Talk About Marriage banner

What you think the law should be for Alimony

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alimony

41K views 593 replies 60 participants last post by  Kivlor 
#1 ·
There is a lot of discussion of TAM about whether or not alimony should be allowed in divorce.

I think it would be interesting to hear what people think about this.
 
#3 ·
For the traditional situation where the SAHM has not had an income or much of a career for a long period of time yes, for some long but not permanent time, maybe 10 years max.

For a two career couple as long as they are actual careers as opposed to 1 career + 1 low paid service position, no - no alimony. Don't care about the differential, might go as far as a couple of years transition period but that is it.
 
#4 ·
Yes, but I don't think alimony should be awarded long term. I favor giving reasonable time for the unemployed or under employed to complete a degree or certificate program and secure employment.

Although, I am ok with lifetime alimony for those that are older and unlikely to be able to complete a program or find employment.

I looked it up for giggles, turns out my state is one that takes into account conduct even though we aren't an at-fault state. If a spouse had an affair or a substance abuse issue, the judge can take that into account when deciding on alimony and asset division.
 
#5 ·
In Australia we don't have any alimony at all, except in very, very rare circumstances.

The only scenario that I can think of for long term, even lifelong alimony is where one of the parents is the carer for a severely disabled child. I know myself that I would much rather my child be cared for at home wherever possible, and if my husband and I divorced and I was the breadwinner, I would happily pay him for that role, as he would me.

Anything else, even when a SAHM has not worked for years should only be short term for transition, never permanent.
 
#6 · (Edited)
I'm not sure what some of the choices mean, but I don't think alimony should be awarded to any able-bodied adult. If it is available it should be only in special circumstances where one partner, for one reason or another, is not capable of making a living on their own. And if they are not (capable), alimony should be very limited in duration, just long enough for the person to get some kind of degree or job training, a couple of years max.

They should not be entitled to whatever standard of living they had before the divorce.
 
#7 ·
In general I don't agree with alimony because I don't think an able bodied adult (like Joey2k said) is entitled to be supported by another adult. And that's what alimony is.

And if you consider lifetime alimony, what you have is someone who works for say 18-30 years to some degree depending on how many kids and then is guaranteed retirement. That's a heck of a deal.....working spouse doesn't get that. And in general it won't be reduced if working spouse loses their job or something else happens; why should a stay at home be shielded from the crap that life throws at all of us?

Having said that I also recognize that it's very difficult to demand someone go back to work after 20 years of not working (particularly if they're older), but I don't think it should be left to a judge's discretion. I think a legal document should be drawn up with an agreement on how long spouse will stay home (can be worded to include x amount of time for each kid) and how much they will be entitled to based on how long they're home and length of marriage. Then if someone simply refuses to go back to work they don't get extra for backing out of the agreement.

Lay it all out when everyone is getting along, and let working spouse see on paper what this is going to mean to them should the marriage end.

Then you won't have judges screwing anyone over and you won't have anything to fight over. I'm sure there will still be issues but right now it's completely subject to a judge's whim.
 
#8 ·
Having a pre-nup on this topic makes sense to a point. Some things cannot be anticipated so being able to amend it during the marriage out might also make sense.

Most people simply fall back on the marriage and divorce laws where they live. And these can change over time.

Also a prenup can be fought incourt and thrown out. When that happens, it defaults to the state or countries laws.
 
#12 ·
I would expect lifetime alimony in the extremely unlikely event I were ever divorced. I have been home for two decades bringing up five children, breastfeeding and homeschooling them just as my husband wanted. Those are years I could have been working and building a career.

My willingness to follow him on foreign assignments allowed him to build his experience base and get the job he has now, while still enjoying having a family. I would think it quite unfair for that contribution to not be acknowledged.
 
#13 ·
I think that it should be phased out in all the countries where it still occurs. The world is changing and laws should keep up with the times. The older generations have lived in a time where they were encouraged to give up all independence and become reliant solely on their spouse for money. This is no longer the case. As those generations move into retirement, so should the laws that were relevant only to them be retired.

I was not raised to need to be reliant on someone else to live. Despite being a SAHM until my children were able to go to school I knew I would one day return to the workforce. While I never expect to get a divorce (though I imagine most don't), there is the possibility that I might outlive DH (though I hope we both live to a ripe old age), and in that event, I can and will be self sufficient.
 
#239 ·
I think that it should be phased out in all the countries where it still occurs. The world is changing and laws should keep up with the times. The older generations have lived in a time where they were encouraged to give up all independence and become reliant solely on their spouse for money. This is no longer the case. As those generations move into retirement, so should the laws that were relevant only to them be retired.
This^. No able-bodied adult person should be dependent on another.

Want to avoid alimony? Marry (or don't) someone who shares your intellect, work ethic, and values.

If there were no alimony, a lot of women would be much more thoughtful about getting married and pregnant.
 
#17 ·
Alimony should be awarded for a limited amount of time in some cases.

My 69 yo friend recently got divorced. She worked the entire 25 year marriage, and he the lion's share of it, but not all of it. He is diagnosed bipolar so there were lots of bumps along the way. They agreed he would go to school for 2 years to get his degree. The 2 years turned into 7 years (only she worked during this time). Then, when he didn't graduate, he refused to look for a job for another 2 years. She supported their household throughout this whole ordeal (no children). The plan all along was for her to retire (she retired a few years ago), and he would then support the household since he's considerably younger than she is. They would travel and do all the things they dreamed of.

She didn't ask for alimony. I told her in the beginning she should and reiterated to her all she did for their marriage, especially with his outright refusal/inability to get with the program.

Now that reality has sunk in, she wishes she asked for alimony. I believe she's entitled to it, for a limited time, in this particular scenario. He reneged on the whole deal and she's left with only her retirement/social security. So not fair.
 
#18 ·
Alimony should be awarded for a limited amount of time in some cases.

My 69 yo friend recently got divorced.

She didn't ask for alimony. I told her in the beginning she should and reiterated to her all she did for their marriage, especially with his outright refusal/inability to get with the program.

Now that reality has sunk in, she wishes she asked for alimony. I believe she's entitled to it, for a limited time, in this particular scenario. He reneged on the whole deal and she's left with only her retirement/social security. So not fair.
I don't think alimony should even be up for debate or refusal. One of the most immoral things I have seen on TAM is men in particular being encouraged to go along with a WW's guilty refusal of alimony, even after they have been married many years and have children.

I am surprised courts even allow this, considering the likelihood that these women may end up on some sort of state aid without the financial help of their ex-husbands. That just shifts the burden to the taxpayer.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucy999
#27 ·
Here in Texas, there is no such animal as "alimony," unless, of course, the couple have it written into the embodiment of a valid prenuptial or postnuptial agreement between the two of them!

And IMHO, any man or woman who would sign off on that, needs to have their heads checked!

Posted via Mobile Device
 
#33 ·
Alimony laws obviously vary from state to state, and even from judge to judge. There is a lot of arbitrary variation.

In my situation, I overlooked many red flags early on in my relationship with my now ex-wife. Red flags that only became obvious in hindsight, that I have paid dearly for, that she has profited handsomely from. In my extensive case law research, in my state, my case and the resulting judgement was fairly typical.

My ex wife has never supported herself for a day in her life. She went straight from her parents house to mine. She has never held a full time job. She made the decision to not continue her education past high school. She made the decision to become a stay at home mom. My mistake was supporting her in her decisions. She is also diagnosed NPD, with all of the associated entitlement, martyr, and victim complexes that accompany that.

The initial settlement offer based on my $65,000 per year income would have given her 85% of my gross income between child support and alimony. I would have been left literally without enough to cover taxes, and the health insurance for her and the kids I was required to maintain. The lifetime alimony award she was asking for was $2,500 per month for life. She was 37, in supreme health, fully able bodied when we divorced. She also wanted half of my retirement as it stood when I retired, not where it was when we divorced. The thing is, I had no retirement savings, as in zero dollars, because her financial mismanagement left us filing for bankruptcy two years before we divorced.

After my own personal research, and talking to several attorneys, there was a very real chance my ex-wife could be awarded exactly what she was asking for. One caveat about lifetime alimony vs temporary rehabilitative alimony in my state is that a lifetime award is not automatically ended upon the recipient remarrying.

She was also seeking full custody.

The United States got rid of debtors prisons a long time ago, but they have left a loophole wide open when it comes to child support and alimony...failure to pay is not considered a debt, it is considered contempt of court...a jailable offense. Looking at the numbers, it was an inevitability that I would end up in jail for failure to pay. Not because I was being an assh0le dead beat...because there was simply not enough money for me to do what the court ordered.

She used the kids as leverage against me. Said she'd be open to negotiations if I agreed to let her have full custody. What choice did I have? There was case law in my jurisdiction indicating that awards she was seeking in similar circumstances had been given by the courts. What good would shared custody be if I still ended up in jail.

In the end, even agreeing to her having custody, I still had to spend over $20,000 just to get every other weekend, five year alimony so she can get her degree and back into the work force, and keeping my non existent retirement.

Well, as of right now, four years later, she married her affair partner, hasn't gone back to school, still has not gotten a job, and still doesn't actually have any kids at home. The youngest is 14. She still tries to demand extras from me...for the kids of course. She is the epitome of the dead beat mom.
 
#34 ·
I would like to add...I have absolutely no problems with providing financial support for my children. It is formulaic, with very little deviation. One thing I would like to change though is requiring the custodial recipient to also provide financially for their children. They are both the parents, so it should not be left to just one parent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frusdil
#49 ·
State guidelines for child support already take both parent's income into consideration when setting the amount of support the custodial parent receives. Some do it directly in a computation, some do it indirectly by awarding a percentage of income of non-custodial parent.
I agree it is formulaic. But the system before statutory guidelines was unworkable and left most kids with insufficient support.


And unrelated to your post, suggestions to equate spousal support with fault for divorce are vengeful and regressive. They were eliminated for a reason.
 
#39 · (Edited)
In Texas, family court judges can arbitrarily up the ante on "child support," for punitive purposes, knowing full well that the appellants writ of appeal to the State Appellate Court will literally cost them an arm and a leg in legal fees alone!

And with absolutely no hair off of the elected presiding judge's a$$, other than for a paper reversal by the higher circuit!

Posted via Mobile Device
 
#47 ·
QFT. This is it exactly! Laws regarding alimony are changing to reflect our culture. You can disagree all you want, but you will be left behind and penniless if you don't prepare yourself adequately for all of the "what ifs" in life.

From one appellate court:

“As recognized by our Supreme Court, the public policy of this state has progressed from one which entitled some women to lifelong alimony as a condition of the marital contract of support, to one that entitles either spouse to post-dissolution support for only so long as is necessary to become self-supporting.
Those words are meaningless until there is a mechanism to measure and enforce accountability of the recipient.
 
#61 ·
I understand your point about the courts not enforcing the decisions regarding self sufficiency, but I don't like the idea of anyone else holding me accountable for my decisions if I'm not breaking the law. I think there should be a reasonable time limit to accomplish things and if I chose not to follow through, I only have myself to blame. Unfortunately, as the laws stand now, I think it is tricky to have alimony modified or terminated.
Normally, I would agree with this 100%. The thing is, in the case of alimony, the decisions are being forcibly funded by someone else. The purpose of alimony is to help towards self sufficiency, but if that goal is not being actively worked towards with no tangible results within a reasonable amount of time, then I think it is wholly unfair to expect the person paying to keep paying alimony, when the recipient is not taking steps to substantially provide for themselves.
 
#60 ·
In general, I am opposed to alimony at all. But, I'm also opposed to debtor's prison and indentured servitude. I'm old-fashioned like that.
 
#63 ·
The kicker is, I could have been the controlling assh0le and demanded she get a job, or I could have just said screw it, I'm not working anymore and supporting my family. Not doing the whole SAHM thing any more, and no court in the world would step in and force anything. Hell, I could have just kept all the money I earned, gave her an allowance, you know, all the crappy stuff we read about here, and no court could have stopped me. Sure, she could have divorced me, but I wouldn't have ended up any worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top