Does alimony still happen in VA?

[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.

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

How much back pay is due a full time nanny / housekeeper.

[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.

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

How much back pay is due a full time nanny / housekeeper.

Around here a good nanny runs $30/ hour. Figuring she’s done this for 30 years, you’re only looking at $7M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true, no educated moms would stay home. Gimme a break. Do you believe that all my household chores, all the shopping, cooking, laundry, repairs, bills, homework just do themselves while women go to the office? Like a little leprechaun or angel appears magically to do it?

The point is what is owed to a spouse for staying home. The spouse receives 50% of whatever capital was accumulated during the marriage. They also received all rent, food, expenses, etc. while in the marriage. So the grounds for spousal support would be 1) they gave up time they could have used for job training, 2) they need time to recoup their footing in their career, etc.? That makes sense. On the other hand how do you take into account the case of a spouse who gets the time for training and a career and opts not to use it?

Sorry my dear, but if you are college educated or have a grad degree, and no medical issues or kids with special needs, choosing to be unemployed is not giving up anything. It's simply not feeling like working and having the privilege to do that.

Righ as it’s far better to pay a stranger to raise your kids or let them raise themselves.

Strangers are raising your children starting at 5 years old; kindergarten is 9 am to 4 pm.
My MIL is in MD, barely worked from time to time, my FIL got his mistress now wife pregnant and my MIL received alimony for 10 years. They were married for 25 years.

Big difference between school and other times.

Ok, so for families with typical children, the SAHP should rejoin the workforce when the youngest is 5 years old.

Sure, as long as the working parent is prepared to be the one to take leave to accommodate schools breaks/teacher work days/sick days etc and flex their hours as needed to accommodate school pick ups and extracurriculars since the former SAHP will likely have limited leave and need to prove themselves as a new employee. Funnily it never seems to work like that and the former SAHP is expected to continue to be the default parent while attempting to rebuild/start a new career from scratch.

You are making it a bigger deal than it is; there are not that many school breaks and the school and the camps are open. We raised two boys - one is in med school now, the other one on his way to a great school too - and we were able to maintain two successful and fulfilling careers while the kids also played rec and travel baseball. You can have a great, well paid career with a flex schedule, as long as you have a lucrative skill and/or are highly educated. I'm a fed at a financial agency with a lot of flexibility. My friend tutors for MCAT and makes $500/hour. Another one is a pediatrician with 4 kids and makes a decent living WFH doing research for an insurance company and her H is a hands on dad and ER doctor who works 2 days/week. My H is a VP for an international company and he did all the sports, including coaching. Nobody should be the default parent, both parents need to be involved in raising the kids. There is solid research out there that having a SAHM significantly decreases a girl's future income and career potential and boys raised by working moms are more involved in raising their children.
Of course, if one has a special needs child, the story is completely different, although I would still make the pro-work argument, as the expenses related to raising a special needs child are enormous and the care in US is terrible.

[Anonymous]

I have indefinite spousal support. Still happens. Went to court to get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true, no educated moms would stay home. Gimme a break. Do you believe that all my household chores, all the shopping, cooking, laundry, repairs, bills, homework just do themselves while women go to the office? Like a little leprechaun or angel appears magically to do it?

The point is what is owed to a spouse for staying home. The spouse receives 50% of whatever capital was accumulated during the marriage. They also received all rent, food, expenses, etc. while in the marriage. So the grounds for spousal support would be 1) they gave up time they could have used for job training, 2) they need time to recoup their footing in their career, etc.? That makes sense. On the other hand how do you take into account the case of a spouse who gets the time for training and a career and opts not to use it?

Sorry my dear, but if you are college educated or have a grad degree, and no medical issues or kids with special needs, choosing to be unemployed is not giving up anything. It's simply not feeling like working and having the privilege to do that.

Righ as it’s far better to pay a stranger to raise your kids or let them raise themselves.

Strangers are raising your children starting at 5 years old; kindergarten is 9 am to 4 pm.
My MIL is in MD, barely worked from time to time, my FIL got his mistress now wife pregnant and my MIL received alimony for 10 years. They were married for 25 years.

Big difference between school and other times.

Ok, so for families with typical children, the SAHP should rejoin the workforce when the youngest is 5 years old.

Sure, as long as the working parent is prepared to be the one to take leave to accommodate schools breaks/teacher work days/sick days etc and flex their hours as needed to accommodate school pick ups and extracurriculars since the former SAHP will likely have limited leave and need to prove themselves as a new employee. Funnily it never seems to work like that and the former SAHP is expected to continue to be the default parent while attempting to rebuild/start a new career from scratch.

You are making it a bigger deal than it is; there are not that many school breaks and the school and the camps are open. We raised two boys - one is in med school now, the other one on his way to a great school too - and we were able to maintain two successful and fulfilling careers while the kids also played rec and travel baseball. You can have a great, well paid career with a flex schedule, as long as you have a lucrative skill and/or are highly educated. I'm a fed at a financial agency with a lot of flexibility. My friend tutors for MCAT and makes $500/hour. Another one is a pediatrician with 4 kids and makes a decent living WFH doing research for an insurance company and her H is a hands on dad and ER doctor who works 2 days/week. My H is a VP for an international company and he did all the sports, including coaching. Nobody should be the default parent, both parents need to be involved in raising the kids. There is solid research out there that having a SAHM significantly decreases a girl's future income and career potential and boys raised by working moms are more involved in raising their children.
Of course, if one has a special needs child, the story is completely different, although I would still make the pro-work argument, as the expenses related to raising a special needs child are enormous and the care in US is terrible.

This is garbage and nasty. As for making $500 an hour for tutoring, give me a break. The best tutors make less than $300 an hour. I have a feeling your friend is lying or works very few hours. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true, no educated moms would stay home. Gimme a break. Do you believe that all my household chores, all the shopping, cooking, laundry, repairs, bills, homework just do themselves while women go to the office? Like a little leprechaun or angel appears magically to do it?

The point is what is owed to a spouse for staying home. The spouse receives 50% of whatever capital was accumulated during the marriage. They also received all rent, food, expenses, etc. while in the marriage. So the grounds for spousal support would be 1) they gave up time they could have used for job training, 2) they need time to recoup their footing in their career, etc.? That makes sense. On the other hand how do you take into account the case of a spouse who gets the time for training and a career and opts not to use it?

Sorry my dear, but if you are college educated or have a grad degree, and no medical issues or kids with special needs, choosing to be unemployed is not giving up anything. It's simply not feeling like working and having the privilege to do that.

Righ as it’s far better to pay a stranger to raise your kids or let them raise themselves.

Strangers are raising your children starting at 5 years old; kindergarten is 9 am to 4 pm.
My MIL is in MD, barely worked from time to time, my FIL got his mistress now wife pregnant and my MIL received alimony for 10 years. They were married for 25 years.

Big difference between school and other times.

Ok, so for families with typical children, the SAHP should rejoin the workforce when the youngest is 5 years old.

Sure, as long as the working parent is prepared to be the one to take leave to accommodate schools breaks/teacher work days/sick days etc and flex their hours as needed to accommodate school pick ups and extracurriculars since the former SAHP will likely have limited leave and need to prove themselves as a new employee. Funnily it never seems to work like that and the former SAHP is expected to continue to be the default parent while attempting to rebuild/start a new career from scratch.

You are making it a bigger deal than it is; there are not that many school breaks and the school and the camps are open. We raised two boys - one is in med school now, the other one on his way to a great school too - and we were able to maintain two successful and fulfilling careers while the kids also played rec and travel baseball. You can have a great, well paid career with a flex schedule, as long as you have a lucrative skill and/or are highly educated. I'm a fed at a financial agency with a lot of flexibility. My friend tutors for MCAT and makes $500/hour. Another one is a pediatrician with 4 kids and makes a decent living WFH doing research for an insurance company and her H is a hands on dad and ER doctor who works 2 days/week. My H is a VP for an international company and he did all the sports, including coaching. Nobody should be the default parent, both parents need to be involved in raising the kids. There is solid research out there that having a SAHM significantly decreases a girl's future income and career potential and boys raised by working moms are more involved in raising their children.
Of course, if one has a special needs child, the story is completely different, although I would still make the pro-work argument, as the expenses related to raising a special needs child are enormous and the care in US is terrible.

That's great you are a high earner. Not everyone is. I was in the helping profession and earned $65K a year. After taxes and child care, it didn't pay for me to work. Top that off with a SN child who needed daily therapies and then a MIL who needed full-time care (who had no money), I couldn't afford to work. And, now I have my own health issues. You are talking about high earners who are doctors, VP's, high level feds and other high paying jobs. That's not realistic for all of us. At best, if I went back to work, I'd have to start all over again and at best make $40-50K. And, then take out child care, taxes and other expenses and I might bring home a few hundred a month.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it still happens. Close friends divorced in Virginia 3-4 years ago. Long marriage, SAHM- she got "lifetime" alimony, meaning alimony until he retires and then she gets her part of his pension.

My boyfriend divorced in Georgia in a similar situation and with a similar result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have indefinite spousal support. Still happens. Went to court to get it.

How do you make your case?

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

I have always done all of that and I also WAH full-time bringing in $175k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

I have always done all of that and I also WAH full-time bringing in $175k.

Are your children special needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I got divorced three years ago after being married for 24 years. I got alimony for life.

Hopefully the courts force you to work the exact same number of hours as your alimony paying husband.
Otherwise, exactly WHAT special thing did you do to deserve some other working slave to support you for live?

Why are you so mad?

I am mad that any woman would be allowed to work an less than an EX husband who pays her alimony.
Unless she is still making his breakfast, doing his laundry, and giving him BJs... there is no valid reason she should not be forced to work the same amount as he does.

My cheating exH dumped me just before selling his stock options and retired. He doesn’t work and I grew up our autistic child while he travelled. I didn’t get any alimony in DC as I was 43.
All these crazy long alimony orders are usually for 60+ divorces where one party is high earner and the other supported career and is no longer employable due to age.

I thought in that case it was alimony until retirement?

Usually the precedent is you get alimony for half the years of your marriage, so if you’re 60+ it will be about that to retirement. Maybe that’s why they say lifetime.

My exH quit his high paying job not to pay alimony. But I am younger than him by a lot and got assets in divorce so I was given no alimony. Although my stay at home was not by choice but to take care of our sick child.
It also depends if the spouse gets assets abs how much: the more assets you get in divorce the lesser is the chance for alimony

Stop conflating marital assets / wealth .... which is split 50/50 during divorce (and I have no problem whatsoever with that) versus ALIMONY ... which is ONGOING income paid to an ex spouse for (potentially) many years after divorce. Leaving aside the more basic question that only in the most extreme rare cases is alimony ever justified .... even THEN I say: any woman who receives any alimony should be forced to work an equal number of hours as her alimony-paying-ex-husband. She can retire when he retires, not one day sooner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

Let's leave the special needs scenario aside as it is a special case.

For the neurotypical families, the mindset of "what would you pay for someone to do XYZ" is not justified. A SAHM cannot be compared to hired help for one simple reason: the help does not enjoy the fruit of their labor. A personal chef does not eat what he cooks. A nanny doesn't acquire 50% interest in your children. A housekeeper does not live in your house. Everything a SAHM does, she does 50% for herself. Do you grocery shop, plan and cook meals? Half of that is for you. Do you tutor your children? Half of that is on you. Do you have a clean, nicely decorated house? Congratulations, you live there too and you enjoy it. Don't compare your labor for your family with what hired help does, delivers to you and goes home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I got divorced three years ago after being married for 24 years. I got alimony for life.

This caused a cold sweat to break across my forehead.
Are you disabled? Over 60? Do you care for disabled offspring?
Was your husband very wealthy?

In Virginia - if you are married 19+ years, presumption is permanent alimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I got divorced three years ago after being married for 24 years. I got alimony for life.

Hopefully the courts force you to work the exact same number of hours as your alimony paying husband.
Otherwise, exactly WHAT special thing did you do to deserve some other working slave to support you for live?

Why are you so mad?

I am mad that any woman would be allowed to work an less than an EX husband who pays her alimony.
Unless she is still making his breakfast, doing his laundry, and giving him BJs... there is no valid reason she should not be forced to work the same amount as he does.

My cheating exH dumped me just before selling his stock options and retired. He doesn’t work and I grew up our autistic child while he travelled. I didn’t get any alimony in DC as I was 43.
All these crazy long alimony orders are usually for 60+ divorces where one party is high earner and the other supported career and is no longer employable due to age.

I thought in that case it was alimony until retirement?

Usually the precedent is you get alimony for half the years of your marriage, so if you’re 60+ it will be about that to retirement. Maybe that’s why they say lifetime.

My exH quit his high paying job not to pay alimony. But I am younger than him by a lot and got assets in divorce so I was given no alimony. Although my stay at home was not by choice but to take care of our sick child.
It also depends if the spouse gets assets abs how much: the more assets you get in divorce the lesser is the chance for alimony

Stop conflating marital assets / wealth .... which is split 50/50 during divorce (and I have no problem whatsoever with that) versus ALIMONY ... which is ONGOING income paid to an ex spouse for (potentially) many years after divorce. Leaving aside the more basic question that only in the most extreme rare cases is alimony ever justified .... even THEN I say: any woman who receives any alimony should be forced to work an equal number of hours as her alimony-paying-ex-husband. She can retire when he retires, not one day sooner.

This is not how it works. Virginia is actually pretty generous with alimony. Sorry if that upsets people.