Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to hijack a bit, but does anyone know how the division, alimony and child support change if DH is working, but I am still primary earner? What if my income alone is just enough to pay for rent, daycare, food on my own - am I still facing having to pay HIM support? Assume I get primary custody (I'll fight tooth and nail for it), and his income is enough for him to live on alone, how could a court force me to pay him, which would close to impoverish me?

And we have no assets other than tiny 401(k), but a lot of debt. I'd have to give half my 401(k) and future pension, but take half the debt and live like a pauper with my kids? I don't see a way out for me.

Assuming he wants it, and he doesn’t beat the kids, you will probably share custody. You will pay him child support. You will split all assets.

This is what people mean when they say they can’t afford to divorce.

He doesn't beat the kids, just me. Not everyday but he has a record for DV. This is why I can't leave. I can't afford to take care of my kids AND pay him. Thie law sucks in so many ways.

Don't get your legal advice here! If you have primary custody, then there is a formula for how much each party is expected to contribute to the children's well-being. It is influenced by how much custody each party has. So, if you have the primary, HE should be paying you a portion of his earnings for child support. The court doesn't care that he makes $20K... and that is "only enough to pay for his own living." He has children. He owes something toward their care. You can find the formula on line for a general idea. Talk to an atty. Please. Also, I had a friend who just got divorced in MD. She hadn't worked for 12 years. The judge REALLY, REALLY doesn't want to have to order alimony. They want the parties to work out a deal. The judge will give the attys a very good idea of what s/he is thinking of ordering for alimony if it comes to that. The judge was thinking of about $1500-2000 per month for 3 years. This is for my friend who hasn't worked in a job for 12 years. So, to the PP who is thinking of getting divorced... don't assume that you will be paying alimony forever (if at all). The point of alimony these days is to give the non-working party a chance to re-train and find a job. It is very unlikely that judges will order permanent alimony anymore unless the non-working spouse has a disability or is close enough to retirement age that it just isn't realistic that s/he can get a sustainable job with living salary.

Don't assume you are stuck in a bad situation.

Anonymous wrote:Is it ever possible to just cleanly divorce and not have to pay the other party? I mean, yea, they have kids, but assuming she takes full custody, why should she pay him anything?

More than likely now they do shared custody or visitation. Child support can be impacted by visitation and not just custody. 20 years ago most likely she'd get full custody but now they try to make it more equal. She has the income, he doesn't. They do child support to keep things equal in each home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gets what can get negotiated but he is entitled to half.

+1

My best girlfriend learned this lesson the hard way. She was completely delusional (despite everything that we plus her attorneys told her) and felt that her being the breadwinner entitled him to less than half of the "marital pot of money."

Take your increase in net worth over the course of the past 15 years of marriage, divide it in half. That's what he will get.

You will also possibly pay him child support plus alimony, even though he's a deadbeat.

Also, he will also likely be entitled to a large portion of your pension when you retire. Don't want that? Fine, then you'll have to pay him significantly more than half of the assets when you divorce. That is what they mean by "equitable".

My Aunt divorced a total and complete deadbeat. As in, she had a job at a hedge fund making about $400,000/year, while he refused to work. He was a lousy SAHD, and he smoked pot all day in their backyard while she worked. He was abusive and hit her, there were hospital records from when he broke her rib. She still had to pay more than half of their assets so that she could avoid paying him ongoing alimony. It did not matter that he hit her, cheated on her, and did drugs.

The absolute most miserable divorcees I've ever met were female breadwinners. They spend most of their marriages unhappy to be providing for an man, and the final insult comes when they have to pay half of what they view as completely theirs on the way out the door.

Men have been dealing with this since the beginning of family law...sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

As I'm sure you know, it's only been in the last few decades that women have had the opportunity to become breadwinners.

Not sure how that's relevant...in a developed country it's poor form to throw the non-working partner in a marriage out on the street if the marriage dissolves which is why we have alimony (even if they are a cheating, deadbeat loser who can't hold down a job).

You really can't be this dense and lacking in self-awareness, right? A man can marry and provide for a woman, get cheated on and served with divorce papers, and I doubt you're going to be crying foul about how unfair alimony and the family law system is.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that I’d support a cheating wife? You’re so bizarre. Go away, MRA loser.

Is it ever possible to just cleanly divorce and not have to pay the other party? I mean, yea, they have kids, but assuming she takes full custody, why should she pay him anything?

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to hijack a bit, but does anyone know how the division, alimony and child support change if DH is working, but I am still primary earner? What if my income alone is just enough to pay for rent, daycare, food on my own - am I still facing having to pay HIM support? Assume I get primary custody (I'll fight tooth and nail for it), and his income is enough for him to live on alone, how could a court force me to pay him, which would close to impoverish me?

And we have no assets other than tiny 401(k), but a lot of debt. I'd have to give half my 401(k) and future pension, but take half the debt and live like a pauper with my kids? I don't see a way out for me.

Yes, you will still be on the hook for child support in most situations. And, yes, you probably will be stuck giving him half of everything. My husband's ex gets a portion of his pension. They were married 10 years, he worked at the job for 20 and once he collected it, she gets it until one of them dies (she's screwed if he dies first). It really sucks you are married for 10-20 years and you have to turn over your pension like that.

My husband had to pay alimony to his cheating ex-wife but his child support was calculated to reduce it some. There are tax benefits for the person paying the alimony vs. child support. You will probably have to pay some alimony but if you have a much higher income even with shared custody you will pay child support. It easily could be 1/2 your income. It was more than 1/2 my husband's income and she always demanded more. Some states have child care included in the calculations, some don't and you pay on top of it. Its a terrible situation. It may be worth it to be broke and get rid of him. Eventually the kids turn 18 and child support is over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to hijack a bit, but does anyone know how the division, alimony and child support change if DH is working, but I am still primary earner? What if my income alone is just enough to pay for rent, daycare, food on my own - am I still facing having to pay HIM support? Assume I get primary custody (I'll fight tooth and nail for it), and his income is enough for him to live on alone, how could a court force me to pay him, which would close to impoverish me?

And we have no assets other than tiny 401(k), but a lot of debt. I'd have to give half my 401(k) and future pension, but take half the debt and live like a pauper with my kids? I don't see a way out for me.

Assuming he wants it, and he doesn’t beat the kids, you will probably share custody. You will pay him child support. You will split all assets.

This is what people mean when they say they can’t afford to divorce.

He doesn't beat the kids, just me. Not everyday but he has a record for DV. This is why I can't leave. I can't afford to take care of my kids AND pay him. Thie law sucks in so many ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to hijack a bit, but does anyone know how the division, alimony and child support change if DH is working, but I am still primary earner? What if my income alone is just enough to pay for rent, daycare, food on my own - am I still facing having to pay HIM support? Assume I get primary custody (I'll fight tooth and nail for it), and his income is enough for him to live on alone, how could a court force me to pay him, which would close to impoverish me?

And we have no assets other than tiny 401(k), but a lot of debt. I'd have to give half my 401(k) and future pension, but take half the debt and live like a pauper with my kids? I don't see a way out for me.

Get proof of adultery and alimony is off the table for him.

No. MD doesn't care about adultery when deciding alimony award, and in DC and MD it's a very small consideration in a litany of other factors. Nowhere near "alimony is off the table".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gets what can get negotiated but he is entitled to half.

+1

My best girlfriend learned this lesson the hard way. She was completely delusional (despite everything that we plus her attorneys told her) and felt that her being the breadwinner entitled him to less than half of the "marital pot of money."

Take your increase in net worth over the course of the past 15 years of marriage, divide it in half. That's what he will get.

You will also possibly pay him child support plus alimony, even though he's a deadbeat.

Also, he will also likely be entitled to a large portion of your pension when you retire. Don't want that? Fine, then you'll have to pay him significantly more than half of the assets when you divorce. That is what they mean by "equitable".

My Aunt divorced a total and complete deadbeat. As in, she had a job at a hedge fund making about $400,000/year, while he refused to work. He was a lousy SAHD, and he smoked pot all day in their backyard while she worked. He was abusive and hit her, there were hospital records from when he broke her rib. She still had to pay more than half of their assets so that she could avoid paying him ongoing alimony. It did not matter that he hit her, cheated on her, and did drugs.

The absolute most miserable divorcees I've ever met were female breadwinners. They spend most of their marriages unhappy to be providing for an man, and the final insult comes when they have to pay half of what they view as completely theirs on the way out the door.

Men have been dealing with this since the beginning of family law...sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

As I'm sure you know, it's only been in the last few decades that women have had the opportunity to become breadwinners.

Not sure how that's relevant...in a developed country it's poor form to throw the non-working partner in a marriage out on the street if the marriage dissolves which is why we have alimony (even if they are a cheating, deadbeat loser who can't hold down a job).

You really can't be this dense and lacking in self-awareness, right? A man can marry and provide for a woman, get cheated on and served with divorce papers, and I doubt you're going to be crying foul about how unfair alimony and the family law system is.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to hijack a bit, but does anyone know how the division, alimony and child support change if DH is working, but I am still primary earner? What if my income alone is just enough to pay for rent, daycare, food on my own - am I still facing having to pay HIM support? Assume I get primary custody (I'll fight tooth and nail for it), and his income is enough for him to live on alone, how could a court force me to pay him, which would close to impoverish me?

And we have no assets other than tiny 401(k), but a lot of debt. I'd have to give half my 401(k) and future pension, but take half the debt and live like a pauper with my kids? I don't see a way out for me.

Assuming he wants it, and he doesn’t beat the kids, you will probably share custody. You will pay him child support. You will split all assets.

This is what people mean when they say they can’t afford to divorce.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to hijack a bit, but does anyone know how the division, alimony and child support change if DH is working, but I am still primary earner? What if my income alone is just enough to pay for rent, daycare, food on my own - am I still facing having to pay HIM support? Assume I get primary custody (I'll fight tooth and nail for it), and his income is enough for him to live on alone, how could a court force me to pay him, which would close to impoverish me?

And we have no assets other than tiny 401(k), but a lot of debt. I'd have to give half my 401(k) and future pension, but take half the debt and live like a pauper with my kids? I don't see a way out for me.

Get proof of adultery and alimony is off the table for him.

Sorry to hijack a bit, but does anyone know how the division, alimony and child support change if DH is working, but I am still primary earner? What if my income alone is just enough to pay for rent, daycare, food on my own - am I still facing having to pay HIM support? Assume I get primary custody (I'll fight tooth and nail for it), and his income is enough for him to live on alone, how could a court force me to pay him, which would close to impoverish me?

And we have no assets other than tiny 401(k), but a lot of debt. I'd have to give half my 401(k) and future pension, but take half the debt and live like a pauper with my kids? I don't see a way out for me.

Man what a scrub!

What culture is it that the man doesn't work and expects his kids to provide for him in retirement? I know of cultures where women take care of the family and expect to be taken care of later, but it sounds like he doesn't take care of the family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gets what can get negotiated but he is entitled to half.

+1

My best girlfriend learned this lesson the hard way. She was completely delusional (despite everything that we plus her attorneys told her) and felt that her being the breadwinner entitled him to less than half of the "marital pot of money."

Take your increase in net worth over the course of the past 15 years of marriage, divide it in half. That's what he will get.

You will also possibly pay him child support plus alimony, even though he's a deadbeat.

Also, he will also likely be entitled to a large portion of your pension when you retire. Don't want that? Fine, then you'll have to pay him significantly more than half of the assets when you divorce. That is what they mean by "equitable".

My Aunt divorced a total and complete deadbeat. As in, she had a job at a hedge fund making about $400,000/year, while he refused to work. He was a lousy SAHD, and he smoked pot all day in their backyard while she worked. He was abusive and hit her, there were hospital records from when he broke her rib. She still had to pay more than half of their assets so that she could avoid paying him ongoing alimony. It did not matter that he hit her, cheated on her, and did drugs.

The absolute most miserable divorcees I've ever met were female breadwinners. They spend most of their marriages unhappy to be providing for an man, and the final insult comes when they have to pay half of what they view as completely theirs on the way out the door.

Men have been dealing with this since the beginning of family law...sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Men have been dealing with non-money-making women who refused to take care of the children?

I know many families where this is the case.

Not sure about your social circle, but I doubt this very much. You probably know families where the mom has some help, maybe a nanny while she gets her hair done. But few moms in this area would refuse to have any part in childcare—the social pressure goes much more towards being hands on, even at the private school my kids attended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gets what can get negotiated but he is entitled to half.

+1

My best girlfriend learned this lesson the hard way. She was completely delusional (despite everything that we plus her attorneys told her) and felt that her being the breadwinner entitled him to less than half of the "marital pot of money."

Take your increase in net worth over the course of the past 15 years of marriage, divide it in half. That's what he will get.

You will also possibly pay him child support plus alimony, even though he's a deadbeat.

Also, he will also likely be entitled to a large portion of your pension when you retire. Don't want that? Fine, then you'll have to pay him significantly more than half of the assets when you divorce. That is what they mean by "equitable".

My Aunt divorced a total and complete deadbeat. As in, she had a job at a hedge fund making about $400,000/year, while he refused to work. He was a lousy SAHD, and he smoked pot all day in their backyard while she worked. He was abusive and hit her, there were hospital records from when he broke her rib. She still had to pay more than half of their assets so that she could avoid paying him ongoing alimony. It did not matter that he hit her, cheated on her, and did drugs.

The absolute most miserable divorcees I've ever met were female breadwinners. They spend most of their marriages unhappy to be providing for an man, and the final insult comes when they have to pay half of what they view as completely theirs on the way out the door.

Men have been dealing with this since the beginning of family law...sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Men have been dealing with non-money-making women who refused to take care of the children?

I know many families where this is the case.