According to wiki, alimony is legal obligation to provide financial support to one’s spouse from the other spouse after marital separation or from the ex-spouse upon divorce. Traditionally this has come to mean that higher earning males in the marriage will, upon divorce, be beholden for a percentage of their salary given to their ex-wife forever, or until she remarries. I understand that females paying alimony to their ex-husbands does happen but is much more uncommon.
I think we have all heard of couples who divorce, and the woman refuses to remarry because that will result in her being cut off from her alimony (at least I know of this practice in my immediate social circle). To me, the idea that after divorce a woman should still need to be taken care of financially, and that her ex-husband should be responsible for taking care of her, strikes me as incredibly sexist. Once the marriage is over, an adult should not be required legally to take care of another adult indefinitely just because they were once financially intertwined. Perhaps this was originally designed to prevent one party in the relationship from running off with all the money after being the predominant earner in the relationship, but does it really have a place in our society now?
If the couple has children, and one spouse gave up years of a career, and seniority, which would lead to lifelong reduction in income, then it’s relevant.
Or if for some other reason one spouse gave up significant income for the sake of a marriage.
As long as it could go either way (husband gave up a job for the kids, for instance), it’s a reasonable question to be considered in a divorce.
Alimony is something that doesn’t make much sense to me, just because I can’t imagine ever getting myself (let alone my children) into a situation where I was rendered unable to provide for them. I mean, I understand that some couples have someone basically give up their career to stay at home with the kids, but I couldn’t imagine doing this unless I had a big pile of “just in case” money and, even then, I’d be sure to keep whatever professional certifications I had up and running in case the shit hit the fan.
I don’t know. Maybe this makes me a terrible prospective partner someday, but I just can’t imagine completely giving up my ability to provide for myself and being totally dependent on another person. So, because of that, I don’t see much point in alimony. Though, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s sexist, since it’s applied to both genders. It just so happens that women are usually the ones to give up their careers in our society, that’s all.
I think under very certain circumstances, the practice of alimony makes sense. In some cases, one spouse gives up their career/potential career in order to support the other spouse: for someone on the fast corporate track, there are a couple decades of 60-80 hour weeks, and it’s a huge advantage to have someone else in the household with no serious outside obligations who can basically take care of everything else while you work your ass off. It’s much, much easier to be the rising star at work when you never have to deal with an emergency at home, when someone else packs your bag, does your shopping, takes care of everything. In those cases, both partners are effectively investing in building a single career, and it makes sense that both partners have some claim on the profits of that career.
I don’t think it’s sexist because I don’t think it’s inherently designed to favor men, just the person with the high paying/time intensive career. The fact that that person has traditionally been the man is unfortunate, and changing.
There are still circles in which it’s expected that the woman won’t work. In the event of divorce that woman is entitled to whatever she is entitled to including alimony if appropriate.
FWIW I believe a younger woman would typically be awarded alimony for about the amount of time it would take to get appropriate grainy to earn a living, as opposed to until she dies or remarries.
It can certainly be abused, as in your example, but the concept itself is neither antiquated or sexist.
Alimony, when applied properly, is awarded to the spouse who has not been working during the marriage, and for a finite amount of time, in order for them to find a job to support themselves. It should not, IMHO, and is not, IME, awarded to only women, awarded in perpetuity or awarded to those with a career that can support them.
It’s not seen as much as it used to be, and that’s appropriate, as there are not as many single-earner married households. But yes, if a man or woman stops working in order to take care of the home and/or children, then he or she has been supporting - or enabling, if you prefer - the career of the working spouse. S/he has been out of the work world, probably lost contacts and networking, lost seniority and has a gaping hole in his/her resume. These things take time to repair, and continuing to receive some of the working ex-spouse’s money - from the career the non-working ex-spouse made possible by taking care of other things in the working spouse’s life - is fair for a time.
I do think that the non-working ex-spouse should be working to get employment, and should present evidence of that to the judge if requested, same as one presents evidence of job search to Unemployment.
ETA: If anything, it’s less antiquated at the moment than it was 15 years ago when the economy was strong and anyone with a pulse could get a decent job with a 2 week job search.
Alimony is one of the issues in a case I’m trying tomorrow. The marriage lasted over 10 years, and my client is now disabled. Her soon to be ex husband is able bodied, and has a decent job for this part of the world. At the moment, he’s living in a nice house, and she lives in a small subsidized apartment. There is a child involved. She’s divorcing him for beating the shit out of her in front of the child multiple times, and various other things he’s done. She’s unable to work, and unable to stay in the same house with him unless she’s willing to take whatever this guy decides to do to her next time. She drives a 10 year old car that may not pass its next safety inspection. He’s got a nice late model truck. Which he bought after he threw her and the child out with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
After an earlier hearing, back in chambers, I offered to settle the case if counsel opposite could persuade his client to have himself castrated, get the balls bronzed, and deliver same to my office by close of business the next day. Learned counsel declined my offer. So tomorrow, I’m going to ask the court to award alimony…and that shiny late model truck…and maybe the guys balls as requested above. OK, probably not the balls thing. But I’m going to get her some money. And maybe a decent ride, depending on what the judge decides to do on the property division.
**Oakminster **, I ask this question with literally zero snark and just genuine curiosity— I mean, quite obviously, that guy is a douchebag of the highest order and deserves to be hung out to dry, of that I have no disagreement. I also can see a perfectly valid claim for her to get half of the community assets.
But why, if they are getting a divorce, is it his problem that she’s disabled and unable to work?
Obviously, the child is a different factor here all together, but I suppose if the kid were removed, that gets more to the crux of my question.
I’ve also personally known men who had substantial marital assets earned by the ex-wife awarded to them. A good friend of my mom’s had to give up half her pension to her ex; he hadn’t earned one himself because he had hopped jobs so much that he wasn’t vested in one himself, though he had worked most of the time.
My mom’s friend complained bitterly about it until she realized that a) the laws that led to her ex getting a chunk of her pension were primarily designed to protect women, even though they are gender-neutral; and b) a large part of why her marriage broke up is that she was devoted to her job to the exclusion of nearly all esle.
She became disabled during a long term marriage. Had no marketable skills before the marriage, and will testify that he insisted she not work from the time the marriage started. Essentially, this guy used her up and threw her away like a disposable razor. The Court can and will consider the discrepancy in future earning capacity as it decides how to divide the marital property (there isn’t much of anything there), and whether to award alimony. To a certain extent, the Court is going to balance the scales between the parties to the extent practical.
Alimony is discretionary with the Court, but I’m pretty confident that the Judge is going to exercise that discretion in favor of my client on these facts.
I think the idea of a perpetual alimony is antiquated and unsupportable. If you’re the spouse giving up your career for the other, well, there are huge HUGE risks to that. Be aware of them.
But alimony for either partner that lasts for a time (like 2 years) because one partner was un- or underemployed while supporting the other strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
I agree. A friend of mine gave up his job to become a stay at home dad. His wife earned much more than he did, and she was in an industry with few jobs, so they moved to follow her job offer.
After their child turned 5, Mom is 4 years into a good job, and has built a good reputation. Dad is in an area where he has no contacts, has been unemployed for 5 years, and is competing against a ton of people looking for jobs.
Thankfully, they are happy together and not getting divorced, but if they were, I hope that he would get alimony for some length of time, allowing him to find work or possibly go back to school.
Man, I hope I don’t have to pay alimony in my divorce. She has always worked while we were married and she also almost ruined us financially a couple times because I was stupid enough to trust her with paying the bills. She is terrible with money.
And if the non-working spouse is in their late 50s? Presumably they will get half the property, including retirement income, but it’s a long time from the late 50s to retirement, and a neat trick to enter the workforce at that age.
I still don’t see how that means the ex-spouse is responsible for their financial well being for the rest of that person’s life. I can see Oakminster’s example because that guy is clearly abusive and intentionally put her in a substantially diminished role within the marriage. If anything, I see that alimony as owing her damages for wrecking her life. Everyday Jane Doe who has a job but doesn’t make as much money as her ex-husband? I don’t think she deserves alimony, just because her ex makes more money than she does. Being married to someone shouldn’t, in my opinion, entitle you to half their stuff forever. You’re dissolving the marital relationship, and all the perks that go along with it, including half their stuff.
As other people have said, if someone gives up 20 years of opportunities to support another’s career, look after the kids, manage the household as a full time job, they are contributing half of the resources needed to develop the working person’s career. So why shouldn’t they benefit from those 20 years of effort and support? They could have a high flying career of their own, but at 50 years of age, with no vocational experience, they CAN NOT do that.
They sacrificed their independence, career potential, and future earnings and provided years of emotional support and practical help to enable another person to spend years developing said resource unimpeded by domestic burdens. They fully contributed to that career. They did a full time job which was “enable the other person to build resources and a career”. Why does one of them get to walk off with the future benefits of that partnership and not the other?
Would that be the case in a business relationship where each owned 50% of the shares? No. So why should it not apply to a marriage where each owns 50% of the total fruits of that partnership? That’s not fair.
I don’t practice family law (although I did divorce some people in my law school clinic), so maybe Oakminster can elaborate on this, but …
So far as I know, spousal maintenance (which is what alimony is called these days, at least in Illinois) is fairly rare these days, at least for younger couples and, naturally, where both of them continue to work (or where a non-working spouse is not refraining from working at the behest or sufferance of the other spouse).
It’s not unheard of, to be sure, and it certainly isn’t reserved for women—so I don’t understand how it could be a sexist concept.
But most divorce decrees affirmatively deny maintenance to the spouses. I’m surprised it gets so many people worked up.
I really wonder what people are thinking if someone gets to their late 50s and have no plan for what to do if things go bad. People are choosing incredible dependence and accepting incredible risk. I would rather alimony not be automatic so that people don’t count on it and have to think about contingencies. What are these utterly unskilled people going to do if they become widowed?
People aren’t being forced to support their spouse’s careers at the expense of their own. They are choosing it. They are either feeling the reward is worth the risk or they are ignoring the risk. I really don’t know, societally, that rewarding that type of risk is in our best interest.
The fact is (I say this as half of a couple with two young children where both people work full-time) that if one partner earns enough and/or the couple decides to take a financial hit, it is much much easier to have one parent stay at home and help with the kids. I think it’s much better to have a stay-at-home parent. You can volunteer at the kid’s school, you can take them to events during the week (e.g. karate classes right after school), when one of the kids is unexpectedly sick you don’t have to scramble to figure out who is taking him to the doctor and/or staying home with him, etc.
In the case where the couple both agrees that one of them will quit their job (and thus lose out on work promotions, getting years of experience) then it’s reasonable that the person staying at home should get alimony after a divorce.