The assumed contact, in a community property state, is that there will be an equitable division of the assets and liabilities that were incurred during the marriage. I don’t think alimony (which is completely different from that first sentence) is necessarily implied for the partner that makes lesser money for the rest of their life.
I see your point, but life isn’t about GREAT DEALS it’s about fair deals. Suppose the guy drops dead after you supported him and has no life insurance?
And I’m not talking about just alimony. They’d still have a division of assets as well as the alimony for a short time. So that’ is what the 50 year old spouse would get. She’d get a fair division of the assets AND a limited time for alimony.
You still have to accept responsibility for yourself and five years should be enough time to get you back on your feet.
Given that alimony is becoming fairly rare, no. Society doesn’t.
I think under most cases its antiquated and sexist, and I got it when I divorced. It was a short term marriage and I made more money. But…he left. And he left within weeks of co-signing a car loan. We already jointly owned a house. I couldn’t make payments on both on my income and still eat, so he paid me a whoppin $100 a month for the term of the car loan - I kept the car (which he couldn’t have afforded the whole payment on either). He wanted out and he wanted to leave his financial obligations behind with me.
Although nothing in the terms of the divorce said he could get off early, when I remarried he stopped paying and I stopped pursuing it.
A pre-nup which can be thrown out of court.
Also, it can be applied even to people who choose not to enter a marriage contract.
Even without the alimony recourse, they could use the unjust enrichment recourse.
I thought it was a bit antiquated and sexist before I married a military man. I’m lucky to be in an extremely happy marriage and this isn’t something I worry about, but having any sort of real career as a military wife is very difficult. You’re moving all the time, and frequently to overseas locations. I had my undergrad degree before we moved the first time, but the few advanced degrees I’d be interested in require me to be somewhere specific, and then who wants to hire someone who might be moving soon? The options are limited. I’m very happy with my choices in life, but if I wasn’t married to the military, my career would be something very different.
This is what life insurance is for. The working spouse should be insured for a sufficient amount that the proceeds can be either be invested to provide income for the survivors, or be lived off of until the surviving spouse can obtain employment, or perhaps pay off the mortgage if it is likely that the surviving spouse will not be able to find a job with as high a salary as the deceased had. Or some combination of the above. Whatever the couple determines their needs will be.
Like KittenKat said, life insurance. And savings. My husband and I are both skilled and we still have both these mechanisms in place because we’re not sure how much we can handle with a small child if one of us died.
I think it’s okay not to penalize for a parent staying at home with the kids. Speaking as someone who doesn’t stay home with the kids, I actually think it’s a wonderful thing and good for society that families do that.
That’s all very well and good, but circumstances change over the course of a marriage. My husband and I both have law degrees and were both practicing when we got married. When we decided to have kids, we both agreed that I would stay home with them while they were young, and he would be the sole income earner. Note I said “we” decided, not “I” decided.
I’ve now been at home with kids for five years. That’s left him free to accept an extremely high paying job that he enjoys, but that carries with it demanding hours and travel. He doesn’t need to worry about his kids or anything to do with the household. That’s a tangible benefit to him.
I, on the other hand, have suffered a corresponding detriment to my career. I’ve been out of the workforce for five years (and probably will be out for another two until my youngest starts school). When I go back to work, my earning capacity will be significantly less than my husband’s, and it’s very possible that I will never equal his income earning ability due to my hiatus from the workforce.
So were my husband to leave me tomorrow, would it be fair for him to say “Suck it, bitch, you have a law degree - get to work and I’m not giving you a dime”. I say no.
I’m not sure why people think alimony is sexist. I think the opposite - not paying alimony (in appropriate circumstances) devalues the very real contribution non-working women make to a marriage.
I should also point out that I practiced family law, and alimony (or spousal support, as it’s called here), is not awarded all that often and, when it is, it is generally awarded for a short term. It’s not a gravy train by any means.
I suspect that this is where a lot of the abuse and unfairness lies. She “will testify” that her husband insisted that she not work, but who knows if this is true. If she had no marketable skills before the marriage started, I would think chances are pretty good that she was not particularly motivated to begin with.
And this is where men get the short end of the stick. A lot of women want to take things easy. A lot of men want to do this too, but they don’t have that option available. But society affords married women or mothers the option to work part time or not at all.
Now suppose you’re the husband and you’d frankly prefer that your wife make some more bucks. What are you going to do about it? Force her to work? And suppose you’re just a nice guy and want her to be happy, and support her decision to stay home? Your payback is going to be that in divorce court she will say that you encouraged her to (or even “insisted” that she) not work. And you’re stuck suporting her for a long long time while she’s making a new life for herself elsewhere and badmouthing you to all her friends and relatives.
A similar principle applies to women who live a high lifestyle. The more a husband aquiesces to this, the more he will have to pay in a divorce situation, when the ex-wife’s lawyer proves that he got her accustomed to this lifestyle etc.
I know, it’s a goddamn shame that only wives are permitted to testify on the spouses’ agreement regarding the household division of labor.
But you can turn that around for a story that isn’t as clear cut.
I have a coworker whose ex-wife has a law degree. She discovered that she doesn’t really have a passion for law, and when their kids were born SHE decided to stay home. This wasn’t really his plan, she had far more earnings potential than he did (and he married her in part because they both wanted a comfortable material life and he saw that as happening), but she was now the mother of his children, so he gave in. It would only be temporary, when the kids went to school, she’d go back to practicing.
She spent the time when the kids were little hounding him to become successful enough to support her in a manner in which she had expected when she went to law school. But he didn’t go to law school - he’s an IT guy and not one of those “money hand over fist” IT guys. But things would get better, the kids would start school and they’d have two incomes again.
Well, the kids started school and she didn’t want to go back to work. So they dragged on for another few years, neither of them content with the situation “for the sake of the kids.” And then she decided she was done. And really done - she didn’t really want the kids either.
So he has custody and she wants alimony. So is it fair for him to say “suck it bitch, you have a law degree?”
Well, I don’t think anyone has argued “The wife should always get maintenance, no matter what.” The question rather is: “Should maintenance exist as a way for the court to ensure that the divorcing spouses are allotted their fair shares of the marital estate?”
Some people have argued, less than convincingly in my view, that the possibility of maintenance is (1) essentially unfair, always; or (2) encourages suboptimal decisions.
The people arguing (1) say either that (a) there should always be an NSA escape hatch from marriage, after which you have no financial obligations to your ex-spouse, or (b) maintenance is just a way for women to live on easy street.
The people arguing (2) say that spouses should realize any marriage could end in divorce and if your spouse asks you to suspend your career to raise a family, you should say “Oh, HELL no!”
As mentioned, I don’t think any of these three points are especially convincing. Of course, you can concoct situations where maintenance is appropriate and where it is not. And this is precisely the state of the law: the courts consider about a dozen different factors and rule on the appropriateness of awarding it.
Actually, I think you should say, “What can I do to reduce my risk in this to a reasonable level? Can we set something out in writing that will prevent me from getting screwed over if this doesn’t work? Will I be trapped in dependence?” And depending on the answers to these questions, they should proceed or not.
Many people are not contemplating possible divorce at times when they are making decisions that will impact them if they ultimately do so.
And even if you are, it’s difficult to tell a spouse that you object to certain course of action because it would disadvantage you in a divorce.
Wouldn’t she be expected to pay child support? In this case, they agreed that she would stay at home (even though it wasn’t the husband’s first choice: but he agreed to it eventually). She should get $X for alimony, and he should be getting $Y for child support. If X < Y she gets some money, if X > Y then the ex-wife owes the ex-husband a monthly sum. Isn’t that the way it would work? I think that’s the way it should work.
They should be thinking about exit costs. “I didn’t think things through” ought never to be an excuse.
It’s true that it can be difficult. Having a relationship with someone who has different desires and expectations is going to be difficult and people often think that calcuating your actions is antithetical to love. You can sell it some other way e.g.: “If something were to happen to me/if we ever divorced, you’d be on your own without any career”. Which is true and may be one of your motivations, just not your main one.
I agree that it’s a choice, but it’s a choice the working partner made too, knowing that in the event if divorce they might be on the hook for alimony.
And it’s not necessarily in perpetuity. Putting a mandated time-limit on it would lead to too much unfairness on both sides - its one of the many facets of a divorce that can only really be worked out on a case-by-case basis.
I think she’s guilty and deserves life in prison with no possiblity of parole. Ideally in a cell permanently decorate with pictures of Caylee as a happy child juxitposed with the autopsy photos. And any audio recordings of her daughter played over & over in her cell on a continuous loop.
And that’ll serve her right for not having a prenup!