That must be a huge relief for your household. Do you think BM is ready to take the big income reduction? I'm constantly amazed by BMs who do nothing to prepare for the day when maintenance and/or CS ends.
She has insisted on staying in her huge suburban house with her one kid left of four. It's like a bad stereotype of the divorcee with the falling apart house and the neighbors complaining about overgrown weeds! Most of the reason she stayed, as opposed to doing the logical, intelligent thing and selling the house, moving to a smaller one or condo and living within her means, is because she is not very effective at "adulting". She cannot get from point A to point B - one of those people who can't even get her taxes filed on time for example (or get her son to school on time). She is in fact so disheveled that we are placing bets if 1) she even realizes this is coming or 2) how long it will take her to notice!! Wish I could have popcorn and a front row seat because this will be highly entertaining! Unless of course she goes off the deep end and I am stuck with SS in my house...
I don't agree that spousal support is archaic and needs to go away. There are couples who make the mutual decision that one of them will stay home to raise children. Call it archaic, but many couples believe it's the right approach, and if they can live on one salary, it's their prerogative. There are people who give up careers because their spouses are relocated frequently, sometimes to places where they cannot get a job in their field. There are families with special needs children where the best option for the child is a parent at home. There are corporate executives whose careers are better served with a spouse who does not work and is always available to entertain, accompany the working spouse on trips, and generally make a busy life easier for the earning spouse. Non-working spouses in situations such as these DO deserve maintenance. If it is mutually agreed that they will not work (or not work to their potential) for the good of the family unit, then it is fair for them to receive some level of support until they can become financially stable on their own. I'm not a fan of perpetual maintenance, but for a period of time I think it's totally fair.
Everything you just mentioned is consistent. Adults made a choice.
Unless you're suggesting that a woman (or man) can't sustain themselves.
That's not the problem of the working party.
Using a minority of cases to encase the majority is also not a good way to formulate an arguement. Even so, a special needs child can go to daycare the same as a non-special needs.
I'm not in a situation where I'm paying for someone to freeload, but that's what a vast majority of posters here see. Just because someone would "rather" stay at home and take care of kids doesnt give them the "right". In a world of relative equality, each person should be equally liable, unless one of the "adults" is special needs.
I disagree totally. I did not go after spousal support but I absolutey could have gotten it.
I do think there should be very short time limit like a two or three years maybe.....
I stayed home with my 3 kids (because daycare would have taken every ounce of any paycheck I could have earned). In that 13-ish years I stayed home with the kids.....my EX continued to excell at his job and get promotions and raises...while I got none.
Also, it is important for people to remember that a stay at home mom didn't make that decision on her own......my EX and I together decided that it was best for our family. It is funny post divroce how somehow......the stay at home moms get painted in this horrible light...lol
Anyway, I found myself divorced at 36 with ZERO work experience..literally ZERO...since I had my first child right out of college I never worked....and because in high school and college I played multiple sports there was no time for working.
It sucked being 36 and trying to get my first job....while my EX is making well over 100K and I'm being offered $9 an hour at some crap jobs.......Thankfully I had my college degree but it took me 2 solid years to actually find a good job.......it just didn't seem fair that I had to scrape by b/c I had spent the majority of my life helping my EX further his career and staying home with the kids.......I, too, could have walked away making 100K but I did not.
I have no bios so being a SAHM was never an option for me.
But, many women in my life have supported both themselves and their children on their own...I have so much respect for them - and you! That you worked to raise yourself to a higher level is a wonderful model for your children! Kudos!
Also in college I took a course on the economics of marriage and family. It actually quantified the value of a SAHM, for the purpose of calculating the value. Such as daycare costs and even the costs of eating out vs home cooked meal, hiring a housecleaner. INcluded in that calculation was lost wages and lost career time (it takes time to build up the knowledge and experience!)
I think there are certain situations where it's deserved, and others where it isn't. The BMs who never worked by their choice (not their partner's), and STILL don't work after divorce because they are living on alimony, should have some limits set on them. There should be some evidence of getting an education or trying to get jobs, and not just 10 years of $4K a month for them to live on.
I mean, I can see paying child support (somewhat, I'm more literal in the sense that people should have to submit receipts).
I understand where you're coming from. I really do. But maintanance because of a choice that was made by a person? (I made X choice, so now YOU'RE liable for Y). Especially in the case of raising children (the stay at home mom or dad's) made the personal choice to maroon themselves professionally. Even the "daycare is expensive" argument is hard to make, because for most entry level jobs, daycare is expensive, and you need years under your belt before you start making good money.
I don't know, I don't pay either. There's a vision of a snake in the grass holding a court order snickering as they flip through 100 bills that they didn't earn.
The choice to stay home with the kids isn't made by just ONE person, my Ex and I made that choice together. I live where daycare isn't even crazy expensive like some states....it would have cost me $2400 a month to take 3 kids to daycare full time. Why would anyone do that if they didn't have to??
It's not just one choice to stay home and it ends there.....it's a series of choices and sacraficies over time since at one point my ex and I were a team......then we divorce and he walks away from everything we built just because he earned a paycheck for his job....and I didn't earn a single cent from my "job" at home with the kids.
I do get what you are saying, though, it just isn't so black and white.
Sometimes, women just decide they aren't going to work and declare themselves SAHMs, and then the man ends up on the hook financially after divorce when he never agreed to it. We've seen that a lot on these boards. There should be at least some investigation into the circumstances behind their situation before alimony is awarded.
In this day and age, women shouldn't take it for granted that their marriage will survive to retirement age, or some other catastrophic event could happen, and women need to be prepared to support themselves, and minor children.
I couldn't stay at home or I would've killed my kids. I did work shifts so that I worked 3 days a week, 7pm to 7am. My late DH and I made it work so that we didn't need full time day care. He passed away when I was 43 and we weren't prepared. If I hadn't worked all of those year to build my job skills and income, I would've lost my home and everything I had.
I think those who are arguing that maintenance isn't necessarily inappropriate are talking about situations where a couple MUTUALLY agreed for one spouse to not work or to work less. I grew up in a very affluent area, where a lot of people had jobs that were high powered, time consuming, travel heavy, stressful and/or unpredictable in hours. Most were quite well-paid. A non-working spouse was considered the ultimate luxury for many of these people, and it was usually the high earner, not the spouse, who wanted the spouse to stay home. There is a lot to be said for not having to worry about getting the kids to activities/doctor's appointments/school or daycare, getting to the dry cleaners while they're still open, having your car serviced, figuring out how to handle the household when you have last minute travel, having a spouse available to go on a work trip/to a work function where clients will have spouses attending, etc. You can devote more hours to your career and advance further if you don't have to worry about any of these mundane day to day matters. I had friends whose parents (mostly dads) had jobs that involved frequent transfers, some international, that made it very difficult for the other parent to work. This is not at all uncommon in families where one spouse makes a considerable income and the family, while intact, doesn't need another income. Do you honestly think that if one of these high earners decides to get divorced that his/her spouse, who has sacrificed a career to help the working spouse get ahead, should be left in the lurch while the working spouse moves on with no obligation or liability to the discarded spouse?
I'm not talking about situations where one spouse unilaterally decides not to work and isn't sacrificing for the family or the career of the other spouse. You said no one deserves maintenance. I think thats wrong, and there are spouses who do. Certainly not everyone, and in most cases not long-term, but divorce should not leave a spouse who has worked for the common good of the marriage/family (albeit without pay) in a bad position while the other person moves on with little consequence.
I have mixed feelings about that. The woman is agreeing to do this, and should put some thought into whether or not she will be left high and dry by the man at some point in time.
I'm biased because there is no way in God's green Earth that I would ever agree to be essentially some man's personal assistant, doing everything around the house while he gets to go golfing. So to me, it seems like these women are making a poor choice and have to live with the consequences, as we all do.
If they get alimony out of these situations, it shouldn't be for 5 years, that's for sure.
Alimony made sense when the gender roles were so rigid, and women really couldn't work, or couldn't earn enough to support themselves because of the society in which they lived. Now, I think those women are making a choice that could backfire on them, and they really should think that through.
And this is just it. RIght here. Exactly what Tog said.
Nobody is FORCING a SAHM or SAHD to do it. Gender roles are pretty well dissolved (in the civilized world). It wouldn't be unheard of or uncommon for a woman to say "no, I'm not doing that."
The daycare arguement - yes, you could be working for a year or two and only paying for daycare. It's the third, fourth, fifth, and so on years that matter.
Saying that it's the "man's" fault is admitting total and complete control. It's admitting that you're too incompetent to do what he does. I don't feel that a mutual descision can be made unelss both parties at least partially agree. I appreciate people like tog who are able to tell their husband hell no. It sets amazing precedent.
I think of it this way. Think of the reactions if the genders of most people in these situations were reversed. How would a majority of society react? In a world of true equality, the reactions should also be equal.
And when you factor in the 1 spouse with the high earnings, and the 2nd spouse earning an income, you can hire a nanny or au pair to help with the child care and daily errands. Also kids grow up, while it makes sense to stay home when they are too young to be left at home alone, as the kids age women need to get back into the work force at some level.
On the surface, I agree with you. However, I do think spousal support should be offered for a limited amount of time in a limited amount of circumstances. If you and your spouse agreed that you'd stay home with the kids and help support their career movement, and then they leave you for a new hot piece, then some form of alimony should be paid so that the "left" spouse can re-establish themselves. Or, if you found yourself sick and unemployed (think cancer, not a cold), and your spouse left you. Basically, if the end of your marriage was out of your control, or you had to end your marriage due to criminal activity (e.g. domestic violence), and you had ZERO or minimal income because of agreed-upon roles in the relationship, THEN you should be entitled to alimony for 1-2 years, with the amount decreasing every 6 months so it's not an instant shock (and prevents someone from waiting the full length of time to get off their rear and try to get established).
However, if you're a SAHM and boink the neighbor and decide to leave your marriage? Sorry sweets. No alimony for you. If you just chose to be a housewife because you could and have no dependents to care for, and you're capable of working, sorry again. You're SOL.
Marriage is a gamble, and both sides need to equally benefit but also potentially equally lose. Conditional alimony where poor choices lead to poor outcomes would be ideal.
Agreed, if your kids are all teens are you are still a "SAHM", then those years should not count towards any alimony a man has to pay. Then it's your choice to not work.
IMO, women who don't want to work call themselves "SAHMs" long after such a title is needed.
IMO, women who don't want to work call themselves "SAHMs" long after such a title is needed.
After the kids are in school fulltime, I believe the title is actually "housewife" but that does not sound as sacrificing. What do they do all day, when the kids are in school?
I have nothing against women who don't work, if that's the arrangement they want to have (and a risk they want to take), and they have someone who wants to support them, but when there is no need for it, calling oneself SAHM is weird.
She stayed home with the kids so I understand a couple of years to "get on her feet". Problem was somehow the default was lifetime for a "long term" marriage as defined 20+ years. Still hard to believe - BM has a masters degree (that she has wasted). In exchange for "only" 5 years, DH pays all college. But he had 2 just about done, and the other 2 well funded at the time of his divorce, and he retained the 529 plans.
I just hope there are no surprises - I've read their Marital Settlement Agreement (more than once) and it states very clearly that it ends Feb of 2020.
I get the need for spousal support in the SAHM/SAHD case, but it was my DH's case that I don't agree with.
BM is a waitress that barely works full time. And it's not like she couldn't get more hours. DH pretty much paid for everything and it was in his name. And he was trusting her (stupidly) to take care of the bills through his bank account. Was her name on the account? No. Did he give her signed checks to pay bills? Yes. Did she use some of those checks to pay off other things like her debt to her friends/family? Yes.
I have nothing against waiters/waitresses, but BM has been at the same job since I've been in the picture, has been fired and took them to court and is back working for the same restaurant! Not to mention she was fired from a previous waitressing job for stealing money. She works the bare minimum (usually on nights that's she's supposed to have SD) and then expected this spousal support from someone who had no money because she wiped his bank account. So thank goodness when DH was done with those payments. The joke was also on her because what she agreed to for the spousal support deal amounted to less money than what the other option was. But she took that deal because it was cash in hand immediately. And don't get me started on how many times she asked for it advance or would make special trips to get the money, but wouldn't make a special trip so SD could see her father.
Enjoy the $66K per year raise. Time for some agressive investing and a couple of really nice vacations or a new high end vehicle.
Watch BM twist and whine about how she is paying for your new improved lifestyle and serves that bullshit up to her kids.
The victim and entitlement mentality disconnects the brains of the toxic opposition to the point that they ascribe any benefit or positives for the good side to be a negative for the toxic side paid for at the expense of the toxic side.
The $110/mo then $133/mo then $385/mo in CS paid by the toxic SpermClan over the 16+ years of the CO bought half a dozen new cars, three homes, vacations, paid for SS's boarding school and cost the three younger also out of wedlock SpermIdiot spawned half sibs a quality life. Though in the real world the entire amound paid in CS was a small fraction of the costs of providing for SS. The SpermClan, particularly SpermGrandHag was quite verbose on how the burden of CS took food out of the mouths of the three younger also out of wedlock SpermIdiot spawned half sibs and cost them nice things to provide nice things for SS.
So, eventually we just enjoyed our success and let SpermGrandHag simmer in her toxic crap. SS knew the truth and the facts.
If your Skids are kept abreast of the facts, they too will know the truth and will have the chance of gaining clarity on the nature of their BM and on their father.
Isn’t that a great feeling!
My DH counted down the weeks with every check he wrote to money grubbing BM.
That must be a huge relief
That must be a huge relief for your household. Do you think BM is ready to take the big income reduction? I'm constantly amazed by BMs who do nothing to prepare for the day when maintenance and/or CS ends.
BM is definitely not prepared
She has insisted on staying in her huge suburban house with her one kid left of four. It's like a bad stereotype of the divorcee with the falling apart house and the neighbors complaining about overgrown weeds! Most of the reason she stayed, as opposed to doing the logical, intelligent thing and selling the house, moving to a smaller one or condo and living within her means, is because she is not very effective at "adulting". She cannot get from point A to point B - one of those people who can't even get her taxes filed on time for example (or get her son to school on time). She is in fact so disheveled that we are placing bets if 1) she even realizes this is coming or 2) how long it will take her to notice!! Wish I could have popcorn and a front row seat because this will be highly entertaining! Unless of course she goes off the deep end and I am stuck with SS in my house...
Wow, sounds like it might be
Wow, sounds like it might be a train wreck. Here's hoping she's more prepared than you think so you don't end up with SS at your house.
Oooh, that's gonna hurt. But
Oooh, that's gonna hurt. But congratulations to you and your DH!
Awesome. I would be jumping
Awesome. I would be jumping up and down.....
Oh the relief!
That is a horrendous amount to be paying, hope you've got something organised to celebrate!
Our last payment will be in July this year. The count down is on, but I can't help thinking BM will find a way to get money from us some other way.
The real question is: What
The real question is: What makes any person deserve "maintainance"?
The time of housewives is over. Spousal support needs to go away, it's archaic.
I don't agree that spousal
I don't agree that spousal support is archaic and needs to go away. There are couples who make the mutual decision that one of them will stay home to raise children. Call it archaic, but many couples believe it's the right approach, and if they can live on one salary, it's their prerogative. There are people who give up careers because their spouses are relocated frequently, sometimes to places where they cannot get a job in their field. There are families with special needs children where the best option for the child is a parent at home. There are corporate executives whose careers are better served with a spouse who does not work and is always available to entertain, accompany the working spouse on trips, and generally make a busy life easier for the earning spouse. Non-working spouses in situations such as these DO deserve maintenance. If it is mutually agreed that they will not work (or not work to their potential) for the good of the family unit, then it is fair for them to receive some level of support until they can become financially stable on their own. I'm not a fan of perpetual maintenance, but for a period of time I think it's totally fair.
Everything you just mentioned
Everything you just mentioned is consistent. Adults made a choice.
Unless you're suggesting that a woman (or man) can't sustain themselves.
That's not the problem of the working party.
Using a minority of cases to encase the majority is also not a good way to formulate an arguement. Even so, a special needs child can go to daycare the same as a non-special needs.
I'm not in a situation where I'm paying for someone to freeload, but that's what a vast majority of posters here see. Just because someone would "rather" stay at home and take care of kids doesnt give them the "right". In a world of relative equality, each person should be equally liable, unless one of the "adults" is special needs.
Seriously - why is ANYONE
Seriously - why is ANYONE entitled to a free $4500 a month for 20 years just because they married a man with a good income and decided not to work?
I disagree totally. I did not
I disagree totally. I did not go after spousal support but I absolutey could have gotten it.
I do think there should be very short time limit like a two or three years maybe.....
I stayed home with my 3 kids (because daycare would have taken every ounce of any paycheck I could have earned). In that 13-ish years I stayed home with the kids.....my EX continued to excell at his job and get promotions and raises...while I got none.
Also, it is important for people to remember that a stay at home mom didn't make that decision on her own......my EX and I together decided that it was best for our family. It is funny post divroce how somehow......the stay at home moms get painted in this horrible light...lol
Anyway, I found myself divorced at 36 with ZERO work experience..literally ZERO...since I had my first child right out of college I never worked....and because in high school and college I played multiple sports there was no time for working.
It sucked being 36 and trying to get my first job....while my EX is making well over 100K and I'm being offered $9 an hour at some crap jobs.......Thankfully I had my college degree but it took me 2 solid years to actually find a good job.......it just didn't seem fair that I had to scrape by b/c I had spent the majority of my life helping my EX further his career and staying home with the kids.......I, too, could have walked away making 100K but I did not.
Marriage and family economics
I have no bios so being a SAHM was never an option for me.
But, many women in my life have supported both themselves and their children on their own...I have so much respect for them - and you! That you worked to raise yourself to a higher level is a wonderful model for your children! Kudos!
Also in college I took a course on the economics of marriage and family. It actually quantified the value of a SAHM, for the purpose of calculating the value. Such as daycare costs and even the costs of eating out vs home cooked meal, hiring a housecleaner. INcluded in that calculation was lost wages and lost career time (it takes time to build up the knowledge and experience!)
I think there are certain
I think there are certain situations where it's deserved, and others where it isn't. The BMs who never worked by their choice (not their partner's), and STILL don't work after divorce because they are living on alimony, should have some limits set on them. There should be some evidence of getting an education or trying to get jobs, and not just 10 years of $4K a month for them to live on.
JMHO.
I mean, I can see paying
I mean, I can see paying child support (somewhat, I'm more literal in the sense that people should have to submit receipts).
I understand where you're coming from. I really do. But maintanance because of a choice that was made by a person? (I made X choice, so now YOU'RE liable for Y). Especially in the case of raising children (the stay at home mom or dad's) made the personal choice to maroon themselves professionally. Even the "daycare is expensive" argument is hard to make, because for most entry level jobs, daycare is expensive, and you need years under your belt before you start making good money.
I don't know, I don't pay either. There's a vision of a snake in the grass holding a court order snickering as they flip through 100 bills that they didn't earn.
The choice to stay home with
The choice to stay home with the kids isn't made by just ONE person, my Ex and I made that choice together. I live where daycare isn't even crazy expensive like some states....it would have cost me $2400 a month to take 3 kids to daycare full time. Why would anyone do that if they didn't have to??
It's not just one choice to stay home and it ends there.....it's a series of choices and sacraficies over time since at one point my ex and I were a team......then we divorce and he walks away from everything we built just because he earned a paycheck for his job....and I didn't earn a single cent from my "job" at home with the kids.
I do get what you are saying, though, it just isn't so black and white.
Sometimes, women just decide
Sometimes, women just decide they aren't going to work and declare themselves SAHMs, and then the man ends up on the hook financially after divorce when he never agreed to it. We've seen that a lot on these boards. There should be at least some investigation into the circumstances behind their situation before alimony is awarded.
In this day and age, women
In this day and age, women shouldn't take it for granted that their marriage will survive to retirement age, or some other catastrophic event could happen, and women need to be prepared to support themselves, and minor children.
I couldn't stay at home or I would've killed my kids. I did work shifts so that I worked 3 days a week, 7pm to 7am. My late DH and I made it work so that we didn't need full time day care. He passed away when I was 43 and we weren't prepared. If I hadn't worked all of those year to build my job skills and income, I would've lost my home and everything I had.
I think those who are arguing
I think those who are arguing that maintenance isn't necessarily inappropriate are talking about situations where a couple MUTUALLY agreed for one spouse to not work or to work less. I grew up in a very affluent area, where a lot of people had jobs that were high powered, time consuming, travel heavy, stressful and/or unpredictable in hours. Most were quite well-paid. A non-working spouse was considered the ultimate luxury for many of these people, and it was usually the high earner, not the spouse, who wanted the spouse to stay home. There is a lot to be said for not having to worry about getting the kids to activities/doctor's appointments/school or daycare, getting to the dry cleaners while they're still open, having your car serviced, figuring out how to handle the household when you have last minute travel, having a spouse available to go on a work trip/to a work function where clients will have spouses attending, etc. You can devote more hours to your career and advance further if you don't have to worry about any of these mundane day to day matters. I had friends whose parents (mostly dads) had jobs that involved frequent transfers, some international, that made it very difficult for the other parent to work. This is not at all uncommon in families where one spouse makes a considerable income and the family, while intact, doesn't need another income. Do you honestly think that if one of these high earners decides to get divorced that his/her spouse, who has sacrificed a career to help the working spouse get ahead, should be left in the lurch while the working spouse moves on with no obligation or liability to the discarded spouse?
I'm not talking about situations where one spouse unilaterally decides not to work and isn't sacrificing for the family or the career of the other spouse. You said no one deserves maintenance. I think thats wrong, and there are spouses who do. Certainly not everyone, and in most cases not long-term, but divorce should not leave a spouse who has worked for the common good of the marriage/family (albeit without pay) in a bad position while the other person moves on with little consequence.
I have mixed feelings about
I have mixed feelings about that. The woman is agreeing to do this, and should put some thought into whether or not she will be left high and dry by the man at some point in time.
I'm biased because there is no way in God's green Earth that I would ever agree to be essentially some man's personal assistant, doing everything around the house while he gets to go golfing. So to me, it seems like these women are making a poor choice and have to live with the consequences, as we all do.
If they get alimony out of these situations, it shouldn't be for 5 years, that's for sure.
Alimony made sense when the gender roles were so rigid, and women really couldn't work, or couldn't earn enough to support themselves because of the society in which they lived. Now, I think those women are making a choice that could backfire on them, and they really should think that through.
And this is just it. RIght
And this is just it. RIght here. Exactly what Tog said.
Nobody is FORCING a SAHM or SAHD to do it. Gender roles are pretty well dissolved (in the civilized world). It wouldn't be unheard of or uncommon for a woman to say "no, I'm not doing that."
The daycare arguement - yes, you could be working for a year or two and only paying for daycare. It's the third, fourth, fifth, and so on years that matter.
Saying that it's the "man's" fault is admitting total and complete control. It's admitting that you're too incompetent to do what he does. I don't feel that a mutual descision can be made unelss both parties at least partially agree. I appreciate people like tog who are able to tell their husband hell no. It sets amazing precedent.
I think of it this way. Think of the reactions if the genders of most people in these situations were reversed. How would a majority of society react? In a world of true equality, the reactions should also be equal.
And when you factor in the 1
And when you factor in the 1 spouse with the high earnings, and the 2nd spouse earning an income, you can hire a nanny or au pair to help with the child care and daily errands. Also kids grow up, while it makes sense to stay home when they are too young to be left at home alone, as the kids age women need to get back into the work force at some level.
On the surface, I agree with
On the surface, I agree with you. However, I do think spousal support should be offered for a limited amount of time in a limited amount of circumstances. If you and your spouse agreed that you'd stay home with the kids and help support their career movement, and then they leave you for a new hot piece, then some form of alimony should be paid so that the "left" spouse can re-establish themselves. Or, if you found yourself sick and unemployed (think cancer, not a cold), and your spouse left you. Basically, if the end of your marriage was out of your control, or you had to end your marriage due to criminal activity (e.g. domestic violence), and you had ZERO or minimal income because of agreed-upon roles in the relationship, THEN you should be entitled to alimony for 1-2 years, with the amount decreasing every 6 months so it's not an instant shock (and prevents someone from waiting the full length of time to get off their rear and try to get established).
However, if you're a SAHM and boink the neighbor and decide to leave your marriage? Sorry sweets. No alimony for you. If you just chose to be a housewife because you could and have no dependents to care for, and you're capable of working, sorry again. You're SOL.
Marriage is a gamble, and both sides need to equally benefit but also potentially equally lose. Conditional alimony where poor choices lead to poor outcomes would be ideal.
Agreed, if your kids are all
Agreed, if your kids are all teens are you are still a "SAHM", then those years should not count towards any alimony a man has to pay. Then it's your choice to not work.
IMO, women who don't want to work call themselves "SAHMs" long after such a title is needed.
IMO, women who don't want to
IMO, women who don't want to work call themselves "SAHMs" long after such a title is needed.
After the kids are in school fulltime, I believe the title is actually "housewife" but that does not sound as sacrificing. What do they do all day, when the kids are in school?
I have nothing against women who don't work, if that's the arrangement they want to have (and a risk they want to take), and they have someone who wants to support them, but when there is no need for it, calling oneself SAHM is weird.
totally agree!
She stayed home with the kids so I understand a couple of years to "get on her feet". Problem was somehow the default was lifetime for a "long term" marriage as defined 20+ years. Still hard to believe - BM has a masters degree (that she has wasted). In exchange for "only" 5 years, DH pays all college. But he had 2 just about done, and the other 2 well funded at the time of his divorce, and he retained the 529 plans.
I just hope there are no surprises - I've read their Marital Settlement Agreement (more than once) and it states very clearly that it ends Feb of 2020.
I get the need for spousal
I get the need for spousal support in the SAHM/SAHD case, but it was my DH's case that I don't agree with.
BM is a waitress that barely works full time. And it's not like she couldn't get more hours. DH pretty much paid for everything and it was in his name. And he was trusting her (stupidly) to take care of the bills through his bank account. Was her name on the account? No. Did he give her signed checks to pay bills? Yes. Did she use some of those checks to pay off other things like her debt to her friends/family? Yes.
I have nothing against waiters/waitresses, but BM has been at the same job since I've been in the picture, has been fired and took them to court and is back working for the same restaurant! Not to mention she was fired from a previous waitressing job for stealing money. She works the bare minimum (usually on nights that's she's supposed to have SD) and then expected this spousal support from someone who had no money because she wiped his bank account. So thank goodness when DH was done with those payments. The joke was also on her because what she agreed to for the spousal support deal amounted to less money than what the other option was. But she took that deal because it was cash in hand immediately. And don't get me started on how many times she asked for it advance or would make special trips to get the money, but wouldn't make a special trip so SD could see her father.
WELL "yay"
Ours ends in March as last month.
Who knows if BM is aware of it. We are and have paperwork to back it.
Just be ready for some pushback somewhere, especially if kids are under 18.
Enjoy the $66K per year raise
Enjoy the $66K per year raise. Time for some agressive investing and a couple of really nice vacations or a new high end vehicle.
Watch BM twist and whine about how she is paying for your new improved lifestyle and serves that bullshit up to her kids.
The victim and entitlement mentality disconnects the brains of the toxic opposition to the point that they ascribe any benefit or positives for the good side to be a negative for the toxic side paid for at the expense of the toxic side.
The $110/mo then $133/mo then $385/mo in CS paid by the toxic SpermClan over the 16+ years of the CO bought half a dozen new cars, three homes, vacations, paid for SS's boarding school and cost the three younger also out of wedlock SpermIdiot spawned half sibs a quality life. Though in the real world the entire amound paid in CS was a small fraction of the costs of providing for SS. The SpermClan, particularly SpermGrandHag was quite verbose on how the burden of CS took food out of the mouths of the three younger also out of wedlock SpermIdiot spawned half sibs and cost them nice things to provide nice things for SS.
So, eventually we just enjoyed our success and let SpermGrandHag simmer in her toxic crap. SS knew the truth and the facts.
If your Skids are kept abreast of the facts, they too will know the truth and will have the chance of gaining clarity on the nature of their BM and on their father.