Wait until Spouse has job to initiate divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let this be a warning to you men thinking about marriage: 1) women file for divorce when the money runs out, and 2) even if you (the man) are the primary caregiver your wife is still going to sue for full custody.

Here's hoping that OP's DH has some extra cash squirreled away so he can hire a good lawyer.

Kids are in school/child care. He is not a full time caretaker. He stays at home but regardless of if he is in the house or not she needs the same care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, talk to an attorney. For alimony and custody issues, it's one thing if the non-working parent is a dedicated SAHP providing substantial care to the children in lieu of holding a job. In your case, it sounds like the kids are in school/daycare all day, and most of his time with them is what would be after-work hours anyway. If it's been his choice not to look for more work, that will change the picture for alimony significantly. Alimony isn't meant to support someone who just doesn't feel like getting a job, it's meant to support a spouse who left the workforce (or took reduced hours) in order to be home and care for the family (and thus the other spouse in their career), and now will need time to get fully back into the workforce at a liveable wage.

All I can tell you is what my lawyer told me in Montgomery County: it does not matter that your DW sits on the couch all day and watches TV, it does not matter that you make breakfast for the kids and walk them to school because DW won't get out of bed, it does not matter that you help them with their homework and make dinner every night, it does not matter that you take them to every doctor and dentist appointment and every extracurricular. Your DW is still going to say she is the SAH parent and will win in court on that point. I only got shared custody because she was dumb enough to take my offer.

OP's DH is a modern hero to men. He's doing to a woman what they've been doing to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, talk to an attorney. For alimony and custody issues, it's one thing if the non-working parent is a dedicated SAHP providing substantial care to the children in lieu of holding a job. In your case, it sounds like the kids are in school/daycare all day, and most of his time with them is what would be after-work hours anyway. If it's been his choice not to look for more work, that will change the picture for alimony significantly. Alimony isn't meant to support someone who just doesn't feel like getting a job, it's meant to support a spouse who left the workforce (or took reduced hours) in order to be home and care for the family (and thus the other spouse in their career), and now will need time to get fully back into the workforce at a liveable wage.

All I can tell you is what my lawyer told me in Montgomery County: it does not matter that your DW sits on the couch all day and watches TV, it does not matter that you make breakfast for the kids and walk them to school because DW won't get out of bed, it does not matter that you help them with their homework and make dinner every night, it does not matter that you take them to every doctor and dentist appointment and every extracurricular. Your DW is still going to say she is the SAH parent and will win in court on that point. I only got shared custody because she was dumb enough to take my offer.

OP's DH is a modern hero to men. He's doing to a woman what they've been doing to us.

PP did you have to pay alimony and if you two owned a house were you required to buy her out or give her portion of the proceeds from the sale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, talk to an attorney. For alimony and custody issues, it's one thing if the non-working parent is a dedicated SAHP providing substantial care to the children in lieu of holding a job. In your case, it sounds like the kids are in school/daycare all day, and most of his time with them is what would be after-work hours anyway. If it's been his choice not to look for more work, that will change the picture for alimony significantly. Alimony isn't meant to support someone who just doesn't feel like getting a job, it's meant to support a spouse who left the workforce (or took reduced hours) in order to be home and care for the family (and thus the other spouse in their career), and now will need time to get fully back into the workforce at a liveable wage.

All I can tell you is what my lawyer told me in Montgomery County: it does not matter that your DW sits on the couch all day and watches TV, it does not matter that you make breakfast for the kids and walk them to school because DW won't get out of bed, it does not matter that you help them with their homework and make dinner every night, it does not matter that you take them to every doctor and dentist appointment and every extracurricular. Your DW is still going to say she is the SAH parent and will win in court on that point. I only got shared custody because she was dumb enough to take my offer.

OP's DH is a modern hero to men. He's doing to a woman what they've been doing to us.

I have heard of a situation where that didn't happen, but the divorcing spouse was able to show years of documented agreements (emails, journal entries, etc.) that the nonworking spouse agreed to return to work but did nothing, and also receipts for childcare showing the kids were in fulltime childcare. From what I heard it took careful planning with a divorce attorney. The working spouse was meticulous in documentation, keeping a detailed log of tasks done for years.

Bottom line is that OP needs to consult a good attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let this be a warning to you men thinking about marriage: 1) women file for divorce when the money runs out, and 2) even if you (the man) are the primary caregiver your wife is still going to sue for full custody.

Here's hoping that OP's DH has some extra cash squirreled away so he can hire a good lawyer.

Women file for divorce when men don't have a job. Male unemployment is the number 1 predictor of divorce. Women don't like to be married to unemployed men. Is this honestly shocking to you?

And yet it's expected that men are supposed to devote their lives and finances to unemployed women?

THIS

Lol what?!?! Who said that?

Everyone on this board advocating that the SAHM is providing equal services in a marriage...LOL. I mean it sounds like this dad is doing the exact thing many of the moms here do, a) no job for 5-10 years CHECK, b) no ambitions outside the home after babies are born CHECK, c) No gainful income CHECK, and d) slaving over all the kids when really their children are in school and daycare for 4-6 hours a day CHECK.

So tell me...what's different here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a term among catholics called "cafeteria catholics." I'm not sure if there is a similar term among feminists who are feminists of convenience.

I see OP has responded. And, in fairness, I wouldn't want to be with someone who hasn't worked for 6 years. Other posters are just pointing out that women routinely do this and don't re-enter the workforce long after the kids are in school all day.

Cafeteria Catholic here. We don't all accept somebody else's determination of faith as exactly what we want. Nor do feminists all believe exactly the same thing. Your feminism may not be MY feminism.

That doesn't make you a feminist of convenience. I means you have autonomy.

If my spouse was willfully un- or under-employed for 6 years I'd also be upset. An, yes, I'm a feminist.

[Anonymous]

I know someone who got their wife, a lifelong SAHM, a job and then dumped her.

[Anonymous]

If you are perfectly functioning board-certified MD but choose to be a barista, you don't get to say that you get calculated on barista wages.

OP, you will probably have to have your DH undergo an occupational evaluation. The court will have to approve the "expert" and the report. The report will be used in court to determine DH's earning capacity, what jobs and salary he is qualified for. That will be what the $$ is based off of.

It is used for SAH alimony as well, if they have not worked in order to care for the family - the court will rule based on what their expected earnings capacity is if they were not SAH. Then there will be a period of time given for them to transition to that job/salary that they're qualified for.

But you will probably need a good lawyer to have it be done well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone on this board advocating that the SAHM is providing equal services in a marriage...LOL. I mean it sounds like this dad is doing the exact thing many of the moms here do, a) no job for 5-10 years CHECK, b) no ambitions outside the home after babies are born CHECK, c) No gainful income CHECK, and d) slaving over all the kids when really their children are in school and daycare for 4-6 hours a day CHECK.

So tell me...what's different here?

Beautiful.

It's not a one-size fits all approach, and you know it. It's what the couple AGREED to. If the couple agreed to one parenting staying at home, that's the agreement they made, not "the exact thing many of the moms here do." Staying at home is perfectly acceptable as long as it's what was agreed to and neither parent is changing the rules mid-game. So a dad can't agree for the mom to stay at home and then gripe about it later. Similarly, if the couple agreed they would both work and then one stays at home against the wishes of the other parent, that's B.S.

Sounds like that's what happened here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone on this board advocating that the SAHM is providing equal services in a marriage...LOL. I mean it sounds like this dad is doing the exact thing many of the moms here do, a) no job for 5-10 years CHECK, b) no ambitions outside the home after babies are born CHECK, c) No gainful income CHECK, and d) slaving over all the kids when really their children are in school and daycare for 4-6 hours a day CHECK.

So tell me...what's different here?

Beautiful.

It's not a one-size fits all approach, and you know it. It's what the couple AGREED to. If the couple agreed to one parenting staying at home, that's the agreement they made, not "the exact thing many of the moms here do." Staying at home is perfectly acceptable as long as it's what was agreed to and neither parent is changing the rules mid-game. So a dad can't agree for the mom to stay at home and then gripe about it later. Similarly, if the couple agreed they would both work and then one stays at home against the wishes of the other parent, that's B.S.

Sounds like that's what happened here.

Good luck getting that "agreement" enforced by the court. My crazy exDW tried the same thing. No such agreement ever existed (verbal or written), she insisted it did, and the court didn't listen to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, talk to an attorney. For alimony and custody issues, it's one thing if the non-working parent is a dedicated SAHP providing substantial care to the children in lieu of holding a job. In your case, it sounds like the kids are in school/daycare all day, and most of his time with them is what would be after-work hours anyway. If it's been his choice not to look for more work, that will change the picture for alimony significantly. Alimony isn't meant to support someone who just doesn't feel like getting a job, it's meant to support a spouse who left the workforce (or took reduced hours) in order to be home and care for the family (and thus the other spouse in their career), and now will need time to get fully back into the workforce at a liveable wage.

All I can tell you is what my lawyer told me in Montgomery County: it does not matter that your DW sits on the couch all day and watches TV, it does not matter that you make breakfast for the kids and walk them to school because DW won't get out of bed, it does not matter that you help them with their homework and make dinner every night, it does not matter that you take them to every doctor and dentist appointment and every extracurricular. Your DW is still going to say she is the SAH parent and will win in court on that point. I only got shared custody because she was dumb enough to take my offer.

OP's DH is a modern hero to men. He's doing to a woman what they've been doing to us.

PP did you have to pay alimony and if you two owned a house were you required to buy her out or give her portion of the proceeds from the sale?

It was negotiated so I did much better than what the court might have done to me. 50-50 shared custody, I pay significant child support to her because her income is zero, house refinanced and she got half the equity, and I pay alimony for six years but it can't be revisited. She wanted a quicker divorce (she filed) and a big payout up-front so that she can follow her dreams of travel to Europe and India.

In 10 years she will be 61, with no job, no child support, no alimony, no health care, and no real retirement beyond taking Social Security off of my earnings (half my benefit, about $1,200 a month). Her only hope is to find another man who doesn't mind a dirty house, no dinner, and a wife who lives on the couch with the TV on 12 hours a day.

She still isn't working and the children have been the biggest losers in this because there is no money for their college, even if they go in-state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who got their wife, a lifelong SAHM, a job and then dumped her.

That's a win-win situation. How can one be a lifelong SAH parent?? How do you look in the mirror?

Female here (if it matters).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone on this board advocating that the SAHM is providing equal services in a marriage...LOL. I mean it sounds like this dad is doing the exact thing many of the moms here do, a) no job for 5-10 years CHECK, b) no ambitions outside the home after babies are born CHECK, c) No gainful income CHECK, and d) slaving over all the kids when really their children are in school and daycare for 4-6 hours a day CHECK.

So tell me...what's different here?

Beautiful.

It's not a one-size fits all approach, and you know it. It's what the couple AGREED to. If the couple agreed to one parenting staying at home, that's the agreement they made, not "the exact thing many of the moms here do." Staying at home is perfectly acceptable as long as it's what was agreed to and neither parent is changing the rules mid-game. So a dad can't agree for the mom to stay at home and then gripe about it later. Similarly, if the couple agreed they would both work and then one stays at home against the wishes of the other parent, that's B.S.

Sounds like that's what happened here.

Good luck getting that "agreement" enforced by the court. My crazy exDW tried the same thing. No such agreement ever existed (verbal or written), she insisted it did, and the court didn't listen to her.

I wasn't referring to what's admissible or enforceable in court. I'm talking about the dynamics of a relationship, being a decent human being and what the above PP was referring to in terms of "advocating for SAHMs."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not a one-size fits all approach, and you know it. It's what the couple AGREED to. If the couple agreed to one parenting staying at home, that's the agreement they made, not "the exact thing many of the moms here do." Staying at home is perfectly acceptable as long as it's what was agreed to and neither parent is changing the rules mid-game. So a dad can't agree for the mom to stay at home and then gripe about it later. Similarly, if the couple agreed they would both work and then one stays at home against the wishes of the other parent, that's B.S.

What about "agreed to" under duress? When the DW decides she's ready to stay home and starts pitching a massive conniption fit if it doesn't happen then I wouldn't call that "agreed to" but I bet most women would. And I bet a lot of SAHMs accidentally got fired and that was the start of the SAH part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a one-size fits all approach, and you know it. It's what the couple AGREED to. If the couple agreed to one parenting staying at home, that's the agreement they made, not "the exact thing many of the moms here do." Staying at home is perfectly acceptable as long as it's what was agreed to and neither parent is changing the rules mid-game. So a dad can't agree for the mom to stay at home and then gripe about it later. Similarly, if the couple agreed they would both work and then one stays at home against the wishes of the other parent, that's B.S.

What about "agreed to" under duress? When the DW decides she's ready to stay home and starts pitching a massive conniption fit if it doesn't happen then I wouldn't call that "agreed to" but I bet most women would. And I bet a lot of SAHMs accidentally got fired and that was the start of the SAH part.

Agreed to = agreed to. Seriously, you can't understand what an agreement is without making stupid comments? If this is your situation, I suggest you pick a person better suited to you next time around. You're the one who married her.