Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married 20 years and got alimony for 10 years, until youngest was 16. The decision we made TOGETHER for me to do majority of parenting was honored. Also got over 50% of his retirement and full ownership of home.
Aim high.

Are you working?

Anonymous wrote:Married 20 years and got alimony for 10 years, until youngest was 16. The decision we made TOGETHER for me to do majority of parenting was honored. Also got over 50% of his retirement and full ownership of home.
Aim high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

Whatever. She’s an UMC American woman with all of the career options in the world. I’m sure that she doesn’t have a job that she hates or considers never ending drudgery.
It’s not like she’s some Indian guy making $5 an hour pretending to be your girlfriend on OnlyFans.

Mmmhmmm, coulda, woulda shoulda. We know, you were headed for the C-Suite in a Fortune 500, but mean ol' husband derailed your brilliance and made you stay home instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married 20 years and got alimony for 10 years, until youngest was 16. The decision we made TOGETHER for me to do majority of parenting was honored. Also got over 50% of his retirement and full ownership of home.
Aim high.

Leech

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who disagree with being a SAHM, I was one for 20 years and even if I end up divorced without 50% and without a high paying job, I would not change a thing. Raising my babies was the greatest joy of my life - something that money can't buy, and I have no regrets. I have raised wonderful compassionate humans who I have close bonds with, and that is wealth to me.

Ok so you're not divorced and obviously have no concept of the trauma involved in this process and have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion. The "wealth" of having close bonds with your kids does not keep a roof over your head when you end up divorced with no career, no assets, and no alimony.

Pretty sure you would in fact have regrets if you end up divorced with minimal savings and a low income job in your 50s or 60s.

Anonymous wrote:To those who disagree with being a SAHM, I was one for 20 years and even if I end up divorced without 50% and without a high paying job, I would not change a thing. Raising my babies was the greatest joy of my life - something that money can't buy, and I have no regrets. I have raised wonderful compassionate humans who I have close bonds with, and that is wealth to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

How does Dad get compensated for the time and relationship he gave up with his children? I think of my own DH who did give up career opportunities when our kids were young to coach their sports teams by limiting travel and work dinners. He had to manage his schedule to do take on his share of pick ups/drop offs/ doc appts. All of this has made him an equal parent to me and the kids turn to both of us when they need stuff as college kids. I think he would have lost a lot if he didn’t put in the work to build this relationship with them (which didn’t actually come naturally to him). I am not unsympathetic to the argument that women who stayed home gave up opportunities for the family and should be acknowledged in a divorce. But how do you calculate the effect on the other spouse?

Why do you assume they aren’t? Working has nothing to do with that as it depends on the job and person. If they choose not to, that was their choice.

Well most of the arguments for alimony are based on the spouse giving up her job prospects to do all the parenting and household tasks that frees the Dad up to focus exclusively on career. Yes, it’s a choice both parties make and it isn’t without risks to either. Moms lose their earning power and Dads don’t build the relationships they could have. I actually think the latter is a bigger tragedy.

I believe that 50/50 custody split, 50% of marital property and retirement accounts, child support, funding college plans at the same rate as prior to divorce, agreement on protecting children’s inheritance through trusts, and some time limited spousal support should be markers of high net worth couple divorces. I have a hard time getting to indefinite alimony, absent a post nup agreement. Both adults know the risks they took.

Kids aren't entitled to inhertances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

How does Dad get compensated for the time and relationship he gave up with his children? I think of my own DH who did give up career opportunities when our kids were young to coach their sports teams by limiting travel and work dinners. He had to manage his schedule to do take on his share of pick ups/drop offs/ doc appts. All of this has made him an equal parent to me and the kids turn to both of us when they need stuff as college kids. I think he would have lost a lot if he didn’t put in the work to build this relationship with them (which didn’t actually come naturally to him). I am not unsympathetic to the argument that women who stayed home gave up opportunities for the family and should be acknowledged in a divorce. But how do you calculate the effect on the other spouse?

Why do you assume they aren’t? Working has nothing to do with that as it depends on the job and person. If they choose not to, that was their choice.

Well most of the arguments for alimony are based on the spouse giving up her job prospects to do all the parenting and household tasks that frees the Dad up to focus exclusively on career. Yes, it’s a choice both parties make and it isn’t without risks to either. Moms lose their earning power and Dads don’t build the relationships they could have. I actually think the latter is a bigger tragedy.

I believe that 50/50 custody split, 50% of marital property and retirement accounts, child support, funding college plans at the same rate as prior to divorce, agreement on protecting children’s inheritance through trusts, and some time limited spousal support should be markers of high net worth couple divorces. I have a hard time getting to indefinite alimony, absent a post nup agreement. Both adults know the risks they took.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also leads to a bigger question that I actually was debating with my DH earlier today. I don't think a DH leaves his family and wife who wants the marriage to remain intact unless he has something or someone waiting in the wings. This is where the fidelity issue comes in or the fact that something was going on that the family wasn't aware of which could help with leverage in any settlement.

The only non-infidelity story I’ve hear is my one.

Mine left after he decided he wanted to retire at 55 without telling me. Then I got cc’ed on meeting notes from a conversation he had with our joint finanical advisor who said our retirement savings were off track and he would have to do x, y and z to sustain us through retirement if he wanted to be done at 55.

Instead, exDH apparently spent a week doing the math, realized that he could retire at 55 if he cut me loose after a major raise he was anticipating, and filed a few weeks before that raise would hit. Not sure how other jurisdictions do it but in mine, income after filing date is the earners’ and no longer marital.

Highly effective retirement savings strategy, btw.

I call BS. Were you somehow a major drain on finances that divorcing and retiring would be cheaper than just retiring? Or did he intend to divorce all along, and just picked the optimal moment for him to do so? I am a primary breadwinner, and I don’t see how divorcing and giving up part of our joint assets could make my retirement more affordable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indefinite alimony is absurd. Most SAHMs are completely useless to begin with. Divorced women should just re-enter the workforce.

Quite the opposite. I agree that most of them are useless, but this is exactly why their exes have to pay. It was a luxury choice that they made, to basically keep an adult human pet, so they alone have to bear the cost of that choice.

This is so mean. Being the main person to take care of children is not useless. It may not be what every parent wants to do, and that is fine, but it is important and useful. If you mess up raising your kids, not much else matters. I did not think I could handle my high hours/stress job along with DH’s high hours/stress job. I guess I wish I was the kind of person who could have done it, but it would have meant 50-60+ hours of childcare a week and that felt like too much to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indefinite alimony is absurd. Most SAHMs are completely useless to begin with. Divorced women should just re-enter the workforce.

Quite the opposite. I agree that most of them are useless, but this is exactly why their exes have to pay. It was a luxury choice that they made, to basically keep an adult human pet, so they alone have to bear the cost of that choice.