Should alimony be abolished?

[AntePrincess]

Instead of SAHM vs career Mom (which, alimony wise, I think should be covered in a prenup like contract when the decision has been made that spells out that the decision was mutual and that they've agreed to some terms if the relationship spoils), what about if a spouse becomes handicapped in the course of the marriage? Is alimony justified then? I picture a scenario where a couple has aged into retirement, then break up as one succumbs to early dementia. What then? Even if the healthier spouse has exactly the same amount of money as the spouse suffering from dementia, the needs of the one with dementia are much more expensive. Or a particularly cold hearted husband or wife could divorce their spouse after a car accident leaves them disabled, just when their financial needs are greatest.

 

[rigs32]

I was married. No kids. I don't understand how us staying together would have made for a better world. I was miserable and my self esteem was in the toilet. Now I work in law enforcement and work to make my community a safer place.

And counseling can't work unless people actually enact change outside those appointments.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

but I think that's a life style choice you make and when you make it, it should be with the full realization that you are handing over your earning potential to some one else.
In no way saying this is a wrong choice, just that I do think it's a bit "naive: to come back and say "well I gave up XYZ" for my spouse and lost this earning potential, unless the spouse put a gun to some ones head, you gave that up with full consent and in no way should you expect after staying out of the workforce for 15 years to be capable of having the same earning potential.

I could never do it, I know it may sound selfish but my independance and career which I worked extremely hard at is very important to me so I always knew going into motherhood that I was not going to be a SAHM longer than 4 years tops.

And I totally admit to not understanding why a women after the kids get into school full time can't go back to work, once again not saying that they should just that if you CHOOSE this life style, I don't think you should cry sour grapes at the end. (in general, I know some one will post about having some special circumstances that prevents them from going back to work. not talking about that)

Today, it's not like the 1950's when choices were so limited for women and where the "normal" was for moms to not work.

But to answer the question, I think alimony should be drastically overhauled. especially now in this day and time. If you are a stay at home mom, after a few years you should be back to work.

child support is a totally different thing.

I totalky disagree. A narriage is, among other things, an economic partbership. Both spouses contribute to this partnership and therefire both deserve the benefits. Who are you to kegislate how the partnership functions? Blanket statements like "stay at home moms should go back to work"? Really?

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[eliza61]

I totalky disagree. A narriage is, among other things, an economic partbership. Both spouses contribute to this partnership and therefire both deserve the benefits. Who are you to kegislate how the partnership functions? Blanket statements like "stay at home moms should go back to work"? Really?

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

what the heck are you taking about? I;m not legislating any thing. I could care less if you work, don't work. I'm making an opinion. If you choose and once again I think it's a life style choice. AS MHJkax said, it's a wonderfully solution for their relationship. You make it with full disclosure.

YOu are right it's an economic patnership. A patnership where you willingly know what the consequences are. I'm asking a question.

Stay home if that's your choice but if the marriage fail, there are financial consequences to your CHOICE. don't start crying that "now you owe me some thing for the rest of my life"

Alimony works in some situations and every situation should be looked at independantly. I strongly think it needs a total overhaul from this blanket "I have to take care of you for the rest of your life just because we were once married"

And yes, I do think able bodied people whether they are moms or not should get a job if they want money. Once again yes, there are definitely families where this is not feasible which I thought I said that so no I did not make a blanket statement.

 

[RitaE]

I think the question of alimony is best left up to the Court system who can evaluate each case based on their own facts.

 

[eliza61]

I think the question of alimony is best left up to the Court system who can evaluate each case based on their own facts.

I think that's what the alimony reformers are campaigning for. I think the way many states laws are formulated, there is sort a formulatic approach to how alimony is awarded.

 

[eliza61]

http://nation.time.com/2013/05/16/is-this-the-end-of-alimony-as-we-know-it/


For probably as long as it has existed, alimony has been a man vs. woman thing. Men get ordered to pay, women get alimony and men get bitter. But as women have become more economically powerful, the game has changed.

In 2012, a new law came into effect in Massachusetts that abolished permanent alimony and set up a formula for future payments. Some men there had been paying for decades to women to whom theyd only been married very briefly. While Massachusetts is the front runner, several states, especially Florida, are rethinking the way alimony is awarded.

Should men still have to pay alimony when women can now be educated and make (almost) as much as men? What about women who live with another guy but still take alimony? What do women who pay alimony think? And if we abolish alimony, how do older women without job skills get by?


It may be the biggest change to the way Americans divorce since the 1970s, when the rise of no-fault dissolutions made ending a marriage more like an unpleasant root canal than open-heart surgery. Alimony the permanent kind, which gets paid until one spouse dies or the recipient remarries is facing extinction, or at least a significant downsizing. Although Floridians entering splitsville will still for now face or be able to seek permanent alimony, a growing reform movement is making headway across the U.S. State by state, legislatures and courts are taking a long, hard look at the purpose of alimony and the way it's awarded, replacing court-determined payments that can vary wildly with ones determined by a formula or scrapping them altogether. Massachusetts abolished lifetime alimony and set up a formula for future settlements in 2011, after a nine-year campaign by alimony payers. A bill was introduced in New Jersey's legislature in March, and others are in the works in Connecticut and Colorado. Vermont and Maryland have newly minted reform groups. Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas and Tennessee all have small groups. "Alimony is the most unstable area of family law," says Arizona State University law professor Ira Mark Ellman, who spent more than a decade studying family dissolution.



I tried to print most of it because it's a paid subscriber article.

 

[HelenePA]

But to answer the question, I think alimony should be drastically overhauled. especially now in this day and time. If you are a stay at home mom, after a few years you should be back to work.

child support is a totally different thing.

that might work if you only have a child or two but if you decide on having a larger family? it would have cost more than my pay to have 4 kids in daycare.. sorry I'm not going to work to pay someone else to raise our kids which it what it would have worked out to being.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

if one spouse was a stay at home spouse, and had not worked outside the home in years, then yes, there should be alimony. However, it should be limited to no more than 6 years, which gives the spouse time to go to school or get some sort of training to find a job.

If both spouses worked, then no, no alimony at all.

And for the poster who said one year mandatory counseling before divorce...I wouldn't have made it through that year. My ex was very abusive. The only way I got through the divorce process safely was because he was in jail in another state. (Not for abusing me, shockingly...he stole a pickup and was caught).

Child support, well, both parents need to be supporting their kids. One parent has the kids full time, the other pays...parents split the time, no one pays....the kids should be first in this situation. I know it's not always that way, but it should be.

I think you'd like the rules we have here in NY. We don't have "alimony", we have "maintenance". Usually it's "rehabilitive maintenance", given for a short period of time (the term to be decided by the judge after reviewing the circumstances of the parties) and is designed to put the spouse receiving it in the position to become self supporting.

Lifetime alimony can be awarded at the discretion of the judge in appropriate circumstances, such as a disabled spouse or an elderly couple in a marriage of long duration.

Keep in mind that when the court is dissolving a marriage there is also a distribution of marital assets, so the question of alimony is only part of the equation.

A NY court will take into account who gets the house, the car, the bank accounts, etc. when making an award.


A court may also consider who's paying and receiving child support. Both parties are required to support their children and there's a formula for determining how much is to be paid.

A friend of mine, a stay at home mother of three children, was awarded maintenance, and her ex was also required to pay a considerable amount of child support and child care costs. The parties structured the payments to give the ex a tax advantage by labelling the larger payments "maintenance" in the first few years after the divorce, then gradually increasing child support and decreasing maintenance.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[Lorelei Lee]

what the heck are you taking about? I;m not legislating any thing. I could care less if you work, don't work. I'm making an opinion. If you choose and once again I think it's a life style choice. AS MHJkax said, it's a wonderfully solution for their relationship. You make it with full disclosure.

YOu are right it's an economic patnership. A patnership where you willingly know what the consequences are. I'm asking a question.

Stay home if that's your choice but if the marriage fail, there are financial consequences to your CHOICE. don't start crying that "now you owe me some thing for the rest of my life"

Alimony works in some situations and every situation should be looked at independantly. I strongly think it needs a total overhaul from this blanket "I have to take care of you for the rest of your life just because we were once married"

And yes, I do think able bodied people whether they are moms or not should get a job if they want money. Once again yes, there are definitely families where this is not feasible which I thought I said that so no I did not make a blanket statement.

Yes, you ARE "legislating". You essentially said, in your first post, that alimony should not be paid to a spouse who stays at home to raise the couple's children.

And in your second post you make the blanket statement that able bodied mothers should work.

You make lits of statenent about what others "should" do, but ygen say "it should be a case by case basis".

Can't have it bith ways.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[Lolsmum]

what the heck are you taking about? I;m not legislating any thing. I could care less if you work, don't work. I'm making an opinion. If you choose and once again I think it's a life style choice. AS MHJkax said, it's a wonderfully solution for their relationship. You make it with full disclosure.

YOu are right it's an economic patnership. A patnership where you willingly know what the consequences are. I'm asking a question.

Stay home if that's your choice but if the marriage fail, there are financial consequences to your CHOICE. don't start crying that "now you owe me some thing for the rest of my life"

Alimony works in some situations and every situation should be looked at independantly. I strongly think it needs a total overhaul from this blanket "I have to take care of you for the rest of your life just because we were once married"

And yes, I do think able bodied people whether they are moms or not should get a job if they want money. Once again yes, there are definitely families where this is not feasible which I thought I said that so no I did not make a blanket statement.

OK, so no alimony for SAHMs. Just back pay for their work: childcare, cleaning, cooking, pet care, etc.

I didn't go into marriage planning to be a SAHM. Life happens though. After 4 years of fertility treatment I went for a career change, one that involved going back to school. I got pregnant a year in, and put on bedrest early on. Literally 2 weeks before I was going back, I found out I was pregnant with a second surprise. I have morning sickness that lasts the whole 9 months, with medication, and as a partnreship we decided I would stay home rather than shell out tuition, travel and child care costs at that point. My kids are both in school now, but given my husband's work hours and dealing with child illness, school holidays, doctor's appointments, etc. we have decided as a family that I remain at home right now. I supported him through starting his career (we married while he was still a student) and replacing my services at home would cost a bundle. If something happens in the future, I really don't think I am entitled to nothing.

Your plan is fine, as long as women (and stay at home dads) get paid for their work in the home.

 

[SLP958]

that might work if you only have a child or two but if you decide on having a larger family? it would have cost more than my pay to have 4 kids in daycare.. sorry I'm not going to work to pay someone else to raise our kids which it what it would have worked out to being.

Why would having a larger family entitle you not to work? I understand that child are for 4 children is costly, but you took on that responsibility when you decided to have a large family.

If you need money, you need to work.

Moms who work provide the same care as moms who don't. We take care of sick kids, pick them up at school, attend after school activities, cook, clean etc.

Never understood the statement that someone else is raising the kids while parents work.

 

[It'sWDW4me]

Best solution...don't get divorced in the first place. I know that's not always realistic.

Bottom line, my rules would be simple:
You must go to marriage counseling for at least 1 year prior to getting a divorce (3 years if you have children), with no separation during this time, unless the marriage counselor recommends it, without either person asking.

If either person doesn't participate in the marriage counseling, they get nothing. But would they have to pay the other as a default? My ex would not go to counseling even though I tried to get him there.

If someone cheats on the other person, the person who cheated is entitled to absolutely nothing, no child support (even if they somehow end up with custody, which would take a lot in my world for this situation), no alimony, no car payments, etc. And again, would they have to pay? My ex cheated on me, too.

If someone entered the marriage under fraudulent pretenses, they also get nothing.



If one person was constantly drunk, again they get nothing.

If either person was convicted of a DUI ever in their life, you guessed it, they get nothing, not even custody or visitations. So if someone had a DUI LONG before meeting and marrying and having kids, learned the errors of their ways and never touched a drop since? And absolutely no exceptions to this rule, it is hard and fast. If the other person is unfit, then the children should go to next of kin (again, no DUIs on their record). You are banned from public assistance (for life). If you are found living on the street, you automatically go to jail. Yes, that sounds extreme, but drunk driving is a MAJOR problem and needs to be stopped.

If you are here illegally (even if your kids are citizens), you get nothing and are automatically deported.

As for alimony, if both people were working, there would be no alimony for either party, no matter what the income of each is. There may be some extenuating circumstances, but not many.Actually, there are a LOT of extenuating circumstances...

There are other situations to, but these would be my basic rules. Aren't you glad I don't rule the world? LOL Very much so.

I know that this sounds extreme, but seriously, I think it would reduce divorce rates, which are alarmingly high and lower divorce rates would result in a lot better world all around.

No, what this would do would reduce marriage rates as couples would simply separate and not get legally divorced. Not to be snarky but you sound like you're very young and naive.

 

[Janepod]

Never understood the statement that someone else is raising the kids while parents work.

Thank you! It's such a gross, uninformed statement. Once kids start kindergarten, do people think teachers are raising them? So offensive. (And I say this as a SAHM.)

The lack of support for working mothers is really disappointing.

 

[It'sWDW4me]

Why would having a larger family entitle you not to work? I understand that child are for 4 children is costly, but you took on that responsibility when you decided to have a large family.

If you need money, you need to work.

Moms who work provide the same care as moms who don't. We take care of sick kids, pick them up at school, attend after school activities, cook, clean etc.

Never understood the statement that someone else is raising the kids while parents work.

Have you priced child care lately? With 4 kids, you would probably wind up paying child care a LOT more than you even make. All for the "benefit" of working outside the home?!?

 

[NFLDERS]

Hypothetical of course - what if one person was drunk all the time because the other person was cheating...?

Drinking to the point of DRUNK is never acceptable!

IMO, I'm the daughter of an AA member, My dad died at 63yrs young. I was 29 when we buried him.


Forever grateful for the AA program. We enjoyed 14yrs of his sobriety before his untimely death.

I myself was involved with Alateen at the age of 14 in counseling, when my friends were off doing other things.

 

[Colleen27]

No, it shouldn't be abolished. It needs to be there to be applied in cases that warrant it, and it makes no sense to use the extremes (very short marriages, "golddigger"/"trophy wife" situations, any celebrity situation) to argue for or against the idea as a whole.

It is difficult ground to tread, for sure, particularly in this economy. I know a woman who was awarded 5 years of alimony to get back on her feet. In that time she earned a degree and two industry certifications, but she still can't find more than crappy unskilled entry level work - the divorce/custody agreement prevents her from moving to an area with a better economy, and a late-40s single mom with a fresh degree but no experience just doesn't stack up favorably against the scores of 20-somethings competing for those same jobs. I'm ambivalent about hard time limits for that reason alone - there are a lot of hard working, competent people unemployed right now and so many applicants that employers can afford to be choosy about age, gender, credit score, health, etc. There are situations where permanent alimony might be warranted - when the divorce occurs at/just prior to retirement age, for example, or if the unemployed spouse is disabled and cannot be reasonably expected to support him/herself. And there are others where it is simply ridiculous. There needs to be a framework to determine what is appropriate to each specific situation, not a blanket yes or no to alimony as a whole.

 

[SLP958]

Have you priced child care lately? With 4 kids, you would probably wind up paying child care a LOT more than you even make. All for the "benefit" of working outside the home?!?

Yes, I currently pay child are for 2 children.

I agree it would be expensive. My comment was that deciding to have a large family does not negate the need for people to work.

When someone decides to have children they do so knowing they will be expensive. If at any time living circumstances change, the reasoning of, I have kids, I can't work is no longer acceptable.

 

[eliza61]

Yes, you ARE "legislating". You essentially said, in your first post, that alimony should not be paid to a spouse who stays at home to raise the couple's children.

And in your second post you make the blanket statement that able bodied mothers should work.

You make lits of statenent about what others "should" do, but ygen say "it should be a case by case basis".

Can't have it bith ways.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

but I think that's a life style choice you make and when you make it, it should be with the full realization that you are handing over your earning potential to some one else.
In no way saying this is a wrong choice, just that I do think it's a bit "naive: to come back and say "well I gave up XYZ" for my spouse and lost this earning potential, unless the spouse put a gun to some ones head, you gave that up with full consent and in no way should you expect after staying out of the workforce for 15 years to be capable of having the same earning potential.

I could never do it, I know it may sound selfish but my independance and career which I worked extremely hard at is very important to me so I always knew going into motherhood that I was not going to be a SAHM longer than 4 years tops.

And I totally admit to not understanding why a women after the kids get into school full time can't go back to work, once again not saying that they should just that if you CHOOSE this life style, I don't think you should cry sour grapes at the end. (in general, I know some one will post about having some special circumstances that prevents them from going back to work. not talking about that)

Today, it's not like the 1950's when choices were so limited for women and where the "normal" was for moms to not work.


But to answer the question, I think alimony should be drastically overhauled. especially now in this day and time. If you are a stay at home mom, after a few years you should be back to work.

child support is a totally different thing.

Here is my first post. Please tell me whee in these post I said anyone should not get alimony..... I'll wait....

the answer to the question is bolded. and working and alimony are two different things.

I said in all my post and I'll say it again. Yes I do think people who can work, should work (IN GENERAL). or let me phrase it a different way. If you are an able bodied person(single, married, parent, no kids,) and you want money to do whatever, you should work

 

[Colleen27]

but I think that's a life style choice you make and when you make it, it should be with the full realization that you are handing over your earning potential to some one else.
In no way saying this is a wrong choice, just that I do think it's a bit "naive: to come back and say "well I gave up XYZ" for my spouse and lost this earning potential, unless the spouse put a gun to some ones head, you gave that up with full consent and in no way should you expect after staying out of the workforce for 15 years to be capable of having the same earning potential.

I could never do it, I know it may sound selfish but my independance and career which I worked extremely hard at is very important to me so I always knew going into motherhood that I was not going to be a SAHM longer than 4 years tops.

And I totally admit to not understanding why a women after the kids get into school full time can't go back to work, once again not saying that they should just that if you CHOOSE this life style, I don't think you should cry sour grapes at the end. (in general, I know some one will post about having some special circumstances that prevents them from going back to work. not talking about that)

Today, it's not like the 1950's when choices were so limited for women and where the "normal" was for moms to not work.

It is a choice made jointly, and both parties should be responsible for the consequences of that choice.

I think today is very much like the 1950s, but with the 'rules' reversed - women have the opportunity to work in pretty much any field they choose, but along with that opportunity has come condemnation for those who opt not to do so.

I'm a long-term SAHM to the point that I joke about retiring at 22. I've been out of the workforce 15 years now with no real plans to re-enter at all. The issues that led us to me leaving my job haven't vanished because the kids got older. My husband still works in a field that makes it impossible for me to count on him for any help in the evenings, because he doesn't know in the morning what time he'll get home at night. And my training/experience is still in a profession that would demand a long commute and sometimes erratic hours. One of us needs to know that we'll be home to get the kids from childcare, to drive to/from evening activities, to make dinner and run baths and get the kids to bed and since neither of our chosen job paths accommodates that we decided the most practical choice is for one of us to be at home. Since I never had the passion for my job that DH has for his, I gladly left mine behind and haven't looked back. He's been able to do more, career-wise, than he could have if he was balancing work and family, and we've been able to give the kids opportunities that we couldn't if they didn't have me available to handle all the logistics.