Well that is true. But then there is often little reason to have anyone staying at home after the kids start school.
I know one case though with this woman I used to work with. She actually quit her job in anticipation of divorcing her husband soon so she would show less income and therefore, get more alimony.
The hours for most jobs are longer than for most schools.
Housekeeping, shopping, ferrying and making appointments don’t stop when the kids enter school.
The services the SAH partner performs are expensive on the open market.
The non-SAH partner can afford to but more time and energy into a career, possibly earning more money.
It might not make financial sense.
So what? I know a man who did the same thing, on the advice of his divorce attorney. He refused to work anything more than a minimum wage, part-time job so that his soon-to-be-ex-wife wouldn’t be entitled to too much when they got divorced. And he would brag about it to anyone who would listen.
My anecdote neutralizes your anecdote.
Yeah. It’s happens. To your point, maybe “marriage” shouldn’t be viewed as “forever”, much in the same way a mortgage doesn’t enforce you to live in a home forever.
Another thing. If the economics permitted it, I think it would be far less stressful having one person available 24/7 with the kids if the other person has the sort of job that requires working long hours and/or travel (like mine).
I feel like the sort of people who think this would work probably aren’t making much more than minimum wage in the first place.
I was confused about that as well. Who can afford to quit their high paying job for however many months it takes for the divorce to be executed? And then after that, be able to jump right back in to their old job or another job at that level of salary?
I also thought the court wouldn’t be fooled by that. If someone is making $100k before the divorce is filed and then minimum wage, the court would consider the potential for income rather than what they were making at that moment.
The fellow I was referring to was very well-off, working for the family business all his life. They are happily willing to take him back after the divorce plays out. In the meantime, he’s working minimum-wage temp jobs for a few years, on the advice of his attorney. I expect his family is helping support him. (He’s a big Trump supporter, too.)
One “we lost the baby” stops all questions forever.
. . . Gave up lookin last July. Lost. Yep.
I’m sure he’s being paid under the table by his family. And I’m also sure most of his assets would be under the family business so that wouldn’t be considered communal property.
Don’t most family courts frown on what Mr. Minimum Wage is doing? How many kids does he have, and do they want to have anything to do with him, or does MMW tell everyone that his STBX is brainwashing them?
(Can you tell I’ve seen this scenario a few times?0
Did you check behind the couch cushions? That’s where I always lose stuff. 
TLDR
I started reading this thread and could not get throgh it all. My story:
Mairied in 1979, divorced in 1984. Two kids. Hell. She’s certifiable. Been in and out of instiutions. Schiztoid. She kept the kids because she knows my sitation, purly spite, nasty divorce of my parents, we were pawns in the the fight. Assohole dad died in 73 while I was in AF basic. I turned down leave to stay with my basic group. Never wanted a divorce, wanted kids to have a real family, didn’t work out that way. I felt guilty as hell for years that my kids were from a “Broken Home”, but my son told me what I figured out for myself .“I’m glad you split up and we didn’t have to listen to you fight every night.” Maybe my mom and dad thought they were being quiet but I heard them and my son heard us. I tried to protect my little brothers and sisters from that, but they heard too. My son did too. We should be a disfunctional family but we’ve worked through it and love each other very much. I’m really happy with my family that’s left.
Remarried in 2000, Wonderful person. Wished I had met her 40 years ago. It can happen, so cheer if it can happen to me, it can happen for anyone…
We lost the baby in 2014. Still getting questions.
But it’s okay. At least I know the baby will be welcome when it comes.
As was mentioned earlier, most divorces are initiated by women. Also child divisions and asset divisions tend to favor the woman.
Are there women who get screwed in a divorce? Yup. But statistically, it is more likely to be a man who gets screwed in a divorce for various reasons.
Men being afraid that they can lose their kids and their life savings because their wives got bored is a very real threat that lots of guys are being forced to evaluate when they consider marriage.
that is the exact opposite of what I’ve heard.
cite?
Men think men get screwed in divorces. Women think women get screwed. Statistics show that women are right, in this, and men are wrong.
Men get richer after divorce. Women get poorer. A lot poorer. Women may more often get more custody of children, but men – statistically – do not support their children, once they are divorced, any more than they absolutely have to, and often that means nothing at all, if they can figure out how to get away with it. Making women even poorer. Trying to earn a living (remember women make, what is it, 70% of what men do for the same job?) while also being a single parent is a very rough row to hoe.
And yet, more women initiate divorce than men. The probability that the prospect of poverty and single parenthood is more appealing for women than staying married is quite an indictment of men’s role in marriage, seems to me.
Statistically, of course.
“Child divisions” is an odd way to phrase it, but child custody is one of those areas where there is both a lot of truth and a lot of misleading information in the ether about who gets custody and why.
It’s true that more women than men get physical custody of children. I think it’s accurate to say that there are some biased reasons this happens, but not always at the level of a judge making a custody decision.
More women than men are the primary caregivers of their children. Children are more likely to be put in they physical custody of their primary caregivers.
More men than women appear to voluntarily opt not to have physical custody. In very few cases I helped with were men trying for physical custody of their children. Legal custody was a 50/50 split, generally, but men were simply not asking, in this limited subset of cases, for physical custody. This could be for many reasons, but if men are not wanting physical custody and do not ask for it, I don’t think we can assume they would not have gotten it.
Many judges still have the wildly sexist beliefs that children belong with their mothers, that women are superior parents, and that men should not get physical custody.
I would argue that sexism plays a very strong role in 1, an even stronger role in 3 and an unknown to me role in 2 (it could be very high. I have no way to know at the moment).
Men who are the primary caregivers who try for physical custody may not be given custody as often as they should (because of 3) but it’s not as rare as some statistics might lead us to believe.
That was a smart move on the family to protect family assets from “outsiders”. And yes, there are golddiggers out there who want to marry into money and a possible family fortune.
Another question:
I heard of a case where the husbands family owned a condo on the beach and one of the “benefits” of the family was free use of this condo for annual vacations. Which they did often as a couple.
Could in a divorce, the ex-wife sue for the use of this condo?
On men not paying child support.
First of all, those guys make me sick and I hate them. My idea is if you made the kid, you take care of it. Both in money and time. I hate deadbeat dads.
Now, after saying this, I know several guys who quit paying because the ex spent the money on herself or boyfriend and not on the kids or who refused to allow him to see his kids.
You cant just run a to a judge everytime the ex pulls something.