Highest child support and alimony ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband was married before for 17 years. No kids. She negotiated no alimony but 30 percent of his pension. We had a pension meeting last year and DH is due to get 8,300.00 a month and 1/3 of it goes out the window. At the time he thought he was being smart by not giving her a percentage of his 401k and he didn't even think his pension would be around. She took a gamble and it worked. Its odd because he hasn't seen her or given her a dime in 14 years but she will have this parachute coming to her soon.

Good for her.

Your reticence and thinly-veiled resentment as a second spouse at sharing any of your husband's financial gain with the first spouse, is the reason that every intelligent, longtime, first spouse -- particularly one who shares children with their ex-, and who has given up the most important years of their career to support their family, and their ex-'s career, both personally and logistically -- will negotiate a generous division of assets, child support, and long term alimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was married before for 17 years. No kids. She negotiated no alimony but 30 percent of his pension. We had a pension meeting last year and DH is due to get 8,300.00 a month and 1/3 of it goes out the window. At the time he thought he was being smart by not giving her a percentage of his 401k and he didn't even think his pension would be around. She took a gamble and it worked. Its odd because he hasn't seen her or given her a dime in 14 years but she will have this parachute coming to her soon.

Good for her.

Your reticence and thinly-veiled resentment as a second spouse at sharing any of your husband's financial gain with the first spouse, is the reason that every intelligent, longtime, first spouse -- particularly one who shares children with their ex-, and who has given up the most important years of their career to support their family, and their ex-'s career, both personally and logistically -- will negotiate a generous division of assets, child support, and long term alimony.

But none of that matters to the new wife. She wants all of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband was married before for 17 years. No kids. She negotiated no alimony but 30 percent of his pension. We had a pension meeting last year and DH is due to get 8,300.00 a month and 1/3 of it goes out the window. At the time he thought he was being smart by not giving her a percentage of his 401k and he didn't even think his pension would be around. She took a gamble and it worked. Its odd because he hasn't seen her or given her a dime in 14 years but she will have this parachute coming to her soon.

I think in the state of Maryland if you are married more than 10 years receiving a percentage of the pension in a divorce is normal because it is money earned during the marriage. It happened to a co-worker of mine. She got divorced and was awarded half of her husband's pension. Her ex husband re-married and had a child. She still gets her half. His 2nd wife or their child can't do anything about it unless she remarries, then she would lose it. She can co-habitate, but as long as she doesn't re-marry, the money is hers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My brother agreed to pay lifetime alimony to his ex. He felt guilty for wanting a divorce. He pays her $15k a month, 5k of which is child support for their daughter but their daughter is 20 and he will probably keep paying it even though she is an adult. Dropped out of college but is working at a job she loves which doesn’t pay much. She lives with her Mom.

This is in CA and they were married for 15 years. Been divorced longer than they were married at this point.

My brother does not mind paying and he can afford it so why not?

An ultra rich fool in another state who enjoys giving handouts to his lazy ex-wife despite laws that otherwise would protect his money. How is this even remotely relevant to OP?

OP asked. My sil has had cancer, three different types - pretty serious ones not melanoma, for the past 20 yrs. She also has a job which is unionized so she is able to take leave for medical treatments, chemo and radiation, without losing her job.

My brother left her for another women but that relationship did not last. If your spouse feels guilty enough there is a very good chance that you can ask for anything and get it.

Uh, melanoma is one of the most deadly forms of cancer (& one of the mod likely to re occur).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alimony in 2018 is so bizarre. I remember my mom's best friend got divorced from her lying, abusive, alcoholic husband back in 1993 when she was around 45. Going to college in the mid-60s, they were of the era where it was pretty understandable that the woman didn't have a career to fall back on, so of course she fought tooth and nail for alimony from him. Which meant she's had to spend all those years since then having to remain in contact with her abusive alcoholic ex husband while he tries to hide money and otherwise continue to abuse her. I acknowledge that in 1993 this was the obvious thing to do.

But now it's been TWENTY FIVE years. In that period, I started and graduated from highschool, college, law school and became a partner in a law firm. My god, think of the things she could have been doing during 25 years. I'm not sure why we (then or now) act like a 45 year old women is so out to pasture that she can't possibly work again. Yes, she's 70 now - perfect age to have worked for 22 years and have retired at 67.

Alimony is not a bizarre concept in the sense that it maintains and recognizes an ex-spouse's interest in an investment that both parties mutually and jointly agreed to.

Take, for example, a newly-married couple who begin their lives equally well-educated and burdened by student debt. After about a decade of career development for both spouses, both parties jointly and mutually decide that the best way to maximize the economic and personal potential of Jones & Co. (i.e., "the Jones family") is an equitable division of labor (e.g., professional/personal, management/worker, brains/brawn) wherein one spouse will continue to work full-time and all-out, develop their professional skills and talents, advance in their career, travel often, -- and if need be -- make multiple professional and geographic moves; and the other spouse will focus on the personal side of things, namely by devoting themselves to raising the children, and supporting and facilitating the other spouse's full-time professional commitments and multiple career moves.

After 15 or more years of such agreed-upon division of labor, and at such time as the partnership has existed for more than 22 years, one of the partners unilaterally decides to dissolve the partnership of Jones & Co., often to partner with someone else. The issue is that Jones & Co. has now become a relatively profitable venture, generating a net income of one million or more a year. Alimony is akin to the "terminated" partner maintaining an equity stake of 40%+ in Jones & Co.

Then it seems that the "personal side" partner made a very bad investment 15 years prior, which anyone could have foreseen.

To the contrary, the "personal side" partner made a good, wise, and loving investment in a partnership that now generates healthy annual revenue. The partnership may have been reconfigured with a new partner, but the original partner is still eligible to receive an annual distribution for their interest, buyout, and pension stakes the joint creation and development of the successful venture.

Obviously, assets and debts get split 50/50. Beyond that, please explain how this "personal side" partner could possibly have been an equal contributor to Jones & Co to deserve anything close to an ongoing 40% stake in somebody else's future salary? "Raising children" is not a full time thing for 15+ years... they are actually in school for like 10 hours per day from about age 6 onward. Futhermore, unless the "personal side" partner continues performing all the same personal duties as before (laundry, vacation planning, sex twice per week, etc) after the divorce, why do you believe only the other partner is obligated to keep contributing to the defunct Jones & Co?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alimony in 2018 is so bizarre. I remember my mom's best friend got divorced from her lying, abusive, alcoholic husband back in 1993 when she was around 45. Going to college in the mid-60s, they were of the era where it was pretty understandable that the woman didn't have a career to fall back on, so of course she fought tooth and nail for alimony from him. Which meant she's had to spend all those years since then having to remain in contact with her abusive alcoholic ex husband while he tries to hide money and otherwise continue to abuse her. I acknowledge that in 1993 this was the obvious thing to do.

But now it's been TWENTY FIVE years. In that period, I started and graduated from highschool, college, law school and became a partner in a law firm. My god, think of the things she could have been doing during 25 years. I'm not sure why we (then or now) act like a 45 year old women is so out to pasture that she can't possibly work again. Yes, she's 70 now - perfect age to have worked for 22 years and have retired at 67.

Alimony is not a bizarre concept in the sense that it maintains and recognizes an ex-spouse's interest in an investment that both parties mutually and jointly agreed to.

Take, for example, a newly-married couple who begin their lives equally well-educated and burdened by student debt. After about a decade of career development for both spouses, both parties jointly and mutually decide that the best way to maximize the economic and personal potential of Jones & Co. (i.e., "the Jones family") is an equitable division of labor (e.g., professional/personal, management/worker, brains/brawn) wherein one spouse will continue to work full-time and all-out, develop their professional skills and talents, advance in their career, travel often, -- and if need be -- make multiple professional and geographic moves; and the other spouse will focus on the personal side of things, namely by devoting themselves to raising the children, and supporting and facilitating the other spouse's full-time professional commitments and multiple career moves.

After 15 or more years of such agreed-upon division of labor, and at such time as the partnership has existed for more than 22 years, one of the partners unilaterally decides to dissolve the partnership of Jones & Co., often to partner with someone else. The issue is that Jones & Co. has now become a relatively profitable venture, generating a net income of one million or more a year. Alimony is akin to the "terminated" partner maintaining an equity stake of 40%+ in Jones & Co.

Then it seems that the "personal side" partner made a very bad investment 15 years prior, which anyone could have foreseen.

To the contrary, the "personal side" partner made a good, wise, and loving investment in a partnership that now generates healthy annual revenue. The partnership may have been reconfigured with a new partner, but the original partner is still eligible to receive an annual distribution for their interest, buyout, and pension stakes the joint creation and development of the successful venture.

Obviously, assets and debts get split 50/50. Beyond that, please explain how this "personal side" partner could possibly have been an equal contributor to Jones & Co to deserve anything close to an ongoing 40% stake in somebody else's future salary? "Raising children" is not a full time thing for 15+ years... they are actually in school for like 10 hours per day from about age 6 onward. Futhermore, unless the "personal side" partner continues performing all the same personal duties as before (laundry, vacation planning, sex twice per week, etc) after the divorce, why do you believe only the other partner is obligated to keep contributing to the defunct Jones & Co?

Uh, I don't know where you live, but school is not 10 hours a day. Try 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alimony in 2018 is so bizarre. I remember my mom's best friend got divorced from her lying, abusive, alcoholic husband back in 1993 when she was around 45. Going to college in the mid-60s, they were of the era where it was pretty understandable that the woman didn't have a career to fall back on, so of course she fought tooth and nail for alimony from him. Which meant she's had to spend all those years since then having to remain in contact with her abusive alcoholic ex husband while he tries to hide money and otherwise continue to abuse her. I acknowledge that in 1993 this was the obvious thing to do.

But now it's been TWENTY FIVE years. In that period, I started and graduated from highschool, college, law school and became a partner in a law firm. My god, think of the things she could have been doing during 25 years. I'm not sure why we (then or now) act like a 45 year old women is so out to pasture that she can't possibly work again. Yes, she's 70 now - perfect age to have worked for 22 years and have retired at 67.

Alimony is not a bizarre concept in the sense that it maintains and recognizes an ex-spouse's interest in an investment that both parties mutually and jointly agreed to.

Take, for example, a newly-married couple who begin their lives equally well-educated and burdened by student debt. After about a decade of career development for both spouses, both parties jointly and mutually decide that the best way to maximize the economic and personal potential of Jones & Co. (i.e., "the Jones family") is an equitable division of labor (e.g., professional/personal, management/worker, brains/brawn) wherein one spouse will continue to work full-time and all-out, develop their professional skills and talents, advance in their career, travel often, -- and if need be -- make multiple professional and geographic moves; and the other spouse will focus on the personal side of things, namely by devoting themselves to raising the children, and supporting and facilitating the other spouse's full-time professional commitments and multiple career moves.

After 15 or more years of such agreed-upon division of labor, and at such time as the partnership has existed for more than 22 years, one of the partners unilaterally decides to dissolve the partnership of Jones & Co., often to partner with someone else. The issue is that Jones & Co. has now become a relatively profitable venture, generating a net income of one million or more a year. Alimony is akin to the "terminated" partner maintaining an equity stake of 40%+ in Jones & Co.

Then it seems that the "personal side" partner made a very bad investment 15 years prior, which anyone could have foreseen.

To the contrary, the "personal side" partner made a good, wise, and loving investment in a partnership that now generates healthy annual revenue. The partnership may have been reconfigured with a new partner, but the original partner is still eligible to receive an annual distribution for their interest, buyout, and pension stakes the joint creation and development of the successful venture.

Obviously, assets and debts get split 50/50. Beyond that, please explain how this "personal side" partner could possibly have been an equal contributor to Jones & Co to deserve anything close to an ongoing 40% stake in somebody else's future salary? "Raising children" is not a full time thing for 15+ years... they are actually in school for like 10 hours per day from about age 6 onward. Futhermore, unless the "personal side" partner continues performing all the same personal duties as before (laundry, vacation planning, sex twice per week, etc) after the divorce, why do you believe only the other partner is obligated to keep contributing to the defunct Jones & Co?

Uh, I don't know where you live, but school is not 10 hours a day. Try 6.

I am a SAHP. Children are not in school 10 hours. During that time I cook, clean, take care of our paperwork and my spouses parent. Plenty to do during that time. Until kids are away, if you actually parent and spend time with your kids, put them in activities, etc. it is very much a full time thing. I do it all so my spouse can further their career and do what they enjoy doing.

[Anonymous]

A relative of mine has been getting lifelong alimony since the mid-90s. He did cheat on her, but she was a lazy person and weighed nearly 300 pounds, while he was always thin. He actually did most of the cleaning around the house himself.

Unfortunately, he is not doing well healthwise, so she is about to lose her regular paycheck. She never learned to manage her finances, so she is going to be living on not much more than Social Security soon and she is too old to work full-time. I can understand a few years of alimony in some cases, but I have to admit that I don't have much respect for her for taking this guy's money for nearly 30 years after they divorced.

Some of these long-term alimony women would have been better off if it ended after a few years because it would have forced them to get a career and their finances together.

[Anonymous]

SAHMs really have it made in this country.

1. Marry a hard-working guy.
2. Be a SAHM for at least 10 years.
3. Divorce him and take him to the cleaners for alimony
4. Never work another day in your life, while he works himself to death paying for you, your children and whoever else he ends up living with.

I don't know how some of you sleep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alimony in 2018 is so bizarre. I remember my mom's best friend got divorced from her lying, abusive, alcoholic husband back in 1993 when she was around 45. Going to college in the mid-60s, they were of the era where it was pretty understandable that the woman didn't have a career to fall back on, so of course she fought tooth and nail for alimony from him. Which meant she's had to spend all those years since then having to remain in contact with her abusive alcoholic ex husband while he tries to hide money and otherwise continue to abuse her. I acknowledge that in 1993 this was the obvious thing to do.

But now it's been TWENTY FIVE years. In that period, I started and graduated from highschool, college, law school and became a partner in a law firm. My god, think of the things she could have been doing during 25 years. I'm not sure why we (then or now) act like a 45 year old women is so out to pasture that she can't possibly work again. Yes, she's 70 now - perfect age to have worked for 22 years and have retired at 67.

Alimony is not a bizarre concept in the sense that it maintains and recognizes an ex-spouse's interest in an investment that both parties mutually and jointly agreed to.

Take, for example, a newly-married couple who begin their lives equally well-educated and burdened by student debt. After about a decade of career development for both spouses, both parties jointly and mutually decide that the best way to maximize the economic and personal potential of Jones & Co. (i.e., "the Jones family") is an equitable division of labor (e.g., professional/personal, management/worker, brains/brawn) wherein one spouse will continue to work full-time and all-out, develop their professional skills and talents, advance in their career, travel often, -- and if need be -- make multiple professional and geographic moves; and the other spouse will focus on the personal side of things, namely by devoting themselves to raising the children, and supporting and facilitating the other spouse's full-time professional commitments and multiple career moves.

After 15 or more years of such agreed-upon division of labor, and at such time as the partnership has existed for more than 22 years, one of the partners unilaterally decides to dissolve the partnership of Jones & Co., often to partner with someone else. The issue is that Jones & Co. has now become a relatively profitable venture, generating a net income of one million or more a year. Alimony is akin to the "terminated" partner maintaining an equity stake of 40%+ in Jones & Co.

Then it seems that the "personal side" partner made a very bad investment 15 years prior, which anyone could have foreseen.

To the contrary, the "personal side" partner made a good, wise, and loving investment in a partnership that now generates healthy annual revenue. The partnership may have been reconfigured with a new partner, but the original partner is still eligible to receive an annual distribution for their interest, buyout, and pension stakes the joint creation and development of the successful venture.

Obviously, assets and debts get split 50/50. Beyond that, please explain how this "personal side" partner could possibly have been an equal contributor to Jones & Co to deserve anything close to an ongoing 40% stake in somebody else's future salary? "Raising children" is not a full time thing for 15+ years... they are actually in school for like 10 hours per day from about age 6 onward. Futhermore, unless the "personal side" partner continues performing all the same personal duties as before (laundry, vacation planning, sex twice per week, etc) after the divorce, why do you believe only the other partner is obligated to keep contributing to the defunct Jones & Co?

My spouse divorced me after 23 years of marriage, 15 years of which had been spent as a SAHP. After the divorce, my spouse was transferred to another state by their employer. So as not to disrupt the lives of the kids, my ex-spouse then asked me to please remain where we had been living, and as a SAHP for an additional 5 years, until the last child was off to college. I was in my mid-50s by the time the last child left for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SAHMs really have it made in this country.

1. Marry a hard-working guy.
2. Be a SAHM for at least 10 years.
3. Divorce him and take him to the cleaners for alimony
4. Never work another day in your life, while he works himself to death paying for you, your children and whoever else he ends up living with.

I don't know how some of you sleep.

Probably as soundly as my spouse did for years when I was getting up with the kids.

And you know what- if it’s this clear cut and easy you certainly can’t say that the woman alone takes the shame- presumably the man was of sound mind when he married and he was aware that his wife didn’t work during the decade she was at home. If he accepted the package knowing the risks and willingly procreated he also willingly accepted the terms and financial repercussions of divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband was married before for 17 years. No kids. She negotiated no alimony but 30 percent of his pension. We had a pension meeting last year and DH is due to get 8,300.00 a month and 1/3 of it goes out the window. At the time he thought he was being smart by not giving her a percentage of his 401k and he didn't even think his pension would be around. She took a gamble and it worked. Its odd because he hasn't seen her or given her a dime in 14 years but she will have this parachute coming to her soon.

There is a formula in the case of Federal pension benefits for determining what your spouse receives in case of divorce. In general, it is the total of the number of months that you are married divided by the total number of months of the Federal career. If you were working for the Federal Government before you were married, those months do not count for purposes of determining the final payout to the ex.

I am trying to figure out what is equitable distribution? We live in VA. We have considerable assets - almost $2 million in investments, real estate and 401ks between the two of us. IMHO, since it was all accrued during the marriage it should be split 50/50, including all debts. STBXW is fighting that tooth and nail, thinks she deserves more because of the "time she took off to be a Mom." Franky, she was a bad mother and an even worse spouse (cheated), but I just want to cut the ties and be done with her, but I am not giving her one more penny than the law allows.

[Anonymous]

Pp, at fault divorce on grounds of adultery in va is usually bar to alimony by the offending spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a SAHP. Children are not in school 10 hours. During that time I cook, clean, take care of our paperwork and my spouses parent. Plenty to do during that time. Until kids are away, if you actually parent and spend time with your kids, put them in activities, etc. it is very much a full time thing. I do it all so my spouse can further their career and do what they enjoy doing.

Almost every single public school I can think of goes from 8-3 which is 7 hours not counting the bus ride. Privates are even longer. Add in sports/band/theater practice after school and that can easily get to 10 hours. But let's say 8 hours: you really do 8 hours of cooking, cleaning, paperwork? You are literally putting in full-time effort to enable your spouse to build his career? Where do you find time for DCUM?!?

Let's "pretend" for just a moment that you really are the full-time assistant hero that makes his career possible. Now imagine you STOP DOING ALL OF THAT. Wouldn't your spouse's career collapse? I mean, how could he possibly continue working and being successful, bringing in the same paycheck, without you doing all that full-time behind the scenes stuff that you want ongoing credit for?

Point being: once you stop "propping up" his career, why would you expect he could continue making all that money WITHOUT a full-time assistant? yet you expect to do nothing at all for him yet get paid forever a 40% alimony from his ongoing career? Thank GOD alimony is almost eradicated throughout the entire country. Equality, ladies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a SAHP. Children are not in school 10 hours. During that time I cook, clean, take care of our paperwork and my spouses parent. Plenty to do during that time. Until kids are away, if you actually parent and spend time with your kids, put them in activities, etc. it is very much a full time thing. I do it all so my spouse can further their career and do what they enjoy doing.

Almost every single public school I can think of goes from 8-3 which is 7 hours not counting the bus ride. Privates are even longer. Add in sports/band/theater practice after school and that can easily get to 10 hours. But let's say 8 hours: you really do 8 hours of cooking, cleaning, paperwork? You are literally putting in full-time effort to enable your spouse to build his career? Where do you find time for DCUM?!?

Let's "pretend" for just a moment that you really are the full-time assistant hero that makes his career possible. Now imagine you STOP DOING ALL OF THAT. Wouldn't your spouse's career collapse? I mean, how could he possibly continue working and being successful, bringing in the same paycheck, without you doing all that full-time behind the scenes stuff that you want ongoing credit for?

Point being: once you stop "propping up" his career, why would you expect he could continue making all that money WITHOUT a full-time assistant? yet you expect to do nothing at all for him yet get paid forever a 40% alimony from his ongoing career? Thank GOD alimony is almost eradicated throughout the entire country. Equality, ladies.

Agree. I handle all the kid stuff, plus have a career and earn as much as DH. When I think of all the balls I manage to juggle, I feel like a badass and know I'm setting a good example for my kids. It's also empowering to know that DH could up and leave tomorrow and my lifestyle wouldn't change. I have lots of SAH friends who don't claim/pretend that taking care of school-aged children is a FT job or essential for their spouse's career. It's not.