# Alimony for WS



## sokillme

So this is being debated on SI right now so I thought it might be interesting for us to debate it to. 

So I am of the opinion that assuming the person who is divorcing BS or WS is of adult age and able to work their should be no Alimony at all. The one caveat would be if one of the spouses had sacrificed their career to take care of children or the home. But in that case I would provide maybe 2-5 years so they can get training to begin their career again. The years would be contingent on the level of education or work experience the person has. This would also be if they were too young to collect social security. 

I don't believe that in today's day in age where women have the potential to make just as much as men, (this is in some dispute but I am talking in relative terms) there is no need for alimony at all. Alimony is an archaic idea built when women were not almost equally represented in the work force as they are today, and whose time doesn't exist anymore. There are plenty of instances where women are providing alimony to their deadbeat husbands. 

Retirement, assets, that is all fair game but no able bodied person should need another person to support them for life.


----------



## TooNice

I would disagree with you on this one. I have a good career and a job I love. But I make less than half of what my ex makes, and my earning potential will never come near his. 

I did not choose to divorce, so I think my 10 years of support is reasonable. Our son finishes college soon, and that has been a financial challenge when I am only just out on my own, anyway. I have a few years now to pay down some debt and hopefully find some footing before I live off of my income alone. 

I understand what you are saying, but honestly, this isn’t how life was “supposed” to go. I certainly don’t think it would be fair to add insult to injury and have him and the OW living off of his income while I would be struggling to make ends meet!


----------



## Bananapeel

TooNice said:


> I would disagree with you on this one. I have a good career and a job I love. But I make less than half of what my ex makes, and my earning potential will never come near his.
> 
> But that should be irrelevant once you were divorced and collected half of the marital assets
> 
> I did not choose to divorce, so I think my 10 years of support is reasonable. Our son finishes college soon, and that has been a financial challenge when I am only just out on my own, anyway. I have a few years now to pay down some debt and hopefully find some footing before I live off of my income alone.
> 
> Child support should happen to account for this. If it isn't enough support then the court should adjust it within reasonable limits.
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but honestly, this isn’t how life was “supposed” to go. I certainly don’t think it would be fair to add insult to injury and have him and the OW living off of his income while I would be struggling to make ends meet!
> 
> I agree 100% that it is unfair. But conversely, once you are divorced neither side should be funding the other, except for child support.


I've explained this before but when I was married my XW got a major lifestyle upgrade by being married to a high earner since she was a low earner. We got divorced and split assets that were far above what she would have accumulated if she was on her own during our marriage. She didn't ask for alimony but if she did I would have fought her on it. Why should I have to pay alimony to maintain her lifestyle upgrade after we are divorced when she benefited from it during our marriage and in her divorce settlement? It just makes no sense to continue supporting her when I don't get to keep the marriage benefits. If I paid alimony then it would have been fair to expect her to continue to cook, clean, and do my laundry while she was collecting those payments.


----------



## Mr. Nail

This may be a spin off from yesterdays thread just paid last alimony payment. Dr. Laura was against any alimony because it is just a rip off. I get Sokillme's point about career loss or postponement. Too nice's point is a bit harder to approve but she said 2 things that are very applicable. First the alimony was of a limited duration even if it was longer than Sokillme suggested. And second the Alimony helped her to get their kid through college. Now I understand that alimony is not supposed to be child support. But, there are states that have child support through college, and that is a pretty good idea. I'm not in favor of partner one makes more money so partner 2 should get it. I make less than my partner but I have not built the career she has and I don't deserve her reward. 

The point that really brings me up is from the other thread. The Wayward Wife collected 30,000 per year for 5 years. And it was her choice to abandon the relationship, hurt her partner, and leave. Had she said What Too Nice Said "This isn't how life was supposed to go" I would have no sympathy at all. Now Too nice has a valid point. The plan and the commitment was to pool their resources to raise their son. Too nice did not decide to change the plan. She was cast aside with the child, to make room for another woman. I think that BS vs WS is a huge issue in alimony, but no fault states don't want to know who cheated, so our opinion has no effect on the judges decision. 

Well it was an opinion question.


----------



## arbitrator

*I like Texas alimony law ~ None, unless the Court can be overwhelmingly convinced that it's needed!*


----------



## sokillme

TooNice said:


> I would disagree with you on this one. I have a good career and a job I love. But I make less than half of what my ex makes, and my earning potential will never come near his.
> 
> I did not choose to divorce, so I think my 10 years of support is reasonable. Our son finishes college soon, and that has been a financial challenge when I am only just out on my own, anyway. I have a few years now to pay down some debt and hopefully find some footing before I live off of my income alone.
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but honestly, this isn’t how life was “supposed” to go. I certainly don’t think it would be fair to add insult to injury and have him and the OW living off of his income while I would be struggling to make ends meet!


Nothing is preventing you from making more money though. Having to choose between a job you love and making more money is a choice that lots of single people have to make every day. 

I do think your husband should be paying for you kid, though not to 25 as it is now, that is ridiculous and only serves to keep young people in adolescence. 21 is fine. 

Now say your husband cheated I think their should be some leeway say 60-40 split in assets in the loyal spouses favor, but I still don't believe in alimony. Single adults should have to support themselves that is actually healthy and empowering. There is no reason someone should divorce someone when they are 40 and still be paying for them when they are 60, that is ridiculous. It keeps people tied together when they shouldn't be.


----------



## honcho

When I got married my ex and I both made the same amount and it was that way for the first couple years of our marriage. After that she got fired from every job she had, 2x for Corp downsizing and 5 times for fault. The last 3 years she was basically unemployed working 10 hours a week and no job was good enough or paid enough for her to take full time. 

During the marriage my income tripled but in essence our marital income didn't increase. She was perfectly capable and employable but always found a way to sabotage her jobs and get canned. She files for divorce while living with her new Mr perfect and I'm supposed to pay her half my income for years when she wasn't trying to get a new start. She just became a dependent of a new guy basically. Her standard of living was better with the new guy, he had more money and a nicer house than me. So exactly what was I giving her money to maintain a standard of living when it was better than living with me, at least on paper. 

Only reason I got out of it after 2 years is because I lost my job. I still find it ironic how the courts and Lawyers were more worried about her "surviving" after I lost my job yet nobody gave a rats butt about my standard of living....

Yeah I think the current alimony system is a complete joke and only enables the lower income earner to do whatever they please without consequences.


----------



## TooNice

I understand the points that each of you are making, and appreciate the good discussion. Without quoting each of you, I do have some general counterpoints, though:

I am in a no-fault state. While my attorney and the judge both appeared to assume what happened, the details of WHY we were divorcing were never brought up. No one cares on paper about what he and the OW did... for YEARS.

Marital assets? We didn't own a home. We both have college debt. Our combined income was the bulk of our assets. He saw me through school, to get the career I love, knowing full well I would never make what he does, and knowing for the last several years of it that he would be leaving me. Our state has a nice, neutral calculator that enters in the length of marriage, income, debts, and assets, and spits out how much should be paid out. There was little to negotiate. We did plan in some of our son's college expenses, however, just to keep us both honest. Even the judge felt that was unusual, but respected that we were planning ahead. 

I spent many years figuring out the job that I want to do while I was in a marriage that I didn't even realize made me miserable. I take exception to being told that I could suck it up and find a job that pays more, even if it makes me unhappy, in order to maintain the lifestyle I had for 20+ years. I'm sorry if I seem to have my feathers ruffled by that, but I don't think it's fair. I'm actually happy now. I love what I do, and I am not being pulled down by a man who didn't value me. At the same time, I don't think he should get to walk away from our marriage and have no financial ties to me. I realize that every situation is different, but I will stick to my guns on this one. We were supposed to be in this together, so I guess I don't feel badly that he still has just a little responsibility to me for a few years. 

Now, if I were the one who cheated, I would not feel this way. Please know that. But I think given I was not the one who strayed, I think it is fair. While I will never come close to my ex's salary, this time will allow me the opportunity to get myself established and able to figure out ho to live on my earnings.

This is an interesting conversation, though. I wonder what my ex would think...


----------



## sokillme

TooNice said:


> I take exception to being told that I could suck it up and find a job that pays more, even if it makes me unhappy, in order to maintain the lifestyle I had for 20+ years.


I really mean no offense but I am not sure why you feel this way. I mean I get why you want to keep the benefit but I don't know why you take exception. This is the story for almost all of the people working today. I mean I would love to do lots of things that would make me happy but they won't pay me to keep my lifestyle. I am just not sure what being married to someone for 20 years has to do with that. I mean in a sense you are lucky you were, luckier them most in this specific instance (maybe not in others). You have been spared from a harsh truth that most adults have to face. Most people do not have he luxury work at a job only for love because they need to pay for their bills. 

You had the nice lifestyle because you had someone who was willing to supplement your lifestyle. This is one of the benefits of marriage. No one is stopping you from finding that again by the way.

I still think alimony should be eliminated. I think able bodied working adults should pay for themselves. It is just better for society. If there is to be monitory compensation for poor behavior in a marriage then it should be done through the splitting of assets.


----------



## TooNice

sokillme said:


> I really mean no offense but I am not sure why you feel this way. I mean I get why you want to keep the benefit but I don't know why you take exception. This is the story for almost all of the people working today. I mean I would love to do lots of things that would make me happy but they won't pay me to keep my lifestyle. I am just not sure what being married to someone for 20 years has to do with that. I mean in a sense you are lucky you were, luckier them most in this specific instance (maybe not in others). You have been spared from a harsh truth that most adults have to face. Most people do not have he luxury work at a job only for love because they need to pay for their bills.
> 
> You had the nice lifestyle because you had someone who was willing to supplement your lifestyle. This is one of the benefits of marriage. No one is stopping you from finding that again by the way.
> 
> I still think alimony should be eliminated. I think able bodied working adults should pay for themselves. It is just better for society. If there is to be monitory compensation for poor behavior in a marriage then it should be done through the splitting of assets.




How do you propose that I magically acquire a job that pays 2-3 times my current salary? I assure you that I am a college educated, able bodied adult who pays her bills. And some of those bills include school loans incurred while I was married. Even if it meant being unhappy in my work, I can’t see landing a job that puts me at the pay scale near my ex’s. I can’t even afford to go get a masters degree to try to bump myself up in my current field. 

Just to be clear, I’m not talking huge amounts of money. Our joint income put us at upper middle class. We didn’t own a home, didn’t have much in savings, and rarely took vacations. We paid our bills and made it through. I’m hardly living a lavish lifestyle with the help of my support. I rent a 2 BR apartment and lease my modest American made car. I can’t tell you the last time I bought new clothes or had my nails done. I’m just trying to recover from losing my family and my life as I knew it. 

And I’m doing a pretty damn good job of it, and grateful for the help that my support gives me. Maybe many who receive support don’t have the same respect or viewpoint that I do, but that’s my story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> So this is being debated on SI right now so I thought it might be interesting for us to debate it to.
> 
> So I am of the opinion that assuming the person who is divorcing BS or WS is of adult age and able to work their should be no Alimony at all. The one caveat would be if one of the spouses had sacrificed their career to take care of children or the home. But in that case I would provide maybe 2-5 years so they can get training to begin their career again. The years would be contingent on the level of education or work experience the person has. This would also be if they were too young to collect social security.
> 
> I don't believe that in today's day in age where women have the potential to make just as much as men, (this is in some dispute but I am talking in relative terms) there is no need for alimony at all. Alimony is an archaic idea built when women were not almost equally represented in the work force as they are today, and whose time doesn't exist anymore. There are plenty of instances where women are providing alimony to their deadbeat husbands.
> 
> Retirement, assets, that is all fair game but no able bodied person should need another person to support them for life.


Income is largely influenced by years or work in a field and consistent work patterns.

Say Bob and Mary get the same degree in accounting and start out with similar jobs making the same income:

If either of them work 25 years full-time without interruption (so that they are knowledgeable about current accounting practices have plenty of experience and have displayed the reliability of working full-time for 25 years) let's say that after 25 years, they would be making $100,000 a year.

If either one of them works full-time for 5 years, takes off work for 10 years and then works part-time in a low pressure situation for 10 years, they might expect to make half that ($50,000) if they were to get a full-time job.

Furthermore, the one who worked full-time will likely maintain the pay gap forever (or until they retire).

So, if Bob and Mary jointly decide that they would prefer that one of them stay home with the kids for 10 years and then work part time for another 10 years (so that they can prioritize the family); I can't for the life of me see why one of them should be making twice what the other is making if they divorce.

Setting things up so that this is a huge risk for the SAH doesn't just hurt the SAH parent, it hurts the other person who would prefer that their children be raised with a largely SAH parent.

Of course, it sucks that the SAH parent could cheat and walk away in the same financial circumstances as the betrayed, but I'm not sure what could be done about that.


----------



## uhtred

Two different issues. Should adultery have legal impact on divorce settlements and should people pay alimony 

1) I like no-fault divorce simply because I don't want the courts tied up with long complex cases about the extent to which either party was at fault. I also don't want the government prying into my, or anyone's sex life. I don't want to go all Bill Clinton and decide what "sex" means. 

2) I would actually like to see several variants of marriage contracts because there are various types of marriages. 

In some marriages, one person works, the other stays home and takes care of kids. In that case alimony seems completely reasonable because one person has been occupied doing something useful, but for which there is minimal market.

In others, both work and share in responsibilities. In that case, I don't see an reason for alimony even if the incomes are different, since the marriage really hasn't prevented either from holding a job.


----------



## Bananapeel

Here's another way to think about it. Imagine two people are not married but cohabitate and have kids together. During their cohabitation they keep their finances separate but share household expenses. When they break up there would be no legal right to alimony since they weren't married and there would be no split of marital assets since there weren't any. There would be child support because that is for the kids and mandated by state law. 

Given the above situation why does the legal document of marriage fundamentally change access to each others earned personal property? Each went into the marriage advocating for their needs, made decisions they thought were best at the time, and fully knew the potential consequences of their actions. What makes "marriage" so special as to change this and entitle one person to another's assets? Why does the sacrifices made during marriage come with different entitlements than identical sacrifices made in a non-married but cohabitating situation? 

I don't believe alimony is fair, except in exceedingly rare situations. I believe that all people are equal and should be able to equally live with the consequences of their choices, even if the choices end up being bad ones. Alimony is essentially being used as an insurance policy taken out by one low earning spouse against the other higher earning spouse, and it's benefits are solely one sided and not for the benefit of the marriage partnership.


----------



## Thor

Absent cheating or other abuse, alimony does make sense in some cases but not in others. The problem is in establishing a legal framework that is actually fair.

I would look at "fault" first. Fault would be either infidelity, abuse, or choosing to end the marriage. If the person at fault is a lower earner, they generally would not qualify to receive alimony. If the person at fault were the higher earner, they generally would be considered a candidate to pay alimony.

Next would be the general financial situation for each person. If each earns well enough (perhaps median income for the location), and if the disparity in incomes between the 2 people is less than some factor, maybe 2x or 3x, then alimony would not be awarded except for very unusual cases.

After that I would look at the mutual agreements within the marriage. For example, if one spouse stayed home then their contribution was real but not financial. There are still many such traditional families. It could be the executive or doctor who spends a lot of hours at work and earns a lot, so the spouse either doesn't work or has a part time job so that they can do the housekeeping and taking care of the children. It could be the couple agrees that one earns well enough that the other doesn't have to chase money, and both of them are happy with the arrangement. The expectation in these marriages is they will be together forever, and they accept that one of them will not develop as high an earning potential as the other.

Alimony should not be based on the idea of maintaining the standard of living prior to divorce. In my state the philosophy is to equalize the standard of living of the two people after divorce. Nuts!

I would award alimony if the person at fault earns substantially more than the other person. Duration would depend on how long the marriage was. Shorter marriages would have short alimony to allow the person to gain training or experience to qualify for a better income. Think of the spouse who works to put the other through dental school, then gets dumped when the Dentist starts cheating with his receptionist. The wife in this case deserves alimony for a few years to go to university herself. Longer term marriages would result in longer alimony. The betrayed should not suddenly have a much lower standard of living while the cheater or abuser lives very nicely.

I would award alimony in the case of couples where they mutually agreed that one would sacrifice professional income to take on domestic duties while the other chased money. The longer the marriage, the longer the alimony. A 50 yr old with no real job experience and no marketable college degree has very poor earning potential. Fault certainly plays a big part in this one. A cheater who was the lower earner would not get alimony, or only a small amount for a short time. If the cheater was the high earner, then alimony would be larger and longer.


----------



## C3156

Bananapeel said:


> Here's another way to think about it. Imagine two people are not married but cohabitate and have kids together. During their cohabitation they keep their finances separate but share household expenses. When they break up there would be no legal right to alimony since they weren't married and there would be no split of marital assets since there weren't any. There would be child support because that is for the kids and mandated by state law.
> 
> Given the above situation why does the legal document of marriage fundamentally change access to each others earned personal property? Each went into the marriage advocating for their needs, made decisions they thought were best at the time, and fully knew the potential consequences of their actions. What makes "marriage" so special as to change this and entitle one person to another's assets? Why does the sacrifices made during marriage come with different entitlements than identical sacrifices made in a non-married but cohabitating situation?
> 
> I don't believe alimony is fair, except in exceedingly rare situations. I believe that all people are equal and should be able to equally live with the consequences of their choices, even if the choices end up being bad ones. Alimony is essentially being used as an insurance policy taken out by one low earning spouse against the other higher earning spouse, and it's benefits are solely one sided and not for the benefit of the marriage partnership.


Well said.


----------



## brooklynAnn

if my H cheats on me, you bet your ass he is paying alimony. He would be paying alimony until I am in the grave or he is....who ever goes first.

I have invested years in this marriage. I make sure his life is smooth with no difficulties outside of his job. I have encouraged his career and give support to everything he has done. I have put up with all his travelling. 
I have taken care of our children without needing or asking anything of him. Yes, I could not have done all those things with our kids that we have done without his financial support. 

I have taken on all the household running stress. He has never paid a bill since we got married. I do everything for this man except wash his ass. So, don't tell me I don't deserve alimony. I have given up my career to take care of our kids and make his life stress free. Even now that the kids are in college he does not want me to go back to work because it would mean he would have to step up and help with the household. And heaven knows dinner on the table when he gets in might not happen and he might not get his nightly massage or shoulder rubs. So, I am giving up my earning potential to meet his needs. 

I expect my needs to be met if he decides that he is replacing me . Because I am going to be one angry *****, he will wish he has never meet me or be born. I get alimony, half of the pension and half of the 401k and half of everything else. And I might just get me a young man toy to make me happy.>


----------



## Bananapeel

By all means go for everything that you are legally able to get if you are ever in that situation. However, I'm going to change some words in your paragraph to alter it to a potential XH's perspective. 



brooklynAnn said:


> if my H cheats on me, you bet your ass he is paying alimony. He would be paying alimony until I am in the grave or he is....who ever goes first because I would be angry and want to continue to punish him in perpetuity even after we are no longer married.
> 
> Wehave invested years in this marriage . I make sure his life is smooth with no difficulties outside of his job and he does his half by going to work and paying all of our bills. I have encouraged his career and give support to everything he has done and he has supported my personal choice to be a SAHM. I have put up with all his travelling while he earned money to support me.
> I have chosen to taken care of our children instead of holding down a paying job andwithout needing or asking anything of him while I relied on him working to support our whole family. Yes, I could not have done all those things with our kids that we have done without his financial support and my choice to stay home was based on him being the provider.
> 
> I have taken on all the household running stress while he has taken on all of the financial stress associated with supporting us. He has never paid a bill since we got married but he has earned the money that I use to pay them. I do everything for this man except wash his ass and he does everything to support us financially. So, don't tell me I don't deserve alimony and if I get alimony I'll continue to cook, clean, pay bills, and run the household post divorce because it is fair. I have chosen to give up my career to take care of our kids and make his life stress free and I feel like I shouldn't be responsible for my choice if we end up divorced because I want to be compensated for deciding I don't want a career and instead choose a SAHM lifestyle. Even now that the kids are in college he does not want me to go back to work because it would mean he would have to step up and help with the household although there is time for me to still develop a career and take care of the house if it was important to me. And heaven knows dinner on the table when he gets in might not happen and he might not get his nightly massage or shoulder rubs but I could instead choose to think of me and make decisions that are in my best interest because I am equal partner in this relationship. So, I am giving up my earning potential solely of my own choice to meet his needs and I don't want to be responsible for that bad choice if the relationship doesn't work out.
> 
> I expect my needs to be met if he decides that he is replacing me by punishing him financially any way I can. Because I am going to be one angry *****, he will wish he has never meet me or be born. I get alimony, half of the pension and half of the 401k and half of everything else which means I get half of all marital assets and then will continue to take from him which ensure I get more than half of everything earned during our marriage tenure. And I might just get me a young man toy to make me happy because I'm hot and could use a good pounding.>


I've discussed with my kids (pre-teens) many times that if they ever plan to get married and they are the high earner they need a prenup to prevent a situation like yours from happening. The alternative is to not get married and just live together as a family so that they get all the benefits of marriage without the potential consequences that the unfair laws allow for. However, I also told them that if they aren't the high earner to not sign a prenup so that they can take a spouse to the cleaners and even try to get alimony.


----------



## brooklynAnn

Bananapeel said:


> By all means go for everything that you are legally able to get if you are ever in that situation. However, I'm going to change some words in your paragraph to alter it to a potential XH's perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> I've discussed with my kids (pre-teens) many times that if they ever plan to get married and they are the high earner they need a prenup to prevent a situation like yours from happening. The alternative is to not get married and just live together as a family so that they get all the benefits of marriage without the potential consequences that the unfair laws allow for. However, I also told them that if they aren't the high earner to not sign a prenup so that they can take a spouse to the cleaners and even try to get alimony.


Since i am a loving wife and we have a great marriage i will agree with most of your add-ons. 
I did try to go back to work...for 3 months. My H was not happy and said we are fine, no need to work. He did not like what it was doing to us....more stress etc. I want him to be happy because then i am happy. He wanted me to rest so he can cone home to pound me:smile2:

And yes, i will want to punish him....

I have always told my kids to get a prenup before marriage because we intend to leave them a nice chunk....


----------



## Thor

brooklynAnn said:


> Since i am a loving wife and we have a great marriage i will agree with most of your add-ons.
> I did try to go back to work...for 3 months. My H was not happy and said we are fine, no need to work. He did not like what it was doing to us....more stress etc. I want him to be happy because then i am happy. He wanted me to rest so he can cone home to pound me:smile2:
> 
> And yes, i will want to punish him....
> 
> I have always told my kids to get a prenup before marriage because we intend to leave them a nice chunk....


Your situation is exactly why alimony was put in place, and exactly when it would make sense. The two of you have mutually agreed to this arrangement, and you do make it possible for him to put his energies into earning well enough to provide for the whole family. Without your support at home he likely would not have had the career he's had. You are living up to your part of the deal.

Were he to suddenly decide to have an affair, or if he just decided he no longer wanted to be married to you, it would be grossly unfair for you to be dumped out in the world without any substantial earning potential.

But if you were the cheater and I were King, you wouldn't get alimony. Fault or bad behavior logically and morally need to be part of determining alimony.


----------



## sa58

Just another reason why many more people
are just living together. That way you avoid 
the courts and screwed up divorce laws.
And high priced divorce lawyers.


----------



## brooklynAnn

@Thor, if i cheated and you were King, i would not ask for alimony. I am not heartless and my kids will kick my ass. So, i will have to make a quick exit. My daughter is a scary little pit bull who loves her daddy too much and would turn against me so fast. 

There is nothing to be gained from cheating.


----------



## michzz

arbitrator said:


> *I like Texas alimony law ~ None, unless the Court can be overwhelmingly convinced that it's needed!*


And even if granted? Three years maximum!


----------



## Tomara

When cheating is the demise of the marriage I am all for alimony. For me it provided a chance to earn more money yet I could never come close to his earnings. Yes he paid child support but he never kept to the divorce decree and only saw the kids maybe 5 times from the age of 12 and 14, he did show up for their HS graduations. I did everything for my kids, took vacation days because the kids were ill, needed me to do things during working hours. You name it I was the one that was there. I had to quit a good job because I needed to be home because my son decided to misbehave at 16, I couldn’t travel and leave my best friend to handle my child. Leaving that job greatly effected the money I would receive at retirement. 

I choose 7 years of alimony=number of years he cheated on me. Should have thrown in a few more years for the STD. 

Sorry I did it? Hell no but killing him was not a viable option. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Nail

Tomara said:


> When cheating is the demise of the marriage I am all for alimony. For me it provided a chance to earn more money yet I could never come close to his earnings. Yes he paid child support but he never kept to the divorce decree and only saw the kids maybe 5 times from the age of 12 and 14, he did show up for their HS graduations. I did everything for my kids, took vacation days because the kids were ill, needed me to do things during working hours. You name it I was the one that was there. I had to quit a good job because I needed to be home because my son decided to misbehave at 16, I couldn’t travel and leave my best friend to handle my child. Leaving that job greatly effected the money I would receive at retirement.
> 
> I choose 7 years of alimony=number of years he cheated on me. *Should have thrown in a few more years for the STD.*
> 
> Sorry I did it? Hell no but killing him was not a viable option.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wow, you are right. Certainly a civil liability.


----------



## brooklynAnn

I was wondering, if your spouse cheated and gave you an STD...like herpes, hpv or hiv. One of those that there are no cure from..can you sue him or her?
Or can this entitle you to more alimony?

Just curious, you see so much if this happening and the person who has to "pay" for this is usually the BS. Because their health is forever changed.


----------



## WasDecimated

Even after what I’ve been through, I believe alimony does serve a purpose, in certain situations.

If both partners agree that one will stay home and raise the kids and take on the household responsibilities while the other earns the income, the (faithful) stay home partner should have access to some kind of rehabilitative spousal support. Chances are they don’t have much earning potential because of the role they took on in their marriage, especially if they didn’t earn an education or learn a marketable skill before they were married. The original intent for alimony was to protect women from being financially abandoned by husbands that ran off with their young secretaries. 

Over the years, this system has become a way for dishonest people to take advantage of the income earner. 

In my situation, we had discussions before we were married about our roles in the marriage. I was the income earner. My XWW decided she would stay home until the kids were in school full time. Then she would go back to work. When that day arrived, she changed her mind and she didn’t want to go back full time. I then tried to encourage her take some college courses, to learn something she could turn into a career or something that she was interested in. She declined. She was content working 6 hours a day, 3 days a week for almost minimum wage. The rest of her free time was spent shopping, having lunch with her besties, and finally, cheating. Her spare time was sure not spent cleaning the house or doing laundry, because I was doing that. 

As it turns out, XWW had learned the ins and outs of spousal support from her divorced friends and her OM. She knew, in our no fault state, she would benefit financially if I divorced her. She knew she would get ½ of the marital assets, even though she contributed nothing financially and spent every spare dime I made on herself. She also knew she would get a good part of my pension and investments. We had to produce our income records to calculate the alimony and child support. I was made to produce 5 years of income statements and tax returns. She was supposed to do the same but in the end, only handed over 2 paycheck stubs, and they accepted that! After the divorce, she simply started working hours, under the table, so now she had her full income, mostly tax free, Obama care, spousal support and child support. She never spent a dime of child support on the kids. After a while, they moved in with me full time so she lost that.

My XWW should have received nothing in the way of alimony. The current system of no fault divorce in my state rewards cheaters. Child support is different and is necessary but there should be a way to make sure the kids actually benefit from the money and it’s not just used for WS’s vacations and new shoes.


----------



## sokillme

One thing I always here is how the SAHP sacrificed retirement, this is true but so did the working parent. This is because if there had been two salaries presumably there would be more money for retirement, also with two salaries there would also be a higher standard of living and more assets to split. So you could say that in this case the sacrifice is almost even. The only place where I could see the SAHP's point is in experience. However I think that is mitigated by being supported by the other. Both people make the choice and both make sacrifices. I do think a 5 year window is fair to let the person get on their feet.

Again I think the assets should be split but once the marriage is over the financial aspect of the marriage should end too. If there is cheating or bad faith then the financial penalty should happen through the splitting of the assets. As others have pointed out there is no other benefit that continues.


----------



## ILoveSparkles

The way I look at it - my husband of 18 years is a liar and serial cheater. One day he was acting normal, laughing, joking and we were acting the same as we had been for those 18 years. I had no reason to think anything was up. After our 7 year old fell asleep I got the "we need to talk" - I was blindsided and tried to talk to him and understand what he was talking about. At 11PM he walked out on his family.

He's paying a lot for just leaving his wife and child in that way - out of nowhere. I don't feel bad about it. 

I was a SAHM mom for 8 years (son is now 8) and he makes six figures. I was/am working on getting a certification for employment.


----------



## Crankshaw

arbitrator said:


> *I like Texas alimony law ~ None, unless the Court can be overwhelmingly convinced that it's needed!*


I like Australian Law even better, no alimony.


----------

