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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.