I can easily see this sort of thing as a form of passive-aggressive behavior (at least in the case of a couple we know). Encourage her to stay at home “for the sake of the child”, even though your lives would be considerably better if she worked, make fun of her efforts to work because they’re always McJobs, and you’ll forever be “The Boss.” I’m not saying the OP’s ex was necessarily doing this, but he certainly got to wear the cape and tights for a long, long time. Again, I’m not pointing fingers – just illustrating how this might happen. This scenario could be one reason the laws regarding maintenance are needed. I also think each case needs to be reviewed separately, because this certainly isn’t always the way it comes down.
Well, that’s pretty much in line with most people’s views on alimony, I would think. Just the recognition that financial roles and obligations within a marriage can be bound up and interdependent in ways that can’t be cleanly split 50/50 (or even 95/5 as you seem to prefer) immediately after a divorce.
I started this thread because I was completely and totally ignorant that alimony actually happened in 2006. I have learned a great deal from the responses and debates. It is always interesting to see where the other side is coming from even if you don’t agree. It would be rare if anyone started a debate and changed their mind about their original position but I am sure it happens.
In regards to spite and bitterness. Nope, don’t have either. I got out so that wouldn’t occur. At 40, “loving dearly” is nice but a long term relationship requires a lot more than romantic love.
I sense it is very hard for you to understand that I do not need nor want his money. However, my limitation is that I can not share a life with someone who must provide for another woman who is undeserving of support. That will affect the relationship both financially and emotionally which would breed the bitterness eventually. He also had a desire for us to start our own family. Keeping an ex wife who didn’t feel like working on the payroll is unacceptable to me. For his sake, I certainly hope he finds someone that can accept such an arrangement. I have a strong suspicion he will end up with someone else to support with the attitude that she can have hers as long as I get mine. Off topic and totally my personal opinion.
I was raised that one takes care of themselves and their dependents financially. Regardless of gender. I understand now that what I considered to be the norm for women in the US, isn’t necessarily so. The idea of being supported by another human being is degrading to me. (Again, throw in the children disclaimer). The idea that someone thinks they deserve to be supported because they wed is mind boggling.
My only regret is I didn’t not ask for more specific details when seeking responses such as gender, marital status and employment. I will just have to continue to assume that those disagreeing with me the strongest are in the situation of being supported in one way or another.
:dubious: And I will have to point out once again that your assumptions are incorrect. Please accept that it’s possible for someone to disagree with you without their opinion springing from some perceived weakness or vice.
Some quotes from “America’s working man” by David Halle
At the other end of the economic spectrum :
What has she done to deserve close to $300 million?
:eek: Nope, no spite or bitterness there, of course not!
As wm pointed out, your assumption that people who disagree with you about the validity of alimony must be just lazy parasites themselves is completely unfounded. See my discussion in post #120 above of the distinction between individual morality and legality.
Most of us are quite capable of condemning laziness and greed on the individual ethical level, while still recognizing that the law has a valid purpose in requiring that non-self-supporting people should be at least temporarily supported by the people who bear some responsibility for putting them in that situation.
Yes, it’s a pity that sometimes lazy and greedy people can exploit the law for their own ends, but that doesn’t mean the law itself is automatically bad or serves no useful purpose.
(And though you didn’t ask directly for my personal details, I have no objection at all to telling you them, if only to try to help overcome your massive prejudice on this issue. Namely: I’m female, 42, never married, completely financially self-supporting ever since graduating from college 21 years ago, and would never wish to be otherwise whether single, married, or divorced.)
But we don’t know the details of the situation that Foxy40 is decribing.
If the wife was an alcoholic who never got a job because of her problem, would you say that the husband bears some responsibility?
One of the things I agree with Republicans is their idea that people should learn to take personal responsibility and stop blaming others for everything.
“I’m an alcoholic, and never got a job: My husband bears some responsibility”
“I’m a lazy lard-ass, and never got a job: My husband bears some responsibility”
Anyway, we don’t know the details, and for all we know, the wife may not have gotten a job simply because they agreed to this with the husband, in which case he would bear some responsibility.
The matter remains, though, that, no matter the level of responsibility of the husband for the wife’s inability to support herself, the courts will force the guy to pay the same amount of alimony. And this is what is unfair.
Yes.
Where did she get the money to buy her booze? Where did she sleep it off at? How was she able to drive?
He enabled her to drink, that’s NOT the same as saying he made her drink or he held her mouth open and poured it down her throat. However as she wasn’t working, he must have given her money…money he knew she was going to use to drink with.
So yes, he has some degree of responsibility for her problem…especially after 2 decades of it.
Again with the irrelevant harping on whether an ex-wife somehow “deserves” to share in her ex-husband’s finances. That’s simply not the point.
Lots of people have money they haven’t done anything to “deserve”. But as long as they acquired it legally, it’s theirs. (One might ask whether McCartney himself “deserves” to be a billionaire just because his old band happened to strike it lucky as a pop-music phenomenon, when many more talented and industrious musicians never did. But it doesn’t affect whether he has a legal right to his money now.)
And Paul McCartney and his wife voluntarily entered into a contract which gives the partners a stake in each other’s finances, even if the marriage comes to an end.
Anybody who doesn’t like that setup is perfectly free not to get married, or to demand a pre-nuptial agreement that will override the usual terms of marriage. Otherwise, IMHO, they have nobody but themselves to blame.
Marriage and family law values the goal of providing support for non-self-supporting people more highly than the goal of guaranteeing individuals the exact amount of financial autonomy and freedom that they personally happen to deserve. And there are realistic social reasons for setting the priorities that way. If you don’t like it, then by all means, do yourselves (and society as a whole) a big favor, and don’t get married.
And despite all Foxy’s naive astonishment, there’s nothing about gender equality or the year 2006 that makes this basic principle of marriage and family law obsolete. Gender equality just means that women are now more likely than before to be self-supporting, both outside marriage and within it. It doesn’t change at all the basic principle that if people aren’t self-supporting, they should be at least temporarily supported by the people who bear some responsibility for their situation.
Yes, he bears some responsibility whatever the circumstances, for having agreed to marry her and for staying married to her. Whether she was an alcoholic, a long-suffering invalid, a domestic slave or simply a lazy bum, the indisputable fact is that his agreeing to marry her and stay married to her was a big factor in creating the current situation. There’s no getting around that.
Sure it’s unfair. It’s obviously unfair to treat, say, a lazy bum in the same way as a long-suffering invalid or a hardworking domestic homemaker. Nobody’s disputing that. My point is that the law in this case isn’t about fairness in punishing lazy bums and rewarding hardworking homemakers. It’s about ensuring that non-self-supporting people get at least some temporary support, whether they be bums, invalids, or what-have-you. Fairness is secondary.
I strongly agree with your general point. However, in a marriage, each partner voluntarily pledges to take responsibility for the other partner, sicker or poorer, better or worse, etc.
If (generic) you are not prepared to take legal and moral responsibility for another person, warts and all, then marriage is not an appropriate choice for you. And that’s perfectly fine. What I object to is someone getting married, then pretending that their obligation to their spouse does not exist.
Looks like Kimstu just said the exact thing I was trying to say. Should have previewed! 
I had a SIL who fits this description exactly. Her husband purchased her booze, she never worked, drank all day, ended up on disability (which you and I paid for), was hospitalized numerous times (which you and I paid for), before she died. She never drove and would have had an extremely difficult time supporting her disease had he not helped her. He would have had to support her if they divorced, and I would agree that it was his obligation to do so.
well as several people have posted you are quite incorrect. I am divorced and I am male and I support this provision in the divorce laws. I was married for 24 years and my wife did not work for the last 10 years of our marriage after our child was born. For the first five years of that it was mutual–but eventually when our child went to school she didn’t want to go back to work. This obviously caused strife and was one of several causes of our divorce.
However when we split she didn’t have the skills necessary to get back into the work force–regardless of her prior decisions. But also part of her prior decisions was supporting me while I went to Graduate School, etc—she paid her dues and it is/was my responsibility to help her get established.
My alimony is set up that I pay her $x for 5 years, $y amount for 5 years and $z amount until she dies. If she gets remarried then the alimony stops. Is this fair? In my opinion it is–she doesn’t have the skills needed to get back into the work force–so she needs a helping hand. The $y and $z amounts are minimal–however trust me the $x amount is signficant! Hopefully I won’t have to pay the $y and the $z amounts–but I am willing to pay them if needed.
I mainly divorced my wife because I no longer loved her–but that didn’t change the fact that we had spent 24 years together and she was the mother of my child. We had an amiable divorce and I can sleep with myself at night that I disolved the situation in a manner befitting the time we had spent together. Divorce doesn’t have to be a bitter end–you can leave with the dignity of both parties still intact.
My fiance and my ex wife get along very well–they both share mother duties to my child. She has never expressed the bitterness you spout in this thread. I would not be marrying her if she had. We share housing costs, etc together but how I spend my money is my concern and how she spends her is her concern–as long as the money to pay our common expenses is there. So even though you say the money isn’t important–your words convey that it is.
How many skills do you need to flip burgers at McDonalds?
If fairness is secondary, and the primary goal is to make sure non-self-supporting people get at least some support, why not make her parents pay for her?
They obviously bear a lot of responsibility for raising her to be a lazy bum.
BTW, I just realized that comes to about $1.44 million per week of marriage.
That’s one expensive hooker.
I don’t know—you sound like you have the educational skills needed for that type of job. Why don’t you go find out?
My ex-wife helped put me through Graduate School. She worked while I went to school. So in my opinion I have an obligation to assist her in getting and finishing her degree. If I had been married to her for 2 years that is quite a different situation.
If I had divorced her right after I finished school (which I understand is quite common) do I owe her anything in your opinion? Just tear up the marriage license and move on? Disregarding the fact that she spent 5 years assisting me so I could focus on school? Why is ending the marriage 15 years later any different? She helped me get where I am–I am doing her the same favor.
I chose to end the marriage–I chose to break the contract. If she had chosen to break the contract perhaps my attitude might be different. Not likely–but I may have chosen a tougher attitude.
Her choosing NOT to work was a factor in that decision. However I didn’t wait for 17 years to figure that out. If you do–you are implicit in that decision. And crying about it doesn’t change the reality.
Trust me I don’t enjoy paying alimony. But I do feel a responsibility to her and to my daughter. Sorry you can’t understand this–I will try and not use such big words next time to assist you.
Actually, the contract was that they would be together to support each other for the rest of their lives. It is up to them to decide what “supporting each other” means, both emotionally and financially, but the contract itself is not supposed to end. In addition, each party is supposed be responsible for going into the contract knowing what they are signing up for. If he married someone knowing that she “didn’t like to work,” then that is the contract he entered into, and lived with for 17 years, and therefore doesn’t really even have grounds to divorce her over it (although with no-fault divorce laws, he is legally allowed to do so), much less deny her alimony.
All that being said, I am with you on this one. Call me unromantic, but I would not marry someone with financial obligations to someone other than an infirm parent or sibling, especially if I had children to support.
“Abandonment of the family home” is a good starting point for divorce proceedings in many countries.
One of the first laws passed by the gang of monkeys known as the current Spanish government* reformed our divorce proceedings. Now you can ask for, and get real fast, a divorce if your spouse has been away from home for 6 months (even if it was for something like “being in the army and getting sent to Afghanistan”).
*How did you guess I didn’t vote for them?