AP to “Stepmom”

[Anonymous]

The only way I see that living with someone can be used as a financial lever is if the person is receiving alimony. Most agreements specify that once they are living with someone else or married, the alimony stops. I imagine that this is the sort of thing where the recipient of alimony has to go to court and complain about no longer getting her monthly check. She'd then be at the court's mercy as to whether she has to prove she's not living with someone or if the payer of alimony has to prove that she is cohabitating. Personally, if I were the payer and had enough tidbits of evidence to call it into question, I'd stop paying and wait for her to spend the money on a lawyer to try and enforce the agreement. But then again, I think that alimony is total bullshit, especially when the recipient refused to work while married and won't bother to get a job upon divorce.

[Anonymous]

Is there a way for those of us in this phase to connect? I’d love to have someone in the same situation as me to talk to and strategize with. I’m finding this thread to be really helpful - particularly the specifics about trusts and insurance. I’m not OP, just also about to start divorce proceeding from my philandering husband and worried about how to protect the kids, inheritance, college, etc.

I need something like a seminar or support group hosted by the people posting the specifics of what they negotiated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way for those of us in this phase to connect? I’d love to have someone in the same situation as me to talk to and strategize with. I’m finding this thread to be really helpful - particularly the specifics about trusts and insurance. I’m not OP, just also about to start divorce proceeding from my philandering husband and worried about how to protect the kids, inheritance, college, etc.

I need something like a seminar or support group hosted by the people posting the specifics of what they negotiated.

Yes!! I would love this. I’m not sure if people who have BTDT are best or if we could crowd source some professionals for a workshop maybe.

Also personally I would appreciate the emotional support. I know there are Internet forums etc but having a smaller community of repeat players would be more helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PROTECT ASSETS for your children!!!

My friend just divorced wife 2 (who never worked while married and had no kids with him.) Wife 1 (mom of his only kids) failed to do this. In divorce 2, wife 2 took half of his assets and got alimony for 7 years of about 1/3 his gross income. Any inheritance he'd have given to his kids is now gone. Had he put his assets in a trust for them before his 2nd marriage, or required assets like life insurance and 401k to go to his kids in the settlement, he could have left them something. Assume your husband will be an idiot and hand everything over to the AP and any kids he has with her, to your children's detriment, and draft the settlement accordingly.

Why would he agree to restrictions like putting assets in a trust, requiring life insurance after a certain age, or giving 401k to the kids? It's a nice ask, but I don't imagine a divorcing party will agree to restrictions that aren't otherwise required.

He wouldn’t unless she is willing to give something up in exchange. If she is stupid, she will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way I would sign any custody agreement that didn’t forbid partners cohabitating for many years down the road. No way.

You don't have a choice. Believe me I tried. Best judge would do was give a 6 month "waiting period"
Divorce law doesn't care about morals and values and children (except documented abuse)

Because the goal of divorce law is not to enforce YOUR morals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"This is a really good point. Are most divorce lawyers familiar with this sort of stuff or does it require counsel from a trusts and estates type attorney as well?

I assume however there is no real structure to make the straying husband agree to this, or even if he agrees to ultimately pass on a certain set of funds or percent amount to the original children, nothing prevents him from spending large on him and new wife while still alive?"

Divorce lawyers can be great and some can suck. Best to ask around for recommendations from people who had to use one. Do not every just go with a random person.

Here is what I did:

Required a life insurance policy worth $750K (it's a universal policy with a cash value that he now no longer has to make payments on because the interest it generates covers the amount needed to keep it active) with DC as the beneficiary. That guarantees that DC gets something when his dad dies, regardless of whatever some new wife or her kids do. Life insurance policies pay out to the beneficiary regardless of what a will says.

I required language in his will granting DC some specific assets (all separate property even if he remarries).

I specified exactly how much money he put into the 529 each month until DC reached college age. I set a minimum amount that he had to provide for college even if the stock market didn't do well and the 529 tanked. All of this was in the settlement agreement.

I didn't say anything about how soon he could date, live with, or marry someone new. All I felt made sense to control was the money that my child would have access to.

The question is, what leverage did you have to get him to do it? I would never agree to this, and here is why: life happens. Even if you are married to someone, you are not guaranteed a certain lifestyle for life - disasters happen, disabilities happen, federal RIFs happen when you are in your 50s. If someone loses their livelihood, the family has to adjust.

I divorced in my 30s with two young kids. They are now both young adults, their education was paid for, etc, I supported them and helped them launch. I am now in my 50s and disabled. I still work while I can, but my financial priority now is myself, my second spouse and our minor child. I would not be paying into a universal life policy for a capable adult if I couldn't guarantee a college education for their sibling. Luckily, I raised my older kids well, and they agree.

[Anonymous]

I would assume a term life policy until the kids are through college would be standard no? (And I think that should go both ways for both parents to maintain)

[Anonymous]

"Why would he agree to restrictions like putting assets in a trust, requiring life insurance after a certain age, or giving 401k to the kids? It's a nice ask, but I don't imagine a divorcing party will agree to restrictions that aren't otherwise required.


He wouldn’t unless she is willing to give something up in exchange. If she is stupid, she will.

"How I "leveraged" this was that I told him in a sober and calm manner that our child deserved to not be harmed by his dad's lame ass decision to break up our family. Our child shouldn't be the one to pay for his dad's choices. The least ExH could do was "do right" by his kid and promise him that he wouldn't be made any worse off than he would have been had his dad stayed. He knew that I would tell his family if he was trying to get out of committing to providing his only child with the same standard of living that he experienced as a child, and that they would pillory him.

I really don't care that his financial commitments make him less attractive to a future gold digger. And if he's stupid enough to have another kid at his age without the money on hand to give that kid what he gives to my DC, so be it.

I think it helped that I did not ask for a dime in alimony and I got fewer of our community property assets than I could have, in exchange for the guarantee that our child would be able to attend/afford the best college he could get into. It was very clear to everyone (mediator, judge, our friends and family that I complained loudly to when he balked about having to spend so much on college) that I was fighting for my child's future and not to pad my own pockets.

[Anonymous]

Here is one place to start --
https://www.koldin.com/koldin-law-center-e-newsletter/preparing-your-will-second-marriages/

Ideally, raising these concerns is enough to make him see that agreeing to this is a smart move since it protects his children. Most people are clueless and never would think of this on their own.

Odds are that he's trying to look good in front of the mediator or judge, especially if child custody is on the line. He knows he's being watched and evaluated for what he is willing to do to protect their interests over those of a future imaginary new wife and her yet-to-be-born children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way for those of us in this phase to connect? I’d love to have someone in the same situation as me to talk to and strategize with. I’m finding this thread to be really helpful - particularly the specifics about trusts and insurance. I’m not OP, just also about to start divorce proceeding from my philandering husband and worried about how to protect the kids, inheritance, college, etc.

I need something like a seminar or support group hosted by the people posting the specifics of what they negotiated.

Yes!! I would love this. I’m not sure if people who have BTDT are best or if we could crowd source some professionals for a workshop maybe.

Also personally I would appreciate the emotional support. I know there are Internet forums etc but having a smaller community of repeat players would be more helpful.

Same. It’s been a nightmare going through this alone. My friends who have divorced were the initiators and not first similar reasons abd it’s just so damn hard.

[Anonymous]

" Even if you are married to someone, you are not guaranteed a certain lifestyle for life - disasters happen, disabilities happen, federal RIFs happen when you are in your 50s. If someone loses their livelihood, the family has to adjust."

I'm sure that if his income dropped significantly, he could get out of these agreements. But that's not what this language is for. It's there for the most likely situation, which is that his income increases over the years. And that is what has happened over the past 10 years or so since the divorce.

FWIW, DC is finishing junior year of college and so far, everything has worked out as I planned. I know that there is no telling what will happen with his inheritance. Our agreement requires him to show me proof that he is still carrying the life insurance policy once a year. Since we are still in touch over college things, I get updates more often than that and he's reminded about his obligations through those interactions. He knows me well enough to understand that I will cost Wife #2 a ton of money in legal bills if DC gets short changed upon ExH's death. I would absolutely challenge it.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know if this is helpful or not but my friends husband had an affair and left her for the AP—who was much younger—and they’ve been together about 7 years now. My friend is actually really appreciative of the AP because the AP is actually really great with kids, whereas her ex is not. Had it not been for AP, kids would have had a much worse experience on their dad weeks. Obviously AP is not a perfect person. But AP was very young when they met my friends X (AP was in college I think) and I’m sure the XH sold them a tale of whatever. The X is kind of an a$$ but I think they’re in an okay place and my friend is now remarried.

I know some APs are awful to the step kids, but some are great. I don’t think there’s as much correlation between the two things are we’d think.

[Anonymous]

Here is financial/estate/will advice from a different thread:

"Another option would be to set aside a some assets in a transfer-on-death account for her. That's what my father did for my siblings when he remarried. So that it's all decided and there's no mystery or uncertainty. The kids get their set amounts and the new wife gets the rest."

[Anonymous]

Can't stress the above enough. There is a reason for the step mother tropes in literature. Protect you child's interests now. Life insurance to age 99 good place to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only way I see that living with someone can be used as a financial lever is if the person is receiving alimony. Most agreements specify that once they are living with someone else or married, the alimony stops. I imagine that this is the sort of thing where the recipient of alimony has to go to court and complain about no longer getting her monthly check. She'd then be at the court's mercy as to whether she has to prove she's not living with someone or if the payer of alimony has to prove that she is cohabitating. Personally, if I were the payer and had enough tidbits of evidence to call it into question, I'd stop paying and wait for her to spend the money on a lawyer to try and enforce the agreement. But then again, I think that alimony is total bullshit, especially when the recipient refused to work while married and won't bother to get a job upon divorce.

It depends on the state. My husband's ex moved directly with her AP after 10 years of marriage. She got the bulk of his income via child support and alimony (plus extras) - long before me. She also got 1/2 of his military pension as soon as it started for the rest of her life regardless of remarriage or cohabitation. She'd constantly call screaming at him he's a deadbeat, refuse to let him see the kids and demand more money and not use it on the kids (we finally caught on as she'd demand money for soccer so we'd offer to pay directly to the school and ask to send a list of what shoes, clothing, etc. the kid needed - with recommendations and we'd mail it). She'd refuse that. Allimony is fine for a SAHP as at some point with kids if day care is more than take home it makes no sense to work to pay for day care. The issue is how long and should there be fault divorces. Should a spouse get retirement if they were divorced before 30 and moved in/remarried situations? Those situations should be saved for 20-30 year marriages where the person who had the affiar should pay.