I wonder what the man got out of this marriage, up to the divorce agreement.

Posted by: Norman at July 8, 2008 11:36 PM

What's her problem? She's living in the style to which she was accustomed.
Angry at someone else for her own choices.
If you can call that style.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 9, 2008 12:06 AM

Women like this - seeking equitable distribution after 13 months, planning to disrupt his signings, claiming a right to his retirement after a marriage plotted mainly on his animal husbandry characteristics - are what made me tell my children that they have to have a prenup or I'll write them out of the trust. Legions of the unborn, up on the astral plane, are singing paeans of thanks that she didn't get to serve as their mother. She should have signed herself "Tapeworm."

Posted by: Simon Kenton at July 9, 2008 1:06 AM

Having never been divorced myself, I never really understood how much revengeful hate can develop between two people who once loved each other.

Then it happened to my parents when I was 32, which made it 33 years of marriage for them. I knew that we had entered the Twilight Zone when I was sitting with my mom at her lawyer's office, paying him $175 per hour, and she spent 15 minutes insisting that my father not get a $2.00 plastic laundry basket.

I applaud Amy for telling this woman what she truly needs to hear, just like she would tell a similar man the same thing. Those "friends" who support the person's ongoing permanent victimization aren't friends at all.

Posted by: Robert W. at July 9, 2008 1:55 AM

Nothing brings out the hate like divorce, that's true. But you do have to just move on and have a better life. It can take years to realize this. And some people never realize it, and they have bitter lives.

At this point she needs to write it off, much like I wrote off the $53,000 in alimony due me. Hey, I'm rid of him and had no kids by him, and that's award enough.

Oh, and he's in jail now last I heard(nothing to do with me) that helps too :)

Posted by: momof3 at July 9, 2008 6:30 AM

Sounds like we've got ourselves another Christie Brinkley. How many narcissists are there in the world? They're everywhere!

Posted by: Chrissy at July 9, 2008 6:39 AM

Clearly the LW wasn't in love with the man; she was in love with her concept of being married. The unholy union of traditionalism and gender feminism has produced a wild fantasy that marriage should be, for a woman, a life in which every single minute consists of nothing but the purest unimaginable bliss, free of worry or care or responsibility or obligation of any sort. This has now been around long enough to have been sold to two generations of young girls, and we're seeing the results. Newlywed wife to husband: "It's your fookin' job to MAKE ME HAPPY, goddammit!" Who the heck wants to sign up for that job?

Posted by: Cousin Dave at July 9, 2008 7:26 AM

momof3 - out of curiosity how old are your 3?

Posted by: RS at July 9, 2008 7:37 AM

Why should she not get what is hers? Why is going after what belongs to you wrong? People walk away from debt much too often. he is a deadbeat, why should the world not know it. As for Christy Brinkley, she is fighting to keep her kids safe, he wants custody of them. Mom of 3, I doubt you would let someone take your kids.

Posted by: Tony at July 9, 2008 7:47 AM

Married for a year and no children? The appropriate thing to do is take what you brought into the marriage and split what you acquired since the marriage and go your separate ways.

Posted by: Steamer at July 9, 2008 7:50 AM

Maybe the guy can sue his ex-wife's parents for creating such a self-absorbed bitch with a demented sense of entitlement. He deserves something for the ongoing pain and suffering.

If she does do the whole teenage, drama queen book signing diatribe, he just might get it.

Posted by: kg at July 9, 2008 8:13 AM

Tony said: "People walk away from debt much too often"

What do you mean by this?

Posted by: kg at July 9, 2008 8:18 AM

Tony said: "Why should she not get what is hers? Why is going after what belongs to you wrong? People walk away from debt much too often. he is a deadbeat, why should the world not know it. As for Christy Brinkley, she is fighting to keep her kids safe, he wants custody of them. Mom of 3, I doubt you would let someone take your kids."

In both cases, Tony, the problem isn't so much the goal of these women, but the methods used to achieve the goal. LW should get what she's owed, and I'm not going to try to figure out what's fair about that or not, since I don't know the particulars. However, public shaming in order to get the $7000 is immature and moronic.

As for Christie Brinkley: getting the kids is a laudable goal; the objection to her behavior is that she has decided to take this divorce very very public--to air all her dirty laundry for the world (and for her kids; and for her kids' friends; and for the kids at school who will undoubtedly tease her kids) to know. There's talk of a possible reality series. Such behavior has nothing to do with getting her kids, since that's entirely up to the courts; it's to do with getting back at her husband, and getting her kids to be on her side and to feel about her husband the way she feels about him. It's emotional abuse, plain and simple.

Posted by: quizzical at July 9, 2008 8:21 AM

Hell, I was married for 16 years and did have a kid, but I was happy to walk away from the child support just so I didn't have to deal with him anymore. AND I gave him 50% of my retirement fund. But that tells you who earned all the money the whole time, so fortunately I could afford not to squabble about the court ordered child support. I didn't want it to begin with, but try telling that to the courts who are all about the "it's for the children" crap.

The irony of that court mentality was that it was hardest on our son because of how my ex complained that I was taking all his money ($300/month) so that's why they couldn't go to a movie, or on a camping vacation, etc. But I guess justice is blind...it can't easily or cheaply take into account personality, behaviour patterns etc. Which doesn't really make it a great place to settle family disputes.

Posted by: moreta at July 9, 2008 8:26 AM

Personally if I was the husband I'd love for her to pull this shit. The fact that I didn't have to pay her to do it and would be a bonus. Few things sell product better than controversy. If she shows up (preferable rip shit drunk and obnoxious) and asks when she is getting paid my response would be when the book about our love goes to print. Now not only have I got controversy so people will look at my book I also have the next one lined up.

Her actions would make her look like a vindictive shrew and him making a funny out of it would paint him in a positive light.

LW: He agreed to pay you 7k to get you nasty ass off his back. Given what your planning I think he's kind of dumb not to hand you the money with interest just to make you go away.

Posted by: vlad at July 9, 2008 8:39 AM

It took me two years to get a divorce from my husband, a jerk I was married to for only 13 months, after knowing him for just nine weeks.

What is his book about? I wonder if there's a vindictive ex-wife in it.

Let me get this straight, she spend two years divorcing a guy to whom she was married for only a little over one year. And she's still obsessing over the settlement. Get a life.

And she expected him to agree to "equitable distribution." I'm assuming he was roughly the same age as she (approx. 38). If I'm reading this right, she expected him to casually part with half of 18 years worth of assets and earnings after 13 months of marriage? What exactly did she do over those 13 months that she thinks warrants her walking off with half of his life's work?

Unless she gave him the secret to Flubber in those 13 months, she didn't help him build whatever "fortune" he might have.

I think, perhaps, the "jerk" in this relationship wore a skirt.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at July 9, 2008 8:40 AM

You dealt with a "jerk" for just over three years (a portion of which was by your own volition) and it only cost you $7000?

Call me bitter, but that's pittance.

It cost my fiance thousands upon thousands of dollars, his Manhattan co-op, his high-profile career in New York...and his cat.

Ironically enough, if you ask him what the hardest thing he gave up in the divorce was...yeah, it was the cat. The rest he gave willingly, just to have the opportunity for a fresh start (and to fulfill his need to leave New York after 9/11, but that's a different story.)

I, luckily enough, only forfeited a grand or so to my deadbeat ex-boyfriend. But whenever I feel bad about it, I just remember that I was able to walk away with the rest of my money, my career and my sanity. Some people don't get that opportunity.

Oh, and by the way, LW writes to a WRITER, feeds her that story, then expects sympathy? ...Really?

Posted by: Homeless in Seattle at July 9, 2008 9:10 AM

Tony, you've got to be kidding me, right? Why should she not get what's hers? She's getting what's his. Yes, some court (and the ex sick of fighting it out for longer than he was married to the asshole and wanting to move on with his life, see first novel published and readings at book store) awarded her that money but it's more akin to storeowners paying protection money so they can go about their business. I hope someday we do see cunts (of both sexes) like this punished as severely as they ought to be. I am horrified that any ex can attach another's retirement. What is with that scary trend?

Posted by: Donna at July 9, 2008 9:26 AM

Oh, and may I throw in that even after everything my fiance went through in his divorce...he still walked away with his retirement fund.

Saying you are entitled to someone's retirement is ridiculous. That isn't an "equitable" distribution, unless he was pocketing your mortgage payment to fund his account or something.

Seriously though, this floors me. Seven thousand dollars? Vindictive bitch much?

Posted by: Homeless in Seattle at July 9, 2008 9:38 AM

Having recently gone through a long and costly divorce (my attorney is now one of A-Rod's wife's attorneys, if that tells you anything), I know more than I care to about equitable distribution.

She should only be entitled to half of whatever he EARNED during the marriage. She should not be able to touch his retirement money...UNLESS that's what they lived off of.

Pay attention, guys (especially): Don't mingle your funds into any JOINT bank accounts. If he deposited retirement funds into a joint bank account, then it becomes marital and she may have a claim.

Still, in a 13-month marriage, the judge wouldn't usually attach retirement funds, so my sense is that he agreed to pay the $7,000 as some sort of settlement for what he owed. If he agreed to pay it, he should, but humiliating him won't do anything positive...and for just $7,000, she should let it go for her own sanity.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 9, 2008 9:48 AM

lovlysoul, I wish it were that benign. Think why he agreed to it. The proceedings lasted longer than the marriage. He gave that concession to make her go away and who can blame him? You may be right about the length of time (that part I don't know) but I know pensions for New York State employees can and are attached as I've known guys who have theirs being robbed from them and my friend works in the unit of the pension system that handles those nasty little court orders so it is not that they were in a joint account. One guy that I knew (we've fallen out of touch after he remarried and moved to a suburb) was only married 7 years. How the hell does that equate to she should be able to get half of the pension he sweated a lifetime to earn? How the fuck is that fair?

Posted by: Donna at July 9, 2008 10:37 AM

LW: btw any lawyer will the "equitable distribution" does not mean equal. Any millionaire that got boned by some bimbet with a hot box after a few years of marriage can paint an even more gruesome story.

However he did agree to pay you in court so while your a nasty tramp I have to side with you legally.

Posted by: vlad at July 9, 2008 10:49 AM

I don't know the laws in NY, but in FL, the retirement (or investment or any other account) doesn't have to be in a joint name, but if the monies are co-mingled....like if he directly deposited funds from his separate retirement account into their joint account...then that IMMEDIATELY makes the retirement account vulnerable to being declared a marital asset, since it's providing joint income for them during the marriage.

The smartest thing to do is always keep those accounts separate. Most people don't know about co-mingling. My ex didn't, and we co-mingled everything, which worked in my favor, but now that I know about it, I'm just warning others. And personally, if I ever re-marry, I will never deposit funds from my retirement accounts into a joint account. As long as they're kept separate, there's generally no legitimate claim. What's yours before the marriage is yours to keep, unless the spouse comes to rely on that money...or interest/dividends from that money to live.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 9, 2008 10:51 AM

I walked away from a boyfriend of 2 years with him owing me . . . oh god, I don't want to think about it . . . between 5 and 10 thousand dollars depending on whether you count the money he definitely said he'd repay or the money he said he was really grateful for and would make it up to me someday. I am poor (amusingly enough, I'm a writer, and I was only able to loan him money I didn't really have due to a big fee for a one-time project.) I still don't know what I was thinking, although I know what organ I was thinking with. I justify writing it off and not looking back by imagining how much money I would have spent on therapy if I'd stayed . . .

Posted by: Anathema at July 9, 2008 11:01 AM

Married for a year and no children? The appropriate thing to do is take what you brought into the marriage and split what you acquired since the marriage and go your separate ways.

That may be exactly what she's trying to do. $7K might be half the value of what they acquired during the marriage; for 13 months, that sounds quite plausible. It's not like she's trying to take half of everything he owns. And she's spent two years going through legal channels trying to collect.

I do agree that she'd be better off to either take him back to court or forget it and move on. But people here seem to be piling on her way more than is warranted.

Posted by: Rex Little at July 9, 2008 11:10 AM

the only reason that marriage is still viable in the US is that most people don't know it's the quickest easiest way to financial ruin... for both sides.

Sadly, case law and courts disproportionately affect those who Try to do right by their ex... and it is all too easy to only see the negatives in someone else, and not look at your own culpability. My ex tried to take my future retirement too, till she figured out that I wasn't lying about there not being any. We kept up her retirement accounts though, even though she wasn't working outside the house [her choice]. Interestingly, since they were her accounts and not joint, I couldn't touch them.

What surprised me, even though my lawyer told me, is how poorly I knew her after 10 years, and the things she did. My lawyer just noted that unless things are really bad during a marriage, you just never see the person at their worst, as a total enemy. If you are deluded enough to believe that you can just part company because "It just didn't work out..." you may be in for a surprise.

This is why no matter who I talk to, I talk about the pre-nup. If I ever get hitched again, I will. Instead of looking at it as a contingency in case of failure, I look at it as a baseline set of groundrules. It is surprising how different individual points of view are between 2 people, even from the same backgrounds. EVEN IF THEY TALK ABOUT IT. In depth, with family, and counselors and stuff. My ex didn't decide she wasn't going back to work until after she had the kid. She just said she changed her mind, and we'd be OK. My options were to agree to that or have an insanely nasty fight, and still be forced to agree. It's amazing how much a marriage rests on the willingness of both parties to be reasonable. It is also amazing how difficult it is to measure that.

The guy who owes $7K probably agreed to it, just to get the divorce done. I went into financial ruin waiting 10mo. for my ex to agree to a deal that she had originally put on the table, that I agreed to, and she decided to change. It was all about punishment, and I had to pay all her bills as well as my own until she settled. And then I had to pay off her debts too. Just to get it done, just to stop the hemmoraging.

I think the guy should pay her too, because he agreed to it. But that doesn't mean he has to do it with her terms. It is retirement money that he likely doesn't HAVE yet... so he should pay her over the time he needs.

No matter what, it isn't pretty. But I discovered that dealing with an ex, even when twisting the knife, also requires that you give some control to them. Requires that you THINK about them, even if negatively.

that's why it is so much better to be done, and not have to deal with them at all. Unless you have kids, at which point you just make the best of it.

Posted by: SwissArmyD at July 9, 2008 11:14 AM

Great advice: Perfect. But I've never understood why people say things like this:

> If you ever loved him,
> how do you...

Love is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 9, 2008 11:17 AM

... Unless you're implying that our own emotions can confuse us in appraising others, so we need to be extra-cautious during emotional times. OK. Got it.

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 9, 2008 11:19 AM

Rex, I'd like to think she's trying to re-coup half of what they acquired during the marriage, too. But she wouldn't be raiding his retirement account to do it. If she's 38 and wanted to have a baby...she probably wouldn't have married someone who was already old enough to retire.

As I read that original letter, the undertone to me sounded quite a bit like "Boo Hoo, life's not fair." This woman is 38 years old, she should KNOW that life's not fair!

Settling for half of the earned assets during the marriage? Assertive.

Raiding your ex's retirement account for $7000 and threatening to publicly defame him? Vindictive.

If I were a betting woman, I'd bet LW's ex became a "jerk" when he dropped the "I'm not sure if I want a baby"-bomb. Something tells me that if you get married after knowing someone for nine weeks...you probably didn't have the "so, do you want four kids or five" discussion.

Posted by: Homeless in Seattle at July 9, 2008 11:35 AM

Wow how scary is the LW life? Only wanted a guy to sire a kid? Poor guy. She seems a bit crazy to me. I have been divorced... the guy cheated and I said I was done, he wanted to still date, was sorry, he wasnt ready for marriage just thought he was.. etc. I only left with what I came into it with - really I am fine taking care of myself and really didnt feel the need to go after stuff of his, retirement or otherwise. My friends thought I was crazy, yet I had no additional stress with the separating and still can take care of myself. To the LW - PLEASE DO NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN, you would not be a good role model. Spare the kids.

Posted by: Melody at July 9, 2008 11:39 AM

Oh and I am still giggling a bit over the fact that she actually wrote to Amy thinking she would think it ok to do what she intended. Does she not read Amy's column?
:)

Posted by: Melody at July 9, 2008 11:44 AM

Im 30. Married at 18 stupidly, divorced at 21 wiser, remarried at 25, and proceded to have 3 in quick order. Oldest is 4, youngest is not quite a year and a half. To answer your question :)

Posted by: momof3 at July 9, 2008 11:49 AM

lovelysoul, I'm talking about a job benefit paid by New York State to its employees. If you started after a certain date, they also take 3% of your salary (your salary, not your spouse's) and that only for a few years now (used to be forever). You can borrow against it but used to be if an ex came after it, the Retirement System said too bad, too sad, it's not yours it's theirs (and in the case of a death) they didn't name you as beneficiary. Now, because of court orders, they have an entire unit to carry out the court orders.

That's fucked up, plain and simple. And, trust me, this is one of the biggest draws for working for New York State. We have an excellent pension that we can collect as young as 55 (younger if disabled or in the case of police officers and firefighters who have 20 and 25 year plans and can retire even in their 40's after working that many years).

Posted by: Donna at July 9, 2008 11:53 AM

K, let's review. LW, you:

- married a guy you'd known for only 9 weeks (stupid).
- married him only because you wanted a baby (stupid; dishonest)
- decided he was a jerk after a whole 13 months.
- provide no evidence here to support the "jerk" label. (why, one wonders?)
- feel you're entitled to $7000 of his money - $538.46 for every month of the marriage; you know, the one you entered into under false pretenses.

Now you're thinking about doing yet another stupid thing in front of a bunch of total strangers in hopes of embarrassing this guy into paying up?

My god, woman, you should be embarrassed. Imagine the role model you'd be for a child.

Posted by: catspajamas at July 9, 2008 12:14 PM

Donna, I agree that's wrong. I think retirement funds and benefits should really be off the table. That should be separate.

I fought two years and settled for around a third after 20 years of marriage and two kids. I was a baby when I married him, but I worked with him and ultimately ran our businesses, which I now still do. I never even asked for half, although I could've probably won it in court due to the amount of business involvement I had, but at a certain point, you have to stop the hemmoraging, as someone else said. I saw the money that would be wasted fighting in court, all going to lawyers, so I settled for less than I was likely entitled.

The ironic thing is that the only way he would settle is if I agreed to continue to run our businesses and handle all HIS money too! That's how fair and trustworthy I am.

And now, we are friendly, as we need to be, for our kids and businesses. It's just not worth it to be greedy and vindictive. The LW needs to look at what she'll lose - both in money and dignity - continuing to fight over $7,000. And she needs to accept that she married him for all the wrong reasons, so she really shouldn't feel so self-righteous.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 9, 2008 12:28 PM

"That may be exactly what she's trying to do. $7K might be half the value of what they acquired during the marriage; for 13 months, that sounds quite plausible. It's not like she's trying to take half of everything he owns. And she's spent two years going through legal channels trying to collect."

A decade ago at 20 years old, I would have taken the fair, nice guy attitude of that the LW was likely looking to get her half of the joint assets earned during the marriage, possibly to pay off debts they both incurred during that time.

At 30, I'm far too cynical to believe a word she says without documentation in triplicate showing why she thinks she should get a flippin penny from this guy. I don't care that he stood up in court and agreed to it, he likely did it to get the divorce over with. Legally he should pay her but its blackmail and vindictive bullshit by a woman who deserves nothing from him. 13 months of marriage all because she had baby rabies? Let it go lady.

Oh, but I'm just a committment phobe guy who won't grow up, quit playing video games, settle down and marry/have kids.

Posted by: Sio at July 9, 2008 1:40 PM

This "woman?" is clearly emotionally immature and has feelings of entitlement. Move on. You don't deserve a damn thing.

Posted by: David M. at July 9, 2008 2:04 PM

I think that the attempt to embarrass her ex would completely backfire and she would come out looking stupid. Its a good thing that I am not an advise columnist because I would be tempted to encourage her to do it just because of how bad she would look. But Amy''s advise was good because it made me think about the feelings of others besides the LW. There is the ex who is just trying to get his career going, maybe even so that he can pay her and get her out of his life quicker. Also, I would feel bad for the poor guests at the book signing. Some might enjoy the drama, but others would just feel uncomfortable. Since they came presumably to have an artsy experience, not to hear someone who they didn't even come to see bitch about alimony.

Posted by: Lily at July 9, 2008 2:26 PM

She should get the money because he agreed to it in court. Fair or not, he signed the papers, so he owes her $7,000.

But really, LW, have some pride and dignity. If my ex-husband humiliated me publicly like that, I'd go bankrupt before I gave him a penny.

Posted by: MonicaP at July 9, 2008 2:31 PM

Oldest is 4, youngest is not quite a year and a half.

Three children under 4 years of age. Where do you get time to read this blog and post comments on it? Boggles the mind.

Seriously - my advice is don't worry about surfing the net, worry about raising the kids right. Much as I enjoy this blog and my other RSS feeds, there's better ways to spend your alone time.

speaking of wasting time, I gotta get back to work now.

Posted by: RS at July 9, 2008 2:33 PM

Maybe he planned it this way.

Do all of you really trust this woman's word of what happened about him "swearing under oath", etc? She sounds like a biological clock ticker golddigger who thought she had snagged a rich author and when she tried to get knocked up right away, he got cold feet and she went nuts.

Amy, give that guy a medal for saving the world from this monster breeding. Every second she spends trying to get the 7 grand she managed to finagle from a judge in liars, er, I mean "family" court is one less second she is using to meet a new man and have children. I met a lot of women like this and it was amazing how they would be sweet and pleasant when the man was spending money on them and psycho-bitches the microsecond they heard the word "no."

As I said, I met a woman like this and when I broke up with her she went ballistic and started threatening me over the phone. So I unplugged it and she left drunken threats on my voicemail. I immediately called the police (who weren't helpful, no surprise) and she backed off when she realized that the next step was a restraining order.

If she goes nuts and confronts him at the book signing, he should get a restraining order and even contact abused women's shelters.

Posted by: PolishKnight at July 9, 2008 2:35 PM

I was married for two years and had to pay him $20,000 out of my retirement. That's better than selling my home and land that I had before the marriage. The legal system isn't fair but that's how it is. Move on and just let go for my own sanity. What I got out of this is two great kids and much love from them. Look at what is important, a good night sleep over staying awake and plotting.

Posted by: Kim at July 9, 2008 2:38 PM

Most of you here have already read my horror story, so I won't repeat it. But after having read the posts on this thread today (in between working and then coming home to pack for a little vacation) I've just got to say, teh gays want this?!? HELL YEAH, let 'em have it! o_O

I don't know if I'll have computer access where I'm going (no laptop) so I'll prbably check in sporadically, and I'll be home somewhere around the 19th. Love yas all!

Posted by: Flynne at July 9, 2008 3:12 PM

Amy,
Well said... and said well.
Will you accept a cyber *huggs* for your level headed (or is clear headed) refusal to pander to socially correct male bashing?
Gunner Retired

Posted by: Gunner Retired at July 9, 2008 3:28 PM

(I was 38 and increasingly desperate to get married and have a baby.)

Here's a link to an article entitled "Marry Him!" by Lori Gottlieb in The Atlantic for March 2008 which sheds some light on what may have been going on:

www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

The author wanted a baby without the complications of marriage so used donated sperm. Later in the article she expresses envy for women who did get married, had a baby, and then got divorced, since that way they got the kid they wanted and child support.

Posted by: Kirk at July 9, 2008 7:15 PM

Rex, I'd like to think she's trying to re-coup half of what they acquired during the marriage, too. But she wouldn't be raiding his retirement account to do it.

I doubt she's specifically "raiding his retirement account"; she's got $7,000 owed to her and most likely doesn't care which pocket it comes out of. My guess is, when negotiating the settlement he said he'd pay the money from his retirement account because (not knowing the rules that govern such things) he thought that would be the most painless way to do it. Then he discovered that in order to net $7,000 after taxes and penalties, he'd have to withdraw at least $15,000. (I'm assuming we're talking about an IRA or 401K here.) Maybe his plan now is to stall until he's 59 1/2.

Posted by: Rex Little at July 9, 2008 8:53 PM

I have to agree with Amy and others that the LW should choose better ways to collect the 7k besides going to a book signing. If that was the agreement, then he should pay it. But going into someone's public part of their work and making a scene is just unneccessary if that is all she wants, and reeks of the desperation that she mentioned was an initial part of her choice to marry the guy in the first place.

I can think of times when desperation might be a part of a choice, like the guy that had to cut his arm off because it was under a boulder and he had to get off the mountain to survive...but not in choosing to marry someone.

And for the retirement money thing, reading the comments about money going in being joint and all did shed some light on it, but there is another aspect of that I learned from two friends of mine who did get divorced. Both were in supposed committed marriages with children, in states that had laws regarding retirement benefits in divorce, not joint money paid in. Each friend was facing a divorce right around ten years into the marriage, and was told by their attorneys to wait until the ten year anniversary came up to file final papers to have access to their spouse's retirement benefits at the time of retirement.

In both cases there was solid reason for leaving. One was a spouse having an affair and had already left her and their kids, but just hadn't filed the papers. The other one I don't even feel comfortable sharing any details. Just trust that it was all a total surprise, a deviously well kept secret of perverse and sick things, and more than grounds for divorce. In both cases, it was obvious that the marriages were over, and the husbands who had basically already left the boat didn't feel any speedy need to file the divorce papers right away. So, both of my friends, in two very different situations...just waited a few months to be past the magic ten years that their attorneys advised them about, to have 1/2 access to retirement benefits paid out.

I don't talk with my friends much about what happened after that in the setttlements. These are things we shared at the time. Since then, our lives are more in what's going on after all that. But, from what I can gather, the end of it all really didn't hinge on the retirement thing, but in both cases it helped with the proceedings and the final parting of the financial ways.

To be fair about this, I have to admit that even though I think both of my friends were wronged in their marriages...I would not have made the same choices they made for their own paths. One quit her path in college to get married (and took it up later after the divorce on her own), and the other gave up her life work that she loved to be a stay at home wife and mom just because she didn't need to work anymore. I have never been a fan of giving up your life love to marry a person you love. A spouse simply does not and can not replace your own life. In fact, if you are going to have a spouse and be a good spouse yourself, and have something of value to give to the equation, not to mention bring kids into it and raise them...you need even more to have a good individual life of your own.

Goes back to the LW...she never considered that there was anything there to give, just to have someone give a kid or a life. Kind of explains why she has turned into a book-signing stalker.

Posted by: Ang at July 9, 2008 11:35 PM

I did not read all the comments so someone may have already said this. In a relative's recent divorce the ex-wife good a rude awakening and the LW might be in for the same one. The court award so much of the ex-husband's retirement. When they sent in the information to the company that holds the retirement account they got a note back saying that because of the federal law the retirement account was created under (and I don't believe it was anything that exotic) the money could not be removed from the account until a qualifing event happened (e.g. retiring at 65+) and the owner (ex-husband) started taking payments. Her lawyers were not able to find a way around this.

Posted by: Witness to too many divorces at July 10, 2008 12:02 AM

Yeah, overlooked that. Witness might be right. She can't collect it until he does. The New York State pensions I mentioned that's the case. The spouse gets half their pension when they retire. Makes me damned glad my ex is dead and I've remained single since my divorce. I couldn't survive on half my pension!

BTW, my name's too common. I've bumped into other Donnas so I'm gonna change my moniker to T's Grammy. I'll go for a bit posting like I am today then just switch.

Oh and, Sio, don't listen to that nonsense. I'm a 50 year old grandmother whose Playstation you'd have to pry from her cold dead hands. And, much as I love them (and my daughter's really testing that love lately), if I had it to do all over again, I'd neither marry (yikes! what a horror show that was!) nor have a child. But I was young, naive and stupid. I've matured since then.

Posted by: Donna (T's Grammy) at July 10, 2008 5:37 AM

Ang, why do you feel that a woman can't stay home with her kids and also have an "individual life"? I find that condescending. Some of us truly feel that our "life's love" is raising our children. This idea that you must always be self-involved, pursuing interests other than that, isn't really compatible with raising kids, especially when they're very small. (Someone here also told the lady with young kids to get off line and use her time raising them right, which was also insensitive...she's entitled to a frivolous break now and then)

Of course, if a woman has a career she really loves, and can manage both, I think that's wonderful. I paint - that's what I studied in college - but I also loved being home with my children. I was able to enjoy both passions, and many others, even though I stayed home.

Childhood doesn't last forever, so I applaud women who put their focus on their children for those few short years. There's no reason to treat stay-at-homes moms like they've sold their individuality.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 10, 2008 6:47 AM

So this $7K is the same amount as the debt that my ex stuck me with, by virtue of forging my signature on some credit card applications. Whatta ya gonna do. I had to live lean for a year, but I paid them off, just to be rid of her.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at July 10, 2008 8:12 AM

"Ang, why do you feel that a woman can't stay home with her kids and also have an "individual life"?" Several reasons here's three.
1) If your a stay at home without a trust fund you should have your priorities in this order Kid(s), hubby then yourself. The kid(s) had no choice in the matter so they come first. The hubby is making all this shit possible so you owe him. (With the caveat that you choose to stay home and not at his instance)
2) As you pointed out childhood is not forever so once they are grown and off at college what do you use to define your life.
3) If you are dependent on someone else then you do not have an individual life.

Why so harsh you ask? Cause I know several stay at homes that got nailed badly by "asshole" hubbies or unexpected deaths. The hubby that I'm personally familiar with was not actually an asshole just got tired of her selfishness once the kids were gone. As a parent your remiss in expecting someone else to take care of you and the kids. Staying home for the first few year I completely understand but after about age 5 there really should have to be one hell of a good reason for you not working.

Posted by: vlad at July 10, 2008 12:29 PM

"Oh, but I'm just a committment phobe guy who won't grow up, quit playing video games, settle down and marry/have kids." Hey personally getting married helped me with that. Her parents bought my PS3 just when it came out. She helped me cover the new plasma. Getting married and playing video games are not mutually exclusive.

"I'm a 50 year old grandmother whose Playstation you'd have to pry from her cold dead hands." Freaking sweat.

Posted by: vlad at July 10, 2008 12:33 PM

Thanks Donna, I don't take it seriously (I play World of Warcraft with folks from their teens to 50-60s) but it does aggrivate me. Every year, right around valentines day, those types of articles show up.

This year's one being Kay Hymowitz's screed in the Dallas Morning News on the "child man" phenomenom.

Grats Vlad on being lucky. I know any woman I might marry would have to be a gamer or at least tolerant of it.

Posted by: Sio at July 10, 2008 12:56 PM

I made sure of it before I got married. She's not a huge PS3 fan but she loved the Wii. She accepts the PS3 and I occasionally have to watch Merchant Ivory films. Plus anyone who tries the "child man" crap on me gets to look very stupid very quickly.

As far st the kid ("growing up and becoming a man" crap) when we can afford one I'm all good with that. I'm not giving up my PS3 (or PS4 as it will be a while) so we can be parents. Nor am I giving up any of my other hobbies, nor is she. So when we are at a place when we can have kids without major sacrifices, then we have them. This way the kid is provided for and there is no resentment. Also if both of us get plowed in some horrid accident the child will be provided for, roof, college, etc. Most that claim they have sacrificed all for their kid(s) are trying to justify their resentment.

Posted by: vlad at July 10, 2008 1:48 PM

I dislike the idea that a SAHM "owes" her husband for providing financially -- that a person's social value hinges on how much cash they bring in. Maybe this is true if he is opposed to her staying at home and she is doing so anyway, but that's not always the case. With two of my friends, the choice was mutual. She wanted to stay home with their kids, and he wanted to be able to pursue his career while his home and children were being cared for. They both seem happy, nobody is asking for government help, and she is pulling her weight at home, so I'd say she's an equal partner in their relationship. They just don't define worth by comparing W2s.

BTW: I'm single, childfree and fully employed, so this isn't me trying to justify my own choices.

Posted by: MonicaP at July 10, 2008 2:42 PM

My first ex-husband was awarded half of my retirement money--for the period of time we were married, which was 10 years but at the first part of my career so not worth so much. However, he doesn't collect it until I retire. I figure he won't be around by then since that's not going to be any time soon and he's not in very good health now.

Posted by: Debbie at July 10, 2008 2:49 PM

Sio: "Oh, but I'm just a committment phobe guy who won't grow up, quit playing video games, settle down and marry/have kids."

"Settle down" always seems to be short-hand for marry-and-reproduce. I have a little gang of aunties who always wonder when I'm going to "settle down" - and I have a stable government job, great pension, a car, a condo, friends and a life. (Does that make me a child-woman??) What they mean is "get married." Other people will ALWAYS have an opinion about your life and what you should be doing with it, including the Dallas Morning News. Learn to ignore them, and ban the phrases, "You're too old for ..." and "By the time I was your age ... " from your vocabulary and your home.

And hey, commitment is tough! If more people were commitment-phobic there'd be fewer nasty divorces.

Posted by: catspajamas at July 10, 2008 3:04 PM

Catspajamas - "Other people will ALWAYS have an opinion about your life and what you should be doing with it, including the Dallas Morning News. Learn to ignore them"
Amen to that

Posted by: Lily at July 10, 2008 5:19 PM

Well said Vlad and catspajamas. Sio, I kind of knew that's where you were going. Just wanted to second it.

Vlad, I'm still on the PS2. Do you like the 3 better? Do they have Sims for it? I have to have Sims. Oh, and kids aren't any reason to give it up. There are child-friendly games out there and I don't mean dorky ones. I sometimes wonder if my grandson misses me or my Playstation more since I moved out. He's 4 1/2 and has been playing it with me for a couple of years at least. Games he loves (and is pretty good at): pinball, Pac-man, Crazy Taxi and the one based on the Cars movie. We have the Finding Nemo one too but we played it a lot when I first got it and none of us seem to gravitate to it now. For one thing, it's surprisingly hard. It might be stretching it to say he's pretty good at Crazy Taxi. He tends to like to drive the cab into the ocean to look at the fish and the shark for a bit then likes to drive it at the girls in bikinis on the beach -- which is the most disturbing thing he does on it. His biggest complaint is that I limit him to an hour.

lovlysoul, anyone that's a stay at home mom (or dad) is crazy and shouldn't be raising children. Okay, maybe not quite. But it's nuts to put yourself and your children in that vulnerable a position to another grownup, making yourself dependent on them for all your needs gives them too much power over you and worse, your children. You'd better hope to hell they really are as nice and as trustworthy as you think and, if they are, you better hope fate doesn't kill them off. It's just plain crazy. I get so nauseated when someone boohoos because hubby died unexpectedly or took off with his secretary after 20 years and they're screwed. He didn't screw you, you screwed yourself by making yourself weak and vulnerable to him. A woman (or a man) has to be able to take care of herself and anyone else who comes along (by that I mean anyone she creates). It's called being a grownup.

Yeah, Monica, what she contributes in work and enabling him to work long hours on his career and take business trips away is monetary-wise worth what he's doing but it's still nuts -- and more trusting than anyone with a grain of sense ought to be. Face it, trusting anyone that far is a gamble. 50/50 they may be as trustworthy as you think them. Hedge your bets and cover your ass just in case they're not.

Posted by: Donna (T's Grammy) at July 11, 2008 5:21 AM

Donna, that's absurd and insulting. Just because someone stays at home with the children doesn't mean she can't be financially aware, productive, and responsible.

I agree that far too many women leave the finances in their spouse's hands. Then, if they do divorce or lose their husband, they have no idea where anything stands....what accounts they have, where their insurance and loan documents are, etc. But I sure didn't do that. I handled all the money - and also MADE money, while still working from home. And a lot of stay-at-home moms do that.

But, even for those women who are foolish enough to remain uninvolved financially, the courts still count their contribution to the marriage as an equal partnership, so nobody (unless they're completely dumb), should end up "screwed" if she gets a decent lawyer.

The only thing is if he hides assets. A good friend of mine realized much too late that her doctor husband planned and plotted for about a year...figuring she would divorce him (after she caught him with his nurse-assistant - duh!). He put his practice in a corporate name to shield it from her, cleaned out their bank accounts, etc.

They have 4 kids - that he wanted because he loved a big family. With 4 kids, what can you do but stay at home? Paying for childcare would be counterproductive. She still ended up well-off financially. She'll get alimony for years, and child support, plus the house, but she would've gotten more if she'd been paying better attention to the finances.

Stay-at-home moms should insist on paying the bills and managing the money...and, for goodness sakes, have life insurance on your husband...(before you kill him. lol)

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 11, 2008 6:09 AM

Insulting, yes. Absurd, no. Insulting because true. Making yourself financially dependent on someone else is just plain dumb. Sometimes shit happens and it can't be avoided but that's rare. And, usually, even then it's only temporary while you adjust to the shit that life has handed you.

Reality is if you are financially dependent on someone else the balance of power is not equal. Reality might suck but that doesn't change the facts. Life isn't a rose garden and even if it were, even roses have their thorns.

Working from home is not the same as just being a housewife. Sorry, didn't realize that I needed to ask you to be more specific when you said stay at home mom.

As for your tale of woe about your friend, I rest my case. Also, the 4 kids does not exactly make me feel sorry for her. Why the hell is she having four kids if she can't afford them? She, herself. If this guy had disappeared into the wild blue yonder and they didn't find him, she'd be on her own and if you can't take care of them alone, don't freaking have them.

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 11, 2008 8:48 AM

I think there is a benefit to the children to have a stay-at home parent. If both parents decide that one will stay home to take care of the kids, one parent will be reliant on the other for finances and I don't think they owe the other anything except to do their job in raising the kids. However, I don't think this should be done until both parents have some bankable skill to fall back on and I don't think it should continue once the kids are out of grade school.

Posted by: moreta at July 11, 2008 10:32 AM

Who said my friend couldn't afford her kids?! Her husband is a doctor. He makes lots of money.

Maybe you are only assuming lower-income people, but certainly, there are cases where a woman has benefited financially by marrying and "relying on another person's income".

My friend, although she had a career before marriage, would probably not be in a multi-million dollar home if she had not married the doctor and stayed home with kids. Nor would I likely have the net worth I have had I not married my husband and shared responsibilities of his businesses, etc, from home, while being a stay-at-home mother. I never would've earned this much money as an artist.

Courts reward stay-at-home-moms as much, if not more, than working moms. So, in essence, I suppose it depends on who you marry and how smart it is to "rely" on them financially. Certainly, if your husband barely makes ends meet, it wouldn't be wise. But with high-income earners, it often makes more sense for the wife to stay home with the kids rather than go to work just for the sake of working.

You are simply wrong that it is always a losing proposition. Not in my case. Nor in my friend's. With equitable distribution, stay-at-home moms get half of whatever their husbands earned since the marriage. Depending on what that amount is, they may be much better off financially than they ever could've been on their own.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 11, 2008 10:56 AM

Oh, and I guess if my friend's husband had simply dumped his practice, abandoned his kids, and disappeared (which would be rare) she'd still be ok. She's not without skills. Just because she's a stay-at home mom, you think she's an untalented parasite. She'd just sell the multi-million dollar home, invest the money, and get an appropriate job. She could still afford her children.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 11, 2008 11:02 AM

Her husband's a doctor? Meaning he could afford the kids, not her.

This is very telling: "there are cases where a woman has benefited financially by marrying and "relying on another person's income". So that's what we should see men as? Really? I thought we'd come a long way, baby. But I guess not.

Just because the courts do it, doesn't mean it's right. Society changes with the times. It's re-examined all the time. That's why we spend so much time questioning and debating the status quo and whether or not it should change. America wouldn't even exist if not for that.

Moreta, I call bull on that. I think kids do fine either way and if both parents work they benefit from learning some independence themselves. They learn to live in the world, not be cooped up at home. However, if you are going to do it, your way is best. Make sure there's a back-up means of making a living if necessary and get back out there once they're older. Though I'd quibble with out of grade school. Why not as soon as they're in school? Once they're not at home, why is a parent? So she/he can watch their soaps?

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 11, 2008 11:22 AM

You obviously don't have children. I agree with Moretta too. I totally believe that a woman should have a backup...an education and career prospects...but if she then decides to stay-at-home with her children, she shouldn't be judged as some worthless sponge without an "individual life". And it is not always a foolish financial decision.

It's tough to raise kids these days. Teens need just as much interaction and supervision as toddlers. I've tried working outside the home, and personally, I didn't have the constitution to do both well, so I chose to focus on motherhood, which I deeply enjoy anyway. Some women can do it all, but I'm not one of them. I came home cranky and tired and didn't feel that was the best wasy to be with my kids.

Plus, it seems that most of the high-achievers at school have very active parents (within the school). I am at school a lot, and see many of the parents. Some are working parents, who obviously take the time off to be there to volunteer or attend functions in the middle of the school day, but the majority are stay-at-home moms. They definitely help their kids excel, stay out of trouble, and do better in most areas because they are deeply involved and know who's who and what's going on in their kid's lives. That does NOT become less important after the grade school years! Geeeze.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 11, 2008 11:43 AM

And as for my friend affording kids. You don't make kids alone. To say that she shouldn't be allowed to consider her husband's income and ability to support them in deciding whether to have kids is ridiculous. She has every right to weigh that as a factor in how many kids THEY could afford. He's still a part of the equation, and clearly, they can afford their kids - then and now.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 11, 2008 11:48 AM

T's Grammy -- you're right. Kids can do fine either way. But I know my son would be at or above his reading grade level, if I was home at 3:00 to work with him on it. I don't believe its the job of after school care to help him with reading, nor the job of my employer to make-over my job to allow for it. I'd love to get him to a tutor in between, but there's no service around here that would pick him up, drop him at a tutor and then take him to after-school care an hour later. Short of a taxi, and I'm not sure I'd trust those guys with my kid!

In order to have the career that would allow me to afford him on my own means we leave the house at 7:00 a.m. and don't get home until 6:00 p.m. I'm glad I kept at my career so that when we ended up as a single parent family for several years, we didn't lose too much ground. I'm not complaining...we make it work and squeeze in his baseball games, homework and unstructured down time (which I think there's far too little of for kids these days), but not near as much as I believe he'd benefit from.

I pick grade school simply because by the time they get through that, the foundation for learning should be pretty set.

Soaps? Aaahhhh! Kill me now! It's all about spending time on Air Guitar Hero III!!! Actually, my son loves it when I book a day of holidays to volunteer on a field trip or something. The stay-at-home moms in his class spend a good chunk of time volunteering at the school -- and their kids grades and behaviour seems to reflect the extra attention.

I understand where you're coming from T's Grammy -- I know you have kids and I know your ex was a jerk. I just don't think most jobs that provide a workable standard of living give the flexibility to be a full-time parent and a full-time employee. One or the other job tends to suffer.

Posted by: moreta at July 11, 2008 1:53 PM

I've been reading Amy's blog and articles for awhile and I'm "de-lurking" to object to the idea that if a parent continues to stay home after the children are in school they're worthless and sponging off their spouse. Many (probably even most) schools and non-profit organizations depend on volunteers who have the skills and time to keep the organizations running. The lack of a salary doesn't mean that you aren't contributing, and that example is very important for children (here's my disclaimer -- I'm a single mom who works full time and also volunteers at a variety of organizations and I know first-hand how valuable and busy those "stay at home" spouses often are).

Posted by: Kristyle at July 11, 2008 1:54 PM

"Let's start by talking about my writing process. Much as I'd like it to involve afternoons spent in a silk dressing gown in a canopy bed dotting witticisms on vellum with a big quill pen, the reality is rather different." Amy, please! Let me keep my illusions!

Posted by: jon at July 11, 2008 3:20 PM

If it makes you feel any better, I'm sitting at a cafe now in an evening dress, glam earrings and stiletto boots. I always wear evening dresses for regular activities. This morning, I wore it to the bank, the new nice one, to open my account in the wake of being fired by Bank of America; apparently for not being a docile enough victim after they let me get financially buggered seven times...see my blog for more on that if you haven't read about it already. The best is how they let a woman with missing teeth and fake driver's license in my name take out $1500 without so much as punching in a PIN...just with a fake driver's license in my name with the wrong expiration date.

If anybody in California needs the a new bank, a bank where they actually treat you like a valued customer and provide you with amazing service, write me at adviceamy at a o l dot com. This great guy, Dustin, is looking after me, and is sweet, smart, knowledgeable, and even fun to deal with (I could live with just the first three, but it's great to have it actually be a pleasure to go into a bank...something I sure haven't experience in a long, long time).

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 11, 2008 3:36 PM

THAT is the reason why I'm afraid I won't get married. Ever. Sorry ladies, but it just ain't worth the risk.

Posted by: marco at July 12, 2008 2:04 AM

How about if each family just does what's best for them? Each family, comprised of a couple of adults and one or more kids, certainly have enough brain power between them to decide how to raise the kids, stay-at-home mother, or day care. One size does not fit all. Awfully presumptuous to assume that anyone at home after the kids are in school are parasites or fools....

Posted by: crella at July 12, 2008 3:01 AM

Marco, the risk is mostly to us. If you're a decent guy chances are good your marriage will succeed. Women generally want our marriages to work, especially once we're "nested" with kids. Most of us ladies are divorced only because of serious flaws and failures by our husbands, such as cheating or abandonment.

Here's a little tutorial:

DON'T get married if you honestly can't keep it in your pants or commit to one woman. This includes "affairs of the heart".

DON'T get married if you need to be in control of everything or have anger-management issues.

DON'T get married if you expect to be waited on, hand and foot, by a subserviant wife (unless you're a Quaker or Mormon or something).

DON'T get married if you have integrity issues, such as lying or stealing, or substance abuse problems.

DON'T get married if you have trouble showing affection, are unclear about your sexuality, or have major sexual hang-ups or fetishes (unless she's into them too).

These are a few reasons I can offer NOT to get married. Maybe some of the other ladies would like to add to them.

I honestly feel that if most guys put as much effort into their marriages as they do their golf games, there would be far fewer divorces.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 12, 2008 6:34 AM

"If it makes you feel any better, I'm sitting at a cafe now in an evening dress, glam earrings and stiletto boots. I always wear evening dresses for regular activities. This morning, I wore it to the bank."
We can all learn a lesson here. Let's dress up when we go out even if it's just to do errands. Let's pretend we're in a 30's musical and break into dance in the produce section of the market. Come on, just try it for a week. If it doesn't improve the quality of our lives we can always go back to the boring, twit lives we had before. But...what if it works?

Posted by: jon at July 12, 2008 3:07 PM

test

Posted by: Amanda at July 12, 2008 7:06 PM

I think if people paid more attention to what their partners are saying and doing before marriage there would be fewer divorces. Don't expect a thoughtless jerk (male or female) to become sensitivity personified immediately after marriage. If there is a known behavior you know you cannot live with, don't get married. Don't think you can change the person, and please don't settle. It's not worth it.

Posted by: Amanda at July 12, 2008 7:08 PM

Marco, wise choice!

I learned the hard way that marriage is not for me. If you're ever tempted to change your mind, consider how lovlysoul admantly defends a woman's right to stay home with the kiddies while making the man pay for it all even if the marriage fails and absolving the woman of all liability.

Note that despite my moniker, just because I disagree with her, she assumes I must not have children (a common ploy when they run out of arguments in a difference of opionion on child rearing). I guess she thinks that I won an award for an excellent record. Um, no. I wish.

I'm gonna take still more heat for this but marriage is insane. It's basically agreeing to never change without permission of your spouse forever and ever for the rest of your life. That and compromosing between what you want and what somebody else wants.

Wish I'd been smart enough to never marry.

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 14, 2008 6:47 AM

I was at a wedding over the weekend. I found it refreshing that there was no "til death do us part" phrase in there. I actually think that's a positive thing. You can make a commitment, have a party but still bail without breaking any vows if it stops working.

Posted by: moreta at July 14, 2008 7:46 AM

What I have said is that it takes two people to create children, and a woman's choice to stay home with them (if she is lucky enough to have that choice) is just as valid...actually, whichever partner stays home. Supporting the children is both parents responbility and whether or not the man or woman is the major breadwinner, childrearing is an equally important contribution.

When I decided to stay home, I actually crunched the numbers. It ended up SAVING us money because I was able to take over tasks from home, such as bookeeping and marketing, that my husband was paying other people to do. Not to mention that I wouldn't use as much fuel or need the expensive business wardrobe, or have to pay for lunches/dinners on the run, plus the considerable expense of childcare.

At the time, I actually presented my husband with a detailed proposal, like I would've given a client, showing him the facts and figures, and how much money it would save, and he looked it over and agreed. Smartest business decision he ever made. He got my labor...and childcare...for "free" for over 18 years.

So, who was really using whom? I say it evens out. We BOTH contributed to our family's welfare. And when we divorced, we split our assets accordingly. That is fair.

Yet, to you, I am a worthless, crazy sponge, making him "pay". You are justifying dumping your kids on caregivers by grade school age - not for financial reasons, but so you can have an "individual life", hating being married to the person who (presumably) created them, wishing you'd never been married, and trashing anyone else who makes different choices.

You sound like a really healthy grandma. I feel sorry for "T" having to hear such cynical venom. Get over your bitterness. It's toxic.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 8:55 AM

Wow, lovlysoul, you might want a new moniker. All that venom directed at me because I dared disagree with you.

And that because you continue to choose to misunderstand my point -- that a woman (or man) needs to be able to take care of herself and anyone else who comes along. That it's rather crazy to trust someone that completely. Bad enough when it's just you but worse when you put your children at the mercy of someone else's finances.

In a perfect world, the breadwinners would all be as perfect as your wonderful (that god among men, sarcasm in case you didn't recognize it) husband and wouldn't have to worry about it.

In case you missed it, I did say if you were going to do it, moreta's way as temporary and with an exit strategy would be the best way.

Though at this point I do have to wonder why you're feeling so threatened... Could it just be that making this huge presentation to someone you trust to love you was far less scary than having to do it again and again for strangers to make a living?

To that, I'll only add why the hell should guys have to pay for everything? Where does this sense of being able to stay home with the kiddies come from? Just because you were born female?

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 14, 2008 10:26 AM

"and a woman's choice to stay home with them (if she is lucky enough to have that choice) is just as valid" One sentence the explains why I so distrust stay at home moms with a passion. How is it that there are two people involved in making the baby and splitting the assets but only one "a woman's choice" involved in HER staying home. This would be where the distrust comes from. So in your case if he had catagorically said no you would have just left it at that?

"Most of us ladies are divorced only because of serious flaws and failures by our husbands, such as cheating or abandonment." Also just to point out there are two people involved in all divorces. It's very easy to blame the other person but there is no way in hell that you did not contribute to the situation, baring actual abuse. Calling ones spouse a dergatory name after getting lecture first thing in the door does not constitute abuse.

In addition once the kids are off at college instead of making his life pleasant for paying for your life style, they book with half his hard earned money?

I'm not reading any venom from T's Grammy but there's plenty in my post.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 11:30 AM

You continue to misunderstand my point. I've repeatedly expressed that I was able to take care of myself financially, and I believe a woman should have that abilty and sense of security.

So, I don't view it as "trusting someone completely". Obviously, things can change, and the income might disappear for various reasons. But, as long as a woman knows that she has the marketable skills to return to work, she should be able to decide what to do based on the circumstances.

When I married, my ex was already financially established. He was making millions, and I, in my early 20s, was making thousands. I proudly brought home my little paycheck and added it to the pot, but frankly, it was more like a pebble thrown into a huge lake...barely making a ripple.

I also had the sense to realize that, as his wife, we were financially connected. His labors and businesses DID effect me and were, by law, part of my financial reality too...good or bad. After all, his debts could've become mine as well. So, by using my skills to increase his productivity, I was thereby securing my own financial well-being.

Given the amount of money involved, it was a no-brainer which move was smarter for me to make financially. I was not only helping increase a sizable net worth, but I was safeguarding it for my children. This also gave me an extensive business knowledge that most people would've had to work years to get. To continue to toil away for someone else, just to say I had a "separate job", would've been foolish.

Besides, I WANTED to stay home with my children. That was my desire, my choice. My husband wasn't interested in taking on that role. I do believe it's ideal when a mom can stay home with her kids, for awhile at least, as we tend to be the main caregivers - though I know some great dads who do it too. It's not always financially possible, but I believe there are many benefits for the children.

It's obviously not your choice. Maybe you didn't have that strong maternal passion for it. I respect your right to make that choice for yourself and what was best for your children and family. But I wish you were not so critical of those who choose differently.

A woman can make an informed, intelligent, and logical choice to remain home with her children. And if makes her happy...if it fulfills her...why should you judge?

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 11:36 AM

Vlad, there was abuse in my marriage. I don't say I'm totally blameless. He has a mental disorder, which I tried for a long time to deal with. Even he doesn't blame me. In my case, it was pretty black and white.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 11:42 AM

My problem with stay at home moms has mainly to do with the divorce which are common. If you leave after 20 years your likely on spousal support for life. The financially successful parter has to keep working to support you while you do jack shit for them. Now please explain to me how this is fair. You both got the life styles you wanted and now the other person has to keep providing you with said life style.

"for awhile at least" No one is arguing the point if you add in this caveat. It's the permanent stay at home that I have the issues with. Once the kids are off in college what the hell is the working spouse getting out of the deal, nothing. However as per the law if they split the working spouse still has to provide the slacker (if the kids are done with college and your not working your a slacker) with the life style they are accustomed to.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 11:49 AM

What about you buddy who got to play skin the doctor? Again if there is abuse involved that's different.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 11:52 AM

Vlad, I already said I got a third of the assets after 20 yrs of marriage. And, as part of the deal, I am running all the businesses, as he is really not able to work anymore. I do not get alimony,and we split childcare 50/50.

In essence, I am supporting him now, not the reverse, but I really don't mind. He worked hard in his earlier years, and he has a really easy life...and he calls me whenever he needs money. lol It's kind of an odd arrangement, but I think it's very fair, so I don't like being put in the alimony-receiving/golddigger category. I'm working...I've always worked. I just do it from home. Maybe I'm more like a self-employed, stay-at-home mom.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 11:58 AM

I'm even ok with splitting marital assets but there should be a requirement of proof of contribution. If the stay at home (as is the case in your situation) helped with the family business that would make them WORK at home moms. I got into this argument with my wife until we worked out the distinct difference between the two.

In your case you helped manage the business thus you were a business partner and entitled to a portion of the business assets at it's desolution. I'm talking about those spouses that just split after the kids leave the house. She's been a home maker all her life and he's making 7 figs. She did nothing to help him develop the business and other than raising kids has done little or nothing to support him in any way. Explain why he ows her jack shit.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 11:58 AM

test

Posted by: Amanda at July 14, 2008 12:01 PM

"I've always worked. I just do it from home." Your lumping your self into that category not anyone here. No one said you have to work the standard 9-5 to still be considered working. Anyone who did that would piss of Amy and get chewed stupid.

Now those women who confuse working from home with all of those stupid get rick quick internet business are a different story.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 12:03 PM

Well, I know there are abuses. I see a lot wrong with the legal system...a lot, trust me. It isn't perfect, but men (as it is mostly guys getting screwed in that way) must protect themselves, which is why I was offering advice here earlier.

And, certainly, try not to have kids if you're miserable in your marriage to begin with. Just get out. I see men fall for that so often. And have a prenup.

Without a prenup, courts have to view it as an implied contract between the parties. Somebody has to raise the kids - whether it be the mom, the dad, or an outside caregiver. They can't really get into whose decision it was to stay home or who works harder - at home or away. They treat it like a partnership regardless.

I know this because even though I was a working mom and contributed greatly, it didn't make that much difference. I mean, my attorney was thrilled to have all that additional proof, but he told me I could've stayed home eating bon-bons and watching soaps and been entitled to the same share of the assets.

It's pretty much a formula. He got credit for what he had before me, then we split what was made together. A non-working spouse is viewed as providing support, relief, and childcare so that the breadwinner can be more productive.

And that's not all that unreasonable. My girlfriend was working hard taking care of 4 kids and the home while her doctor husband was at the office (boinking the nurse), so I don't think she "skinned" him. She got the house because that's where the kids live. Judges think kids should be disrupted as little as possible, which is a good thing. She gets alimony, unless she remarries, and of course, child-support until they're grown.

But why shouldn't she? She didn't cheat. He was the ass who couldn't keep it in his pants. She is a beautiful ex-model, who was loving to him, so he really had no excuse for breaking up a family.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 12:23 PM

"But why shouldn't she? She didn't cheat." She should get to live in the house with the kids, and child support is a must agreed. The house should be held in escrow till the kids leave. He should be punished legally for what was is in effect a moral failing.

"She is a beautiful ex-model, who was loving to him, so he really had no excuse for breaking up a family." Her looks I can see judging but as far as her being loving how can you know that? If this is actually true (and your are privy to all the details) then he's a shmuck, however. There had to be some things that she did not "DO" for him, otherwise he would have no reason to leave or screw around. Now if this was something way the hell out there ok I see her refusing. He may have had a damn good reason for screwing around and she just chose to to tell you.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 1:29 PM

"He should be punished legally for what was is in effect a moral failing." Should have been phrased as a question.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 1:43 PM

It always amazes me that people think cheaters are just ordinary, monogamy-loving guys...who would never cheat...if only their wives weren't doing something wrong.

A one-time cheater may have some momentary lapse, caused by lack of affection or something missing in the marriage, but a serial cheater usually has a narcissistic personality type that allows him to justify getting whatever he wants at whatever cost. He can be married to the most beautiful, sexiest and devoted of spouses, but he just wants more.

Obviously, I wasn't privy to all the details of their marriage, but I had dealings with him separately, and he always lacked integrity...though he ironically posed as a church-going, antiabortion obstetrician, so all the church ladies loved him delivering their babies because he was such a "good christian". He only did that for business. (Nurses who worked with him said he'd leave girls to die if they didn't have insurance or he thought he wouldn't get paid).

My girlfriend said he hadn't had sex with her (except for procreational purposes) in years, even with her advances, so she'd started to fear he was gay. I think he may have been having the affair to try and prove to himself that he was straight...but that's just my own theory. He hasn't had a girlfriend since the divorce, which was several years now. Who knows? But looking at her, and knowing her as a friend, it would be hard to imagine why any guy would be so miserable with her for a wife.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 2:03 PM

Ok, getting a clearer picture. Most people are just plain lazy. If the situation is reasonably good then they won't screw with it. If they are not getting what they want out of the marriage then they screw around. This does not change the fact that there narsasitic people who will only cheat cause they can.

"(Nurses who worked with him said he'd leave girls to die if they didn't have insurance or he thought he wouldn't get paid)." Anyone who would do that with emergency care is not an ass hole he is evil. He is required by law to provide care and will not for his own personal gain, he has problems. Any doctor that will point blank refuse to administer emergency medicine to save a life is a monster.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 2:15 PM

"He should be punished legally for what was is in effect a moral failing."

Maybe. It's debatable. But he probably wasn't. Florida is a no fault state, so moral failings don't really matter, though a judge can consider that when deciding the judgement. If the judge thinks a spouse really put up with a jerk for a long time, he could be extra generous. But it seems to me that she got only what the law entitled her.

I was just saying that after what's she's been through with him, I think it's fair.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 2:16 PM

"I think he may have been having the affair to try and prove to himself that he was straight...but that's just my own theory." Given his good Christian standing I'd guess he had a bad case of the virgin whore complex. Ok he's a horrible man, still don't think she should get much past basic needs and the child support (which she should be required to use only on them).

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 2:18 PM

"I was just saying that after what's she's been through with him, I think it's fair." With the exception of the affair what exactly has she been through? Him not putting out? If the gender roles were reversed I doubt it would be viewed that way. So she got publically humiliated sucks sure but shouldn't justify her getting a free ride for life.

Posted by: vlad at July 14, 2008 2:21 PM

lovlysoul - "It always amazes me that people think cheaters are just ordinary, monogamy-loving guys...who would never cheat...if only their wives weren't doing something wrong."

What I find even more amazing is that that you would refer only to "guys" cheating on their wives when you dicuss "cheaters".

Apparently you've missed the news, but, in todays world, wives are cheating nearly as often as husbands. In the under 35 crowd, it's practically the same percentages.

And, when wives do cheat, other women seem to invariably speak up for their bad behaviors explaining that her husband must have driven her to it by not meeting her needs. This particular line of reasoning for women's behaviors has been going on for many years, but now that men are starting to make the same sorts od claims about their needs not being met, you seem miffed.

So, let me ask you this, if it had been your friend who had cheated on her doctor husband, should she have been asked to pay alimony to him? After all, in that "just-as-likely" sceanario, it would have been her who cheated, she would have been the ass who couldn't keep it in HER pants, and she the one who had no excuse for breaking up a family.

Isn't your "reasoning" really that since it was the man who did the cheating, therefore she deserves for him to have to pay for his mistake?

You, yourself, make the point that Florida (like most others) in a no-fault state. Still, it seems like you have no problem with the idea of men being made to "pay" for their mistakes. I just wonder if you feel that the same should be expected of women?

Posted by: slwerner at July 14, 2008 2:40 PM

lovlysoul - "Nurses who worked with him said he'd leave girls to die if they didn't have insurance or he thought he wouldn't get paid."

If their were actually witnesses to such behavior, I think it would go a long way to explain why the guy hasn't had any girlfriends since - he's had his medical license "yanked", and has probably been in prison.

But, my guess is that you've just over-embelished your story to try to make this guy look like a bigger jerk;)

Posted by: slwerner at July 14, 2008 2:49 PM

I did not embellish the story. One of my friends is a nurse, who happened to work with him in the emergency room. She doesn't even know my friend, the ex wife, and she told me independently that this was his reputation at the hospital. She personally witnessed a girl almost bleed to death while he assured he would be paid. He still has his medical license. I have never actually told my other friend that because I wouldn't want her to think of father of her kids as such a monster (though he is).

You know, there are bad - maybe even evil - guys out there, but I would agree that it works both ways. There are bad - evil - women too.

What I am saying is that the courts don't look at that in most states. You can be evil. You can be a monster. You can be nice. Doesn't matter. And the reason is that it would cause such a backlog of cases if they got into who was more worthy or deserving that they probably just eliminated the whole thing, at least in my state.

Maybe it's different elsewhere, but it's very hard to determine fault, so what I'm saying is that you (male or female) can, by your own bad luck and perhaps your own fault, end up married to a very bad person.

I agree that my friend probably should've realized she was married to a narcissistic jerk...but she didn't. And there are guys out there suffering the same fate.

If you're supporting that narcissistic jerk, then, I'm sorry, but you will likely keep supporting them. It's a shame, but the courts can't get into psychology. If you had kids with her, she will likely get child support and alimony, and maybe a big chunk of your assets.

It's unfair...the whole thing is unfair. It's unfair that my beautiful girlfriend went without sex for years...in her prime. But the best thing we can do is educate our children about how to spot a narcissist or cheater. I mean, we teach them everything except how to balance a checkbook and pick a quality mate!

There are definite signs, and we could teach kids how to recognize them, but we send them out into the world...as we were sent out into the world...blind as bats...just bungling around and ending up marrying charming people with issues. I was only 19 when I met my husband. If I knew what I know now, I never would've married him...but, at 19, I was very unprepared. He seemed to match everything that we, as women, are told to look for.

And you guys basically choose more on looks, which is even less reliable. You're honestly surprised, down the road, when "Miss Lovely" turns into a self-absorbed cheater. But there ARE signs. We need to teach those.

And I'm genuinely sorry for anybody that has suffered unfairness due to this system. I have an 18 yr old son, so I'm empathetic to how men can be manipulated by it. I'm not sure what the answer is because every case is different. Well-meaning women who stay home for the right reasons - and don't cheat - shouldn't be punished either.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 5:28 PM

I just wanted to add this: Equal distribution is the general legal formula. I can understand why it is the formula - the courts don't want to get into "worthiness". It's too time-consuming. A woman raising four small kids at home may actually work harder than her husband at the office...if you add it all up. That's no easy feat.

So, now that I know the formula, I realize that I, as a woman with means, would be vulnerable should I remarry. It's up to me to protect myself. I just think most guys don't realize what the formula is until it's too late...then you're, understandably, bitter if your spouse really wasn't pulling her weight. So, just get educated about the laws in your state, and if you have means, protect yourself with a pre-nup. It's pretty easy, and I think it's best to iron all those issues out BEFORE marriage, when you're in love and feeling magnanimous. That is when both of you will be the most fair.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 14, 2008 5:49 PM

"Equal distribution is the general legal formula." The term in Ma is equitable, this is very different than equal. So I told my wife point blank that when we have kids and you try to stay at home past the child being 5 not only will I be out the door and I will gladly sit in jail for a contempt of court charge than pay her one freaking cent, child support I will pay without question though. So at this point we are agreed that she can stay home up till 1st grade or so after that no. I don't trust anyone to go against their self interest so I make sure that to be blunt about my reaction to said path.

Posted by: vlad at July 15, 2008 6:43 AM

"Maybe you didn't have that strong maternal passion for it." This statement alone makes me say fuck you. How freaking dare you attack my maternal instinct because we disagree on what's best for the children? Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! I had the balls to do what you and every other stay at home mom wouldn't have the courage to do (given that they don't even have the courage to leave them in daycare to earn a paycheck so that they are free to up and leave if meal ticket turns into a horror) and fled state with my daughter to protect her from her abusive father. How dare you question my maternal instinct based on nothing. You are without doubt an asshole with a sense of entitlement, which more than explains why your dander is so up because I say it's wrong to leech off a man (I don't care how many millions he's got) then defend it because the school favors them when you suck ass at the school kissing up volunteering. FUCK YOU AND THE HIGH HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!

Yep, I'm fully aware that this is the end of any possibility of civil discourse. Frankly, it ended with your holier-than-thou long-suffering self-sacrificing attitude. I tell you this, lady, with 100% surety, you don't begin to know the meaning of the word sacrifice. Tell me about how you sacrifice for your children when you are willing to give up your friends, family and career (a career you want, you obviously didn't want the one you had hence the career change to gold digger, rather sounds to me that you found squeezing out a few puppies the price you had to pay for that) for the sake of your child. It's women like you who look the other way and refuse to believe their children when they say daddy's touching them. FUCK YOU!

And don't scream about me judging you when you've made asshole statement after asshole statement judging me just because I disagreed with you.

As for the rest, Vlad and slwerner beat me to it. Men should not be view as a means of support plain and simple. A partner in life, yes. Someone to pay your way the rest of your life, no. And hell no even if your friend was blameless and he guilty as sin, why the hell should he support the other half of a failed relationship the rest of his life? The kids until they're grown, yes. Both parents should. Her, no.

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 15, 2008 7:15 AM

Well, you will find that these plans get revised based on the needs of your child. If he has a learning disorder, or you find your child getting bullied or being miserable at daycare, or his grades fall because he really needs someone at home after school to help with homework or take him to tutoring, or he misses out on certain extracurricular activities, or he starts getting in trouble after school...

It sounds like an easy thing to demand, but with kids nothing can be set in stone. I think it would just be better if you trusted your wife more.

Maybe you can talk about it, or perhaps even sign a "postnuptial agreement", where she waives alimony. As long as she would have the means to keep the child in the same relative standard of living, she wouldn't be entitled to alimony.

Alimony is really meant for the children's interests. It is usually only for wives who will need to return to school, or need time to develop skills, in order to maintain their child's standard of living on their own. Obviously, when there is great disparity between the two households (one partner is rich and the other would likely be much poorer), judges like to keep it balanced for the child's sake. They don't want the child living in a ghetto during the week and visiting dad in his penthouse on the weekends....which is a laudable goal.

But not everyone gets alimony. For instance, I wasn't eligible for alimony since I received a settlement, which was more than enough to maintain my children's standard of living on my own. I didn't need alimony, so no judge would've awarded it.

My friend gets alimony because, at this point, she couldn't maintain the children's lifestyle based on what she would likely earn.

But if you and your wife are equally educated and comparable wage-earners, and she agrees that in the event of a divorce she'll return to work (just put that in writing - written, signed agreements do influence the judge) then it's unlikely she'd get alimony.

So, you can relax and just enjoy doing what's in your child's best interest at any given point. Believe me, it changes.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 15, 2008 7:18 AM

Obviously, my post was meant for vlad. I'm not going to respond to that crazy vitriole. Truly sad.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 15, 2008 7:23 AM

T's Grammy, now that I read over your post a few times, I think I will respond. I apologize if you took that as an attack on your maternal instinct. From most of your posts, it just didn't sound like you were very into the day-to-day routine of raising children, since you were calling us SAHMs "crazy", etc. Some parents, who are very loving and wonderful parents, just don't enjoy the stay-at-home thing, and prefer to work, which is all I was assuming.

But it sounds like you made the ultimate sacrifice for your daughter, and I applaud you for it. That took great courage, and as a guardian ad litem, I understand a great deal more about that t