpose of alimony with that of child support. Everybody loses personal satisfaction, and lifestyles change during a divorce.

When one spouse is at home, the other spouse is able to be much more devoted to work pursuits than when both spouses are working paid jobs. The spouse being paid can be much more successful in the career than if that spouse did not have the other spouse taking care of everything at home. The spouse at home has given up career possibilities for the good of the family while the spouse being paid has been able to continue to enjoy career progression.

After 30 years, the spouse who has enjoyed greater career success in part because of the unpaid work done by the at home spouse should provide some kind of compensation to the at home spouse. The at home spouse will never be able to reach the same kind of career success as the paid spouse because of the long amount of time of unpaid work at home. The at home spouse will be at the bottom rung of the career ladder and will also be facing age discrimination, so it is only right for that spouse to receive compensation.

I would say having someone else pay all your bills for 30 years is pretty good compensation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of her education, she will need to get a job. To “not work” is a perk of marriage that goes away when the marriage ends.

Even if she hasn’t worked for 30 years and has kids at home? That seems like precedent.

Hasn't worked in 30 years and still has kids under 18 means she's been a lazy grubber all her life.

What if she just kept having kids? That might not be your life choice, but that doesn't exactly suggest lazy, quite the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand that not working could be a marital perk if the marriage does not produce offspring.

However if one spouse quits his/her career in order to remain @home, providing all the childcare, then I see this as a disadvantage rather than an actual “perk.”

Leaving the work force does not bode well for anyone.
Doing so leaves a gap on your resume + it is not easy later on when you re-enter.

Plus daily childcare is a lot more work than working outside of the home.
Caring for little ones is a ton of mental/physical energy which can be very taxing on anyone.
Plus the loss of personal satisfaction along w/the isolated lifestyle may not be for everyone.

That being said, I do acknowledge that each + every situation will be completely different.

A non-working spouse is only possible during marriage due to the mutual support. My wife cleans and folds my underwear, cooks dinner, and other things I can't mention on non-explicit. Would you expect the courts to force her to do those post divorce? If not, why shouldn't she get a job? Is it fair that all of my support ends, but hers continue?

In your scenario, alimony would be awarded to allow that non-working person to get back into the workforce and become self supporting. You seem to conflate the purpose of alimony with that of child support. Everybody loses personal satisfaction, and lifestyles change during a divorce.

When one spouse is at home, the other spouse is able to be much more devoted to work pursuits than when both spouses are working paid jobs. The spouse being paid can be much more successful in the career than if that spouse did not have the other spouse taking care of everything at home. The spouse at home has given up career possibilities for the good of the family while the spouse being paid has been able to continue to enjoy career progression.

After 30 years, the spouse who has enjoyed greater career success in part because of the unpaid work done by the at home spouse should provide some kind of compensation to the at home spouse. The at home spouse will never be able to reach the same kind of career success as the paid spouse because of the long amount of time of unpaid work at home. The at home spouse will be at the bottom rung of the career ladder and will also be facing age discrimination, so it is only right for that spouse to receive compensation.

You're dreaming. Once the kids are in school what would you be doing for the rest of the 30 years?

Agree with PP, if someone else is paying your rent, food and all other expenses for 30 years, why would you expect more compensation than that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of her education, she will need to get a job. To “not work” is a perk of marriage that goes away when the marriage ends.

ourt
Even if she hasn’t worked for 30 years and has kids at home? That seems like precedent.

Hasn't worked in 30 years and still has kids under 18 means she's been a lazy grubber all her life.

What if she just kept having kids? That might not be your life choice, but that doesn't exactly suggest lazy, quite the contrary.

You see that all the time in family law court--divorces involving 30-year marriages with 7 kids, each child spaced 4 years apart. Lawyers wouldn't be able to vacation in Hawaii if it weren't for the abundance of those sorts of cases.

[Anonymous]

My brother (who makes mid 150s) pays 5k/ m in alimony to his ex, who badically worked and they did not have kids. He never anticipated her not working, always tried to help her get a job ,(she thought sas too good for the jobs she was qualified for, quit iinternshis etc. He even supported her tgru 2 grad programs, etc, while she found herself with the hopes she would get a career started....instead. She is walking away with half the marital.assets (500k) plus alimony of undetermined length(they are in CA and the marriage was 10 yrs so counts as long term).I find it shocking, she's getting more than many ppl get in child support and for what? She basically got a free ride for a decade and will continue to....

[Anonymous]

If he makws mid 150s, he is not able to pay 5k a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My brother (who makes mid 150s) pays 5k/ m in alimony to his ex, who badically worked and they did not have kids. He never anticipated her not working, always tried to help her get a job ,(she thought sas too good for the jobs she was qualified for, quit iinternshis etc. He even supported her tgru 2 grad programs, etc, while she found herself with the hopes she would get a career started....instead. She is walking away with half the marital.assets (500k) plus alimony of undetermined length(they are in CA and the marriage was 10 yrs so counts as long term).I find it shocking, she's getting more than many ppl get in child support and for what? She basically got a free ride for a decade and will continue to....

I know if a similar situation. He has a pretty trophy wife who is still finding herself in her early thirties. He likes the power and control of having a wife who isnt earnung money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand that not working could be a marital perk if the marriage does not produce offspring.

However if one spouse quits his/her career in order to remain @home, providing all the childcare, then I see this as a disadvantage rather than an actual “perk.”

Leaving the work force does not bode well for anyone.
Doing so leaves a gap on your resume + it is not easy later on when you re-enter.

Plus daily childcare is a lot more work than working outside of the home.
Caring for little ones is a ton of mental/physical energy which can be very taxing on anyone.
Plus the loss of personal satisfaction along w/the isolated lifestyle may not be for everyone.

That being said, I do acknowledge that each + every situation will be completely different.

A non-working spouse is only possible during marriage due to the mutual support. My wife cleans and folds my underwear, cooks dinner, and other things I can't mention on non-explicit. Would you expect the courts to force her to do those post divorce? If not, why shouldn't she get a job? Is it fair that all of my support ends, but hers continue?

In your scenario, alimony would be awarded to allow that non-working person to get back into the workforce and become self supporting. You seem to conflate the purpose of alimony with that of child support. Everybody loses personal satisfaction, and lifestyles change during a divorce.

When one spouse is at home, the other spouse is able to be much more devoted to work pursuits than when both spouses are working paid jobs. The spouse being paid can be much more successful in the career than if that spouse did not have the other spouse taking care of everything at home. The spouse at home has given up career possibilities for the good of the family while the spouse being paid has been able to continue to enjoy career progression.

After 30 years, the spouse who has enjoyed greater career success in part because of the unpaid work done by the at home spouse should provide some kind of compensation to the at home spouse. The at home spouse will never be able to reach the same kind of career success as the paid spouse because of the long amount of time of unpaid work at home. The at home spouse will be at the bottom rung of the career ladder and will also be facing age discrimination, so it is only right for that spouse to receive compensation.

You're dreaming. Once the kids are in school what would you be doing for the rest of the 30 years?

Agree with PP, if someone else is paying your rent, food and all other expenses for 30 years, why would you expect more compensation than that?

When a couple divides their duties up so one works outside the home for pay and rhe other does the work of home and family for no pay, the one working outside the home has the advantage of not needing to worry about the details of the care and maintenance of the home life. That partner doesn't have to buy or cook food, doesn't have to meet the repair person, doesn't have to stay home with sick children, and doesn't have to drive children to after school lessons and teams. Sure, the partner who works for pay can be invoked with any or all of these activities, but never needs to worry about them when something is pressing at work. Being able to focus on career without distraction can be a big contribution to success in that career.

People who divide the duties of home and family in this way don't think of it as one person paying for everything. They see it as both partners doing the work necessary to live their lives and both make valuable contributions. The partner working for pay has more career success because of the contributions of the partner doing the work at home. The partner who has worked for 30 years without pay and contributed to the success of the partner with a paying job should receive some recognition and compensation for those contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand that not working could be a marital perk if the marriage does not produce offspring.

However if one spouse quits his/her career in order to remain @home, providing all the childcare, then I see this as a disadvantage rather than an actual “perk.”

Leaving the work force does not bode well for anyone.
Doing so leaves a gap on your resume + it is not easy later on when you re-enter.

Plus daily childcare is a lot more work than working outside of the home.
Caring for little ones is a ton of mental/physical energy which can be very taxing on anyone.
Plus the loss of personal satisfaction along w/the isolated lifestyle may not be for everyone.

That being said, I do acknowledge that each + every situation will be completely different.

A non-working spouse is only possible during marriage due to the mutual support. My wife cleans and folds my underwear, cooks dinner, and other things I can't mention on non-explicit. Would you expect the courts to force her to do those post divorce? If not, why shouldn't she get a job? Is it fair that all of my support ends, but hers continue?

In your scenario, alimony would be awarded to allow that non-working person to get back into the workforce and become self supporting. You seem to conflate the purpose of alimony with that of child support. Everybody loses personal satisfaction, and lifestyles change during a divorce.

When one spouse is at home, the other spouse is able to be much more devoted to work pursuits than when both spouses are working paid jobs. The spouse being paid can be much more successful in the career than if that spouse did not have the other spouse taking care of everything at home. The spouse at home has given up career possibilities for the good of the family while the spouse being paid has been able to continue to enjoy career progression.

After 30 years, the spouse who has enjoyed greater career success in part because of the unpaid work done by the at home spouse should provide some kind of compensation to the at home spouse. The at home spouse will never be able to reach the same kind of career success as the paid spouse because of the long amount of time of unpaid work at home. The at home spouse will be at the bottom rung of the career ladder and will also be facing age discrimination, so it is only right for that spouse to receive compensation.

You're dreaming. Once the kids are in school what would you be doing for the rest of the 30 years?

Agree with PP, if someone else is paying your rent, food and all other expenses for 30 years, why would you expect more compensation than that?

When a couple divides their duties up so one works outside the home for pay and rhe other does the work of home and family for no pay, the one working outside the home has the advantage of not needing to worry about the details of the care and maintenance of the home life. That partner doesn't have to buy or cook food, doesn't have to meet the repair person, doesn't have to stay home with sick children, and doesn't have to drive children to after school lessons and teams. Sure, the partner who works for pay can be invoked with any or all of these activities, but never needs to worry about them when something is pressing at work. Being able to focus on career without distraction can be a big contribution to success in that career.

People who divide the duties of home and family in this way don't think of it as one person paying for everything. They see it as both partners doing the work necessary to live their lives and both make valuable contributions. The partner working for pay has more career success because of the contributions of the partner doing the work at home. The partner who has worked for 30 years without pay and contributed to the success of the partner with a paying job should receive some recognition and compensation for those contributions.

But you're assuming the SAHP did all of those things to enable the working parent to focus on his/her career. That's not always the case, nor is it always the case that it's really what both spouses want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand that not working could be a marital perk if the marriage does not produce offspring.

However if one spouse quits his/her career in order to remain @home, providing all the childcare, then I see this as a disadvantage rather than an actual “perk.”

Leaving the work force does not bode well for anyone.
Doing so leaves a gap on your resume + it is not easy later on when you re-enter.

Plus daily childcare is a lot more work than working outside of the home.
Caring for little ones is a ton of mental/physical energy which can be very taxing on anyone.
Plus the loss of personal satisfaction along w/the isolated lifestyle may not be for everyone.

That being said, I do acknowledge that each + every situation will be completely different.

A non-working spouse is only possible during marriage due to the mutual support. My wife cleans and folds my underwear, cooks dinner, and other things I can't mention on non-explicit. Would you expect the courts to force her to do those post divorce? If not, why shouldn't she get a job? Is it fair that all of my support ends, but hers continue?

In your scenario, alimony would be awarded to allow that non-working person to get back into the workforce and become self supporting. You seem to conflate the purpose of alimony with that of child support. Everybody loses personal satisfaction, and lifestyles change during a divorce.

When one spouse is at home, the other spouse is able to be much more devoted to work pursuits than when both spouses are working paid jobs. The spouse being paid can be much more successful in the career than if that spouse did not have the other spouse taking care of everything at home. The spouse at home has given up career possibilities for the good of the family while the spouse being paid has been able to continue to enjoy career progression.

After 30 years, the spouse who has enjoyed greater career success in part because of the unpaid work done by the at home spouse should provide some kind of compensation to the at home spouse. The at home spouse will never be able to reach the same kind of career success as the paid spouse because of the long amount of time of unpaid work at home. The at home spouse will be at the bottom rung of the career ladder and will also be facing age discrimination, so it is only right for that spouse to receive compensation.

You're dreaming. Once the kids are in school what would you be doing for the rest of the 30 years?

Agree with PP, if someone else is paying your rent, food and all other expenses for 30 years, why would you expect more compensation than that?

When a couple divides their duties up so one works outside the home for pay and rhe other does the work of home and family for no pay, the one working outside the home has the advantage of not needing to worry about the details of the care and maintenance of the home life. That partner doesn't have to buy or cook food, doesn't have to meet the repair person, doesn't have to stay home with sick children, and doesn't have to drive children to after school lessons and teams. Sure, the partner who works for pay can be invoked with any or all of these activities, but never needs to worry about them when something is pressing at work. Being able to focus on career without distraction can be a big contribution to success in that career.

People who divide the duties of home and family in this way don't think of it as one person paying for everything. They see it as both partners doing the work necessary to live their lives and both make valuable contributions. The partner working for pay has more career success because of the contributions of the partner doing the work at home. The partner who has worked for 30 years without pay and contributed to the success of the partner with a paying job should receive some recognition and compensation for those contributions.

But you're assuming the SAHP did all of those things to enable the working parent to focus on his/her career. That's not always the case, nor is it always the case that it's really what both spouses want.

Of course every family is different, but the above is true for most of the families I know with this division of duties. I do think that it is the more common situation, especially for people in their 50s or 60s.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of how long the marriage, or how many kids were raised, or how long out of the work force...both spouses should at least have a full time job!!!

It is totally unfair and not moral for one spouse to remain jobless and live off alimony. Thank god these archaic laws are being abolished and reformed!!

Women, don’t stay home. Get a job. Support yourself in marriage because you will need that after divorce
M

[Anonymous]

Curious, is it true you can get lifetime alimony in VA? Is that actually a thing in practice?