Separating after 20+ years married. Alimony?

[Anonymous]

OP have you started looking for a job? Curious as to what you are finding as viable opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I date a lot of divorced dads in their forties and i am shocked by how easy they all got off. They had to split the assets, but no alimony, and child support is small to none. Several of the exes either stayed at home or cut back career wise to raise the kids.

That's the deal I got--no alimony, almost no child support. Only cost me $250,000 in legal fees.

In va?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alimony is for the pathetic . Support yourself. Gravy train is over. Don’t you have any pride?

....said the angry disgruntled exDH.

Actually I’m a happily married working woman who takes full responsibility for my own financial life. And manages to be an excellent mom at the same time. There are a million of us out there, and a million of us on these boards.

Well you aren't that bright, the op has worked for the business for most of the marriage. She probably didn't take a wage as the business was their family income and if she didn't do it, he would have had to pay someone else a wage and benefits to do the same thing.

Marriage is a partnership. The Op hasn't sat on her butt all day and done yoga. She has contributed, so alimony is fair.

[Anonymous]

Of course she is going to claim the business as her job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

How is a non contributing spouse responsible for the lack of paid leave? The problem begins when women don’t receive enough time off from work to recover from birth and bond with their baby before returning to work. So they quit, especially women with a decent or high earning spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

How is a non contributing spouse responsible for the lack of paid leave? The problem begins when women don’t receive enough time off from work to recover from birth and bond with their baby before returning to work. So they quit, especially women with a decent or high earning spouse.

Sure, if they enjoy making excuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

EXACTLY. Don’t you women who do this see that you’re creating and propagating situations like OPs? Have some pride and create equality in your relationships! Both work, both contribute to the household, both raise the kids. Otherwise you’re CREATING the situation you complain about.

The rant above is focused on STRUCTURAL problems in our society. Not noncontributing spouses. I returned to work but recognize it’s because I received six months of leave. Had I not, I would have quit. I grew up in an upper middle class home and have a high earning spouse. Why would I suffer through leaving a 12 week old baby to return to work? That’s crazy. Thankfully I didn’t have to make that decision, but many women DO and end up screwed years later when getting divorced.

Women need maternity leave so they don’t have to it want to drop out of the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

How is a non contributing spouse responsible for the lack of paid leave? The problem begins when women don’t receive enough time off from work to recover from birth and bond with their baby before returning to work. So they quit, especially women with a decent or high earning spouse.

Sure, if they enjoy making excuses.

So I should blame my spouse for my company’s maternity leave policy? We don’t work for the same employer. Stop trying to blame women for EVERYTHING. Now you’re blaming women for their husband’s lack of a role in their jobs!!

[Anonymous]

OP - ignore the crazies. Yes, you will likely get some alimony. Likely not forever, but long enough to give you some breathing room. And you will likely get 1/2 of the assets that were acquired during your marriage.

[Anonymous]

So many misogynistic d-bags trolling DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I date a lot of divorced dads in their forties and i am shocked by how easy they all got off. They had to split the assets, but no alimony, and child support is small to none. Several of the exes either stayed at home or cut back career wise to raise the kids.

That's the deal I got--no alimony, almost no child support. Only cost me $250,000 in legal fees.

In va?

MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many misogynistic d-bags trolling DCUM.

"Everyone I disagree with is Hitler!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

How is a non contributing spouse responsible for the lack of paid leave? The problem begins when women don’t receive enough time off from work to recover from birth and bond with their baby before returning to work. So they quit, especially women with a decent or high earning spouse.

Sure, if they enjoy making excuses.

So I should blame my spouse for my company’s maternity leave policy? We don’t work for the same employer. Stop trying to blame women for EVERYTHING. Now you’re blaming women for their husband’s lack of a role in their jobs!!

You know who can implement better maternity policies? Women stay in the workforce. Quitting just reinforces the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many misogynistic d-bags trolling DCUM.

Pretty sure being pro- working women and emphasizing equality in marriage is the opposite of misogyny, but whatever you tell yourself so you don’t have to work.

[Anonymous]

This is my brother and SILs dynamic.

She was a preschool teacher and she quit when she got pregnant. My brother has always been the breadwinner and person who pays for all expenses, bills, everything.

They then had 5 kids (including a set of twins) in 5 years! At one point she was home with all 5 kids for a year before the oldest went to school. Basically for almost ten years she had young kids at home and for half that time she was pregnant and for about 7 years she was breastfeeding.

Then once all the kids were in school - she did all the house and kid stuff that was during the day. She also volunteered and did errands. My brother has always done all the evening and weekend activities.

It works for them in some ways but she is 20 years in and has never worked and really doesn't fully get the money piece. She always wants more money from my brother to redecorate the house or buy new furniture or a plan a trip or get new x y or z. My brother on the other side feels immense pressure to save for college and to have money put aside for any major issue as there is no back up to him.