Staying together for kids, do you plan for future?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm staying together for the kids, but also for me.

The reality is, I want to see the kids every day, I want to see them every holiday, put them to bed at night and cuddle with them in the morning. Missing those moments is not something I'd choose to do. I don't want a "stepmother" I don't know raising my kids for part of the time (a total possibility if you divorce). I also like what a combined income affords us and consider that to be part of making my life content and comfortable.

Our kids see us all enjoying times together. We still laugh at each others jokes when they're funny, and enjoy a hug, cuddle or more when the mood strikes. We're friends and as long as there is peace, it is enough.

I don't know what will happen when the kids leave, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Now, if we were mortal enemies shouting at each other every day that would be a different story, and of course not good for the kids to see. But the idea that that a marriage has to be all or nothing just isn't true.

Smart person. Absolutely, if you both have common goals and get along reasonably well it's never going to be better in a 2nd marriage. What a lot of people aren't able to see is it will also go down to the grand kids. I'd rather have my family under one roof, or go to one house for the holidays. I can't tell you how many people I know in second marriages that rarely see the grand kids. Too many exes involved, new unwanted steps, or half children. For the few cases I've seen work out, the vast majority does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was 13 when my parents divorced and my brother was 19, and already away at college. It was MUCH harder for him to deal with in the following 10 years, than it was for me. His home life essentially blew up when he wasn't there, and he only occasionally came home to see the mess. It was awkward and uncomfortable for him for way longer than it was for me. Because I got it over with.

This isn't to say it was painless. But there was a certain type of pain of having his childhood home no longer there when he was still very much trying to find his way. He got married 10 years later, and he was very unsure how to treat my father's new wife, because he'd barely spent time with her. Meanwhile, I saw her all the time and had already dealt with some of my discomfort with her presence years earlier.

You don't really get to skip the hard part of divorce. And waiting to do it when your kids don't get to witness it is not a guarantee of smooth sailing. It may be FOR YOU, so you don't have to share custody. But it brings up an entirely new set of emotional issues for your grown children, that you shouldn't ignore if you hope to have a positive relationship with them while they are in the 20s. If you mess it up, you can damage the relationship for their adulthood, which some would argue is the best time of your life.

If you are going to be good co-parents, show your kids how to do that now. Don't wait.

Yes! This is exactly what I wanted to say. Especially during Freshman year at college. When you drop them off that first semester, your 18 year old expects to come to the same room/same family situation at thanksgiving and christmas.

Also, you should generally be on the same page as your spouse. Pretty shitty to realize your husband/wife has been faking your marriage for the past X years, waiting for your kids high school diploma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

Believe me whatever your income is, it's going to be a big hit in many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

Oh, and let me put in in perspective for you. The amount of my former savings is the exact same amount as my mortgage. College and retirement savings the same. I have to be a little careful buying frivolous purchases. That is pretty much it. The true only additional expense in the divorce is this: ultitlies for a second home (I was paying my own health insurance, my own car payment, my own car insurance, my own cell phone bill--and his actually--during my marriage). So, my extra financial cost of divorce? That is my cable bill, my water bill, my electric bill and gas bill. We are talkiing about $350 a month. That is $4200 a year. This is not a major financial set back. At all. For women who worked their entire marriage, it is just spiltting money differently rather than the huge financial loss people think it is. It is not like I was not working the entire time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

Believe me whatever your income is, it's going to be a big hit in many ways.

Well, it it hasn't happened at all, and it is has been a year already. You don't know what you talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

You still don't get it. everything I was saving is literally going into a mortgage which is actually better than sitting in a savings account. No, I am not saving in general at the same rate because it was in savings, but the money was just sitting there. But I can make a profit off a house. I can't make a profit on .5 interest in a high-yield savings. I am saving the same for college, the same for retirement. My point is, if both spouses were working the entire marriage, the financial impact can be minimal. My kids don't have less...they have exactly the same as they always did--plus another house. Yes, it is a little more expensive overall but who cares? I was in a terrible marriage that never should have happened to begin with and I stayed way too long. I paid in years. A little more expense is nothing. I am never remarrying or living with another person. I would rather be free now than waste more years. Money is not everything.

No, you still don't get it. Your situation is unusual. It only works if you are both working, both making good money, and both saving significantly during the course of the marriage. (I don't care whether you have those savings in cash, the market, or being put towards a mortgage. That's irrelevant here.)

You have the luxury of saying a "little more expense is nothing." That's not true for most people.

Now, that doesn't mean they should necessarily stay in a marriage, even with the financial sacrifices that come with divorce. That's especially true if a marriage is "terrible," as you describe your marriage. But it does no good to pretend that most people facing divorce won't have to make financial sacrifices and will find themselves worse off financially.

Most people in this area or dual income families working professionals. It also does not make sense for you to espouse an idea of divorce that may have been common 10-20 years ago but that is not the case now. There will be some financial impact, but for many people it is not what you fear it to be. If the financial impact is minimal, which it can be in a lot of cases in areas like this, divorce is not that bad. I am not exceedingly wealthy. I do okay. I work for a nonprofit and have my entire career. But I have also saved since I was 21 and lived below my means. Don't assume other divorces are not like this. I know a few. And I was never saying I was like most people...what I was doing is trying to stop people from making the ridiculous assumption that a divorce is this disaster you portrayed it to be in your ridiculous list. This is not the 1980s or the 1990s.

And many, if not most, dual income professional families in this area need both incomes to maintain their lifestyle. This is a very expensive area that doesn't allow lots of duel earning families to save considerable amounts, or put differently most duel income families don't have the discipline to save significant amounts because of the desire to live a lifestyle commensurate with two working professionals. Most people have not been saving since they are 21 and living significantly below their means.

The more you try to present yourself as typical, the more you are showing that your situation is fairly unique. It's great for you that you had the forethought and discipline to save as you have, but most people haven't and most people don't now have the flexibility you do.

What I am saying has next to nothing to do with the 80s or 90s. I am talking about current realities for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm staying together for the kids, but also for me.

The reality is, I want to see the kids every day, I want to see them every holiday, put them to bed at night and cuddle with them in the morning. Missing those moments is not something I'd choose to do. I don't want a "stepmother" I don't know raising my kids for part of the time (a total possibility if you divorce). I also like what a combined income affords us and consider that to be part of making my life content and comfortable.

Our kids see us all enjoying times together. We still laugh at each others jokes when they're funny, and enjoy a hug, cuddle or more when the mood strikes. We're friends and as long as there is peace, it is enough.

I don't know what will happen when the kids leave, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Now, if we were mortal enemies shouting at each other every day that would be a different story, and of course not good for the kids to see. But the idea that that a marriage has to be all or nothing just isn't true.

Men don't just sit around patiently for their platonic room mate's mood to strike. So have you met his girlfriend, or you prefer a DADT arrangement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--does your spouse know you are only staying for the kids? Is this is a mutual agreement? I imagine no future topics should come up if you are planning a divorce anyway. (Also, your spouse might not be okay "staying for the kids" if you plan to leave later.) If you want our plan to work (stay for the kids and not have your spouse be upset by it), I would not discuss the future at all. I think this attitude is very unfair to your spouse, by the way, if they are not in agreement. You are wasting years of their life.

Well, we have a dead bedroom, sleep in separate rooms and barely speak to each other. So I kind of assume that could be the only reason we're still together. I've tried to discuss amicably divorcing, or how this type of dysfunction could play out over the long run but they're not very communicative.

I feel like even if I want to stay for the kids, how would that work if we can't discuss the future, particularly thinking about things like retirement?

When you get a divorce you get half his retirement and he gets half of yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

Oh, and let me put in in perspective for you. The amount of my former savings is the exact same amount as my mortgage. College and retirement savings the same. I have to be a little careful buying frivolous purchases. That is pretty much it. The true only additional expense in the divorce is this: ultitlies for a second home (I was paying my own health insurance, my own car payment, my own car insurance, my own cell phone bill--and his actually--during my marriage). So, my extra financial cost of divorce? That is my cable bill, my water bill, my electric bill and gas bill. We are talkiing about $350 a month. That is $4200 a year. This is not a major financial set back. At all. For women who worked their entire marriage, it is just spiltting money differently rather than the huge financial loss people think it is. It is not like I was not working the entire time.

Okay, so your savings is taking the hit. You are still down 24k a year because of the divorce. Yes, your house might be accruing interest, but it's a sunk cost until you sell. Your income stayed the same, your savings went down, your expenses went up. Like 99.9% of all divorces. Not that special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm staying together for the kids, but also for me.

The reality is, I want to see the kids every day, I want to see them every holiday, put them to bed at night and cuddle with them in the morning. Missing those moments is not something I'd choose to do. I don't want a "stepmother" I don't know raising my kids for part of the time (a total possibility if you divorce). I also like what a combined income affords us and consider that to be part of making my life content and comfortable.

Our kids see us all enjoying times together. We still laugh at each others jokes when they're funny, and enjoy a hug, cuddle or more when the mood strikes. We're friends and as long as there is peace, it is enough.

I don't know what will happen when the kids leave, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Now, if we were mortal enemies shouting at each other every day that would be a different story, and of course not good for the kids to see. But the idea that that a marriage has to be all or nothing just isn't true.

Smart person. Absolutely, if you both have common goals and get along reasonably well it's never going to be better in a 2nd marriage. What a lot of people aren't able to see is it will also go down to the grand kids. I'd rather have my family under one roof, or go to one house for the holidays. I can't tell you how many people I know in second marriages that rarely see the grand kids. Too many exes involved, new unwanted steps, or half children. For the few cases I've seen work out, the vast majority does not.

It can be done. My ex and I make sure to be flexible but also available during the whole year, and for holidays. We attend all big grandkid functions together. It’s what mature people do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

You still don't get it. everything I was saving is literally going into a mortgage which is actually better than sitting in a savings account. No, I am not saving in general at the same rate because it was in savings, but the money was just sitting there. But I can make a profit off a house. I can't make a profit on .5 interest in a high-yield savings. I am saving the same for college, the same for retirement. My point is, if both spouses were working the entire marriage, the financial impact can be minimal. My kids don't have less...they have exactly the same as they always did--plus another house. Yes, it is a little more expensive overall but who cares? I was in a terrible marriage that never should have happened to begin with and I stayed way too long. I paid in years. A little more expense is nothing. I am never remarrying or living with another person. I would rather be free now than waste more years. Money is not everything.

No, you still don't get it. Your situation is unusual. It only works if you are both working, both making good money, and both saving significantly during the course of the marriage. (I don't care whether you have those savings in cash, the market, or being put towards a mortgage. That's irrelevant here.)

You have the luxury of saying a "little more expense is nothing." That's not true for most people.

Now, that doesn't mean they should necessarily stay in a marriage, even with the financial sacrifices that come with divorce. That's especially true if a marriage is "terrible," as you describe your marriage. But it does no good to pretend that most people facing divorce won't have to make financial sacrifices and will find themselves worse off financially.

Most people in this area or dual income families working professionals. It also does not make sense for you to espouse an idea of divorce that may have been common 10-20 years ago but that is not the case now. There will be some financial impact, but for many people it is not what you fear it to be. If the financial impact is minimal, which it can be in a lot of cases in areas like this, divorce is not that bad. I am not exceedingly wealthy. I do okay. I work for a nonprofit and have my entire career. But I have also saved since I was 21 and lived below my means. Don't assume other divorces are not like this. I know a few. And I was never saying I was like most people...what I was doing is trying to stop people from making the ridiculous assumption that a divorce is this disaster you portrayed it to be in your ridiculous list. This is not the 1980s or the 1990s.

And many, if not most, dual income professional families in this area need both incomes to maintain their lifestyle. This is a very expensive area that doesn't allow lots of duel earning families to save considerable amounts, or put differently most duel income families don't have the discipline to save significant amounts because of the desire to live a lifestyle commensurate with two working professionals. Most people have not been saving since they are 21 and living significantly below their means.

The more you try to present yourself as typical, the more you are showing that your situation is fairly unique. It's great for you that you had the forethought and discipline to save as you have, but most people haven't and most people don't now have the flexibility you do.

What I am saying has next to nothing to do with the 80s or 90s. I am talking about current realities for most people.

Look...I am going to tell you something else that makes me not like most people. My parents did not pay for college when they had the money to. I had to take out private loans to pay for college. I could not get federal aid. I had $70,000 in student debt at age 21 finishing with a BA in the late 1990s! That was unheard of. I had no parental help my entire adult life. I decided to work 3 jobs for 12 years to pay that debt off and pay that debt off my by early 30s. At 21, I decided to max out my retirement so I would never be poor as an older woman. My situation was far from ideal from most people in this area from that perspective too. If people are not living below their means and being smart while they are single or married, of course they could have a major financial setback. But many people I know are not this stupid. They work. They save. And that makes a divorce easier, of course. But don't make that old fashioned point of "you are going to be financially ruined forever" or "you are going to be fighting over the kids schedules and drama!" I know of more logical divorces like mine that that ones you point out. Yes, I had to give up a bigger house. Who cares? If the marriage is bad, it is worth it, and it is not always the worst-case scenario you put on this board. If one spouse is working and makes good money OR if both parents are working the entire marriage, it is splitting money differently rather than a drastic loss. I do not feel sorry for people who are not financially responsible in their life that would put them (possibly) in the worst-case scenario you describe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--does your spouse know you are only staying for the kids? Is this is a mutual agreement? I imagine no future topics should come up if you are planning a divorce anyway. (Also, your spouse might not be okay "staying for the kids" if you plan to leave later.) If you want our plan to work (stay for the kids and not have your spouse be upset by it), I would not discuss the future at all. I think this attitude is very unfair to your spouse, by the way, if they are not in agreement. You are wasting years of their life.

Well, we have a dead bedroom, sleep in separate rooms and barely speak to each other. So I kind of assume that could be the only reason we're still together. I've tried to discuss amicably divorcing, or how this type of dysfunction could play out over the long run but they're not very communicative.

I feel like even if I want to stay for the kids, how would that work if we can't discuss the future, particularly thinking about things like retirement?

When you get a divorce you get half his retirement and he gets half of yours.

We both agreed not to touch each other’s retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

Oh, and let me put in in perspective for you. The amount of my former savings is the exact same amount as my mortgage. College and retirement savings the same. I have to be a little careful buying frivolous purchases. That is pretty much it. The true only additional expense in the divorce is this: ultitlies for a second home (I was paying my own health insurance, my own car payment, my own car insurance, my own cell phone bill--and his actually--during my marriage). So, my extra financial cost of divorce? That is my cable bill, my water bill, my electric bill and gas bill. We are talkiing about $350 a month. That is $4200 a year. This is not a major financial set back. At all. For women who worked their entire marriage, it is just spiltting money differently rather than the huge financial loss people think it is. It is not like I was not working the entire time.

Okay, so your savings is taking the hit. You are still down 24k a year because of the divorce. Yes, your house might be accruing interest, but it's a sunk cost until you sell. Your income stayed the same, your savings went down, your expenses went up. Like 99.9% of all divorces. Not that special.

I am not down 24k a year. I have my own property. It's mine. I'm free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--does your spouse know you are only staying for the kids? Is this is a mutual agreement? I imagine no future topics should come up if you are planning a divorce anyway. (Also, your spouse might not be okay "staying for the kids" if you plan to leave later.) If you want our plan to work (stay for the kids and not have your spouse be upset by it), I would not discuss the future at all. I think this attitude is very unfair to your spouse, by the way, if they are not in agreement. You are wasting years of their life.

Well, we have a dead bedroom, sleep in separate rooms and barely speak to each other. So I kind of assume that could be the only reason we're still together. I've tried to discuss amicably divorcing, or how this type of dysfunction could play out over the long run but they're not very communicative.

I feel like even if I want to stay for the kids, how would that work if we can't discuss the future, particularly thinking about things like retirement?

When you get a divorce you get half his retirement and he gets half of yours.

We both agreed not to touch each other’s retirement.

Same here. They were close to even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm staying together for the kids, but also for me.

The reality is, I want to see the kids every day, I want to see them every holiday, put them to bed at night and cuddle with them in the morning. Missing those moments is not something I'd choose to do. I don't want a "stepmother" I don't know raising my kids for part of the time (a total possibility if you divorce). I also like what a combined income affords us and consider that to be part of making my life content and comfortable.

Our kids see us all enjoying times together. We still laugh at each others jokes when they're funny, and enjoy a hug, cuddle or more when the mood strikes. We're friends and as long as there is peace, it is enough.

I don't know what will happen when the kids leave, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Now, if we were mortal enemies shouting at each other every day that would be a different story, and of course not good for the kids to see. But the idea that that a marriage has to be all or nothing just isn't true.

Smart person. Absolutely, if you both have common goals and get along reasonably well it's never going to be better in a 2nd marriage. What a lot of people aren't able to see is it will also go down to the grand kids. I'd rather have my family under one roof, or go to one house for the holidays. I can't tell you how many people I know in second marriages that rarely see the grand kids. Too many exes involved, new unwanted steps, or half children. For the few cases I've seen work out, the vast majority does not.

It can be done. My ex and I make sure to be flexible but also available during the whole year, and for holidays. We attend all big grandkid functions together. It’s what mature people do.

+1. I agree. That is what mature people do.