The husband owes some support in cases where the wife gave up work/career/etc for kids. How long and how much depends upon the circumstances. Fault isn't relevant for the support decision, I think, as it's much more about taking care of the kid(s), and compensating for roads not taken. Ugly though it is, it's better to sort out in court than to offer prescriptions ad hoc. Though of course, marrying well and not getting divorced is always the better choice.

If marriage was just a contract, like any other contract, at the end of it, you would get out of it, exactly what you agreed to take out going into the marriage.
Financial remedies, for fault could be pre determined, and if adultery by either party was a breech, that could be accounted for also.

The big problem I have with spousal support after divorce, is the same problem you have with any other contract: How do you measure the value of a non monetary contribution to the "partnership"?

Also, with the implosion of higher ed, what would be a fair compensation to a spouse, who had foregone college twenty years ago but wants to go back now?
If she/he was a junior in mechanical engineering when she/he quit school, that is one thing, but if she/he was a sophomore in art appreciation, quite another.
If his/her job prospects are 15 bucks an hour working at Walmart with the completion of a college degree, and 15 bucks an hour working at Wal Mart without the college degree, what exactly is the other spouse paying for?

What if the non working spouse is an alcoholic? Should the working spouse be forced to lavishly subsidize their former spouse's slow suicide?

About thirty or forty years ago in this country, almost all states went to a no fault divorce system, because family court judges realized that they were horrible at reading minds, determining degree of fault for the breakup of the marriage, and apportioning damages.

So they stopped looking at it and went to formulas for allocating assets, and child support.
This has led to a system, that if possible is even more unfair than the old one.
And it has had quite a few unintended consequences.

Sane young men, don't want to get married anymore. Instead single motherhood, and deadbeat (or unknown fathers) are at an all time high.

Why? because the state, and the feds go after identified fathers for supporting their offspring at a level that the state decides is appropriate.

So I am with hindsighty on this one small issue. Adultery should not be an issue, on either side, unless you had a written agreement prior to the marriage, that it would be a deal breaker, by either party.
Spousal support should end after the youngest kid turns 18.
I wonder how many people would decide that maybe their marriage wasn't so bad, if they knew they would walk away, with just an equitable asset split, and nothing else?

If children were possessions, and you could sell them off to the highest bidder, then yes, child rearing would have a value, as you could write the cost of rearing them off against what you could get for them as indentured servants.

We know that children don't have any marketable value to their parents, so what they are, in economic terms, is an "expense"

Why rearing them should somehow infer a lingering monetary obligation from the working spouse to the non working one since he/she was contributing monetarily at the same time, is kind of like telling someone;

"I know you took me on a ten thousand dollar round the world cruise ten years ago, but now, to be fair, you owe me 20 bucks an hour for my companionship services, while we were on that cruise since "I just did it just for you" Seriously?

I think child support should be based on your income, and based on the lifestyle you would have given it if you were together.

Alimony is another matter, I can see some compensation in the form of a monthly payment or a lump sum depending on where it looked like they were headed anyways. Maybe if they were a teacher, and they go back to work at the beginning of the payscale make it the difference between the payscale they were at then and the payscale they'd be at now if they'd been working?

I would say fault should matter for alimony but not child support. If she took time off to raise kids, but then decided to screw around or something, I don't think she should get alimony for herself.

This is a very complicated but interesting question because the “correct” answer depends upon taking a proper account of as many relevant factors as possible. Before getting to the more general questions, let’s first consider the specific ones:

1 – “Stay-at-home mom. Gave up potential professional opportunities to raise her kids (now in their 20s).
She's been divorced nine years and is working full-time, but would have to downscale her lifestyle and wouldn't have money for savings if she no longer took the husband's spousal support payments..”

Alright… so her kids are in their 20’s and she has been divorced for 9 years. This implies that the divorce occurred when the children were in their teens and should have been fairly self sufficient. What exactly prevented this individual from insufficiently capitalizing on her professional opportunities for the previous 9 years?

When people get a divorce they should expect to have to downscale their lifestyle. Lamenting the loss of "potential" professional opportunities seems like wishful thinking. One can imagine all sorts of "potential" professional opportunities. The question is what were her "realistic" professional opportunities. When it comes to "potential" the sky is the limit, I'm more interested in a realistic appraisal.

Another question I have is what has happened to her assets that she obtained due to the divorce? Have her assets accumulated? Have they remained stable? Have they diminished?

What I am basically trying to get at here is an assessment of whether or not she has been living within her means or if she has been living beyond her means and pulling from her divorce settlement assets to supplement the lifestyle she would prefer to have. If she has been living beyond her means then it suggests that she has been financially irresponsible for the past 9 years and hence doesn’t deserve to be rewarded for her lack of foresight. If on the other hand she has been financially responsible, has been planning ahead, and is just having trouble making ends meet because of obligatory expenses then she deserves more understanding.

2 - “Is it fair for spousal support to go on endlessly (until the spouse retires)? Bear in mind, I'm not asking what's legal, but what's fair?”

“Spousal support” as a term usually refers only to financial support. However, within the context of their marital arrangement, she also provided a form of “spousal support” in the form of cooking meals, doing laundry, running errands, along with a slew of other time intensive activities that presumably her husband didn't have to to worry about at the time.

Let’s call that temporal support. Since you aren’t asking about legality, but are instead asking about only what’s “fair”. Then it would seem that if their marital arrangement was for her to provide temporal support while he provided financial support that the “fair” arrangement would be to stick to that arrangement if she would prefer to have continued financial support.

Surely her ex husbands “lifestyle” took a hit when he had to spend his free time cooking his own meals, doing his own laundry, and cleaning his own living space (or by paying for these services, thereby reducing his disposable income).

Expecting financial support to persist while simultaneously expecting temporal support to disappear isn’t the basis for a “fair” arrangement.

When people get divorced it should be expected that everyone is going to experience a reduction in their standard of living. It is unrealistic to divorce someone while getting to keep the portions of the relationship you liked (e.g. the money) while excising the components you didn’t like (e.g. the person).

3 – “A consideration: A wife gets no pension from wifing.”

This is immaterial unless the husband receives a pension from his job. Under these conditions I think a “fair” arrangement would be for her to receive a percentage of his pension when he retires that is proportionate to the length of time they were married while he was working at the company from which he is receiving the pension. For example, if he was working at a company for 40 years, and she was married to him for 20 of those years while he was working there, she would be entitled to 25% of the total pension amount.

4 – “Another consideration: When you cut off your career for a child-raising sabbatical, you cut off your potential opportunities and diminish the money you can make.”

I would be curious about the circumstances under which this took place. Was she “forced” out of her career to raise the children by their financial circumstances? Or did she choose to exit her career because she thought it was more important to raise the children?

The reason I ask is that exiting ones career to raise children cannot be viewed at the time as a benefit only to later be redefined as a detriment. Similarly, what was the husbands disposition on the topic? Did he prefer for her to take the sabbatical? Would he have preferred for her not to have taken a sabbatical? Did his opinion on the subject even matter to her at the time?

All of this is important because if the process of her taking a sabbatical was for her to self actualize as a mother and spend her time with her children… and her husband continued to work in order to make that act of self actualization a reality it seems kind of shady to try and turn a “present” into a “punishment”.

If by contrast she wanted to continue working and took a sabbatical under pressure from her husband we have an entirely different set of circumstances because she was then the one doing him a “favor” by sacrificing her career to accommodate his family wishes.

4 – “Another consideration: Doesn't child-raising have value? And what is the long-term value?”

Of course it has value, but shouldn’t that value be determined by the quality of the end result? Not all children turn out well, and if we are to posit a value to child-raising then we must honestly evaluate how successful the children have been.

In terms of long-term value, children are the genetic legacy of their parents. As a result they are in some ways the only product of value in the context of what we leave behind. However that reproductive success value isn’t monetary and can’t be monetized in any realistic way.

5 – “Another consideration: What if the marriage broke up when the husband had an affair?”

Then he is a shitty and unfaithful individual. However, none of this has much to do with perpetual financial support by another adult.

Just as an example of this type of logic. Would we expect a negligent or crappy parent to financially support their children for the remainder of their natural life?

What if after the marriage broke up the father failed to spend any time with his children should they expect child support payments until their father dies? If not, then why not? Why should we expect neglected children to become independent adults if we are unwilling to expect neglected ex-spouses to become independent adults?

Orion Word Count: 1504

I am in total agreement with Orion who laid out the issues well.

I have one minor nit pick. If the spouse with a pension worked for forty years, and was married for twenty, the non working spouse to get a twenty five percent share, should have been actively engaged in being pregnant or child rearing for that entire 20 years. If for example, she/he worked for seven years out of that 20 year marriage building assets or contributing to their mutual living standard, he/she should only get credit for the time spent rearing children, and not for the duration of the marriage.
The only way you should qualify for a bigger share, is if the working spouse had a job, that was under such circumstances that it was impossible for them to be together and both work.
I know a guy who put his career on hold because his wife was overseas, in the Army, and he literally could not get a job in Belgium.
That is one of those necessary exceptions, and is why the military lifestyle is hell on marriages.

No. Abolish alimony. Be grown ups and live with decisions. Tough shit.

I don't think that alimony should go on forever, but I do think that it should occur to get a woman back on her feet.

I put my husband through law school and then tried to work and raise a child while he worked 90 hours per week. Our son had health problems. I could not work and feed him for an hour every two hours. My health was in a shambles. I had another child and was a stay at home mom and stay at home mom/student as soon as the youngest went to kindergarten.

I believe that I did the best thing for my family and the proof is in the pudding, I suppose. Our eldest - the one with all the health problems, has been a 3-year starting collegiate athlete who is graduating early to go to law school. Our youngest is about to graduate from high school and attend a university with a full ride.

I live in a non-alimony state. If we had been divorced after I stayed home, but before I went back to school, I would have gotten nothing for my efforts. I wouldn't have even gotten paid back the tuition I paid for my husband.

Ps. I think getting half of the pension earned while one spouse is working and the other one is at home is fair.

Some thoughts that may or may not be helpful:

1) Amy is better at finding and assessing studies than I, but I believe that there are at least a few (large) studies that show that, at least for white collar careers, workers with stay-at-home spouses tend to rise higher and faster through the ranks and be paid more than those with working spouses. As someone who is currently part of a dual-career couple with kids, I can tell you that, while you can both work -- and even both work full-time -- after kids come along, you're not going to be able to devote the same amount of time and have the same flexibility where your career is concerned if someone else's career needs have to be taken into account. Someone who can regularly work late to fulfill last-minute management requests, attend after-hours events to hobnob with company and community leaders, and move to outer Timbuktu with a month's notice to set up a new office is going to be more favored for top management positions than someone who can't. That, I think, is utterly fair -- and whether or not I'm right, it's the reality. I think providing the ability to do that has value.

2) In Texas, there is no lifetime alimony -- the most you can get, if you were married 30 or more years, is 10 years of support, and the highest amount awarded is $5,000 per month. (Married less than 10 years? No alimony for you.) Now, there can be and are settlements at the time of divorce -- so the spouse who is more established financially pays more at the front end. But endless alimony doesn't exist. Maybe it's unconnected, but I've found that men are much more likely to prioritize getting married in Texas than in, say, New York. (There is child support in Texas, obviously, but the amount tends to be set by a formula, rather than a judge's whim.)

3) I know quite a few stay-at-home dads. Yes, the total number in the U.S. is tiny relative to the number of stay-at-home moms...but my experience indicates they are disproportionately likely to be in couples where the working wife has a white collar career of the type likely to benefit from having a stay-at-home spouse. The wives involved would not be able to have the types of jobs they have and have kids without having a spouse who stays at home, or who at least has made significant career sacrifices. We think of alimony as being a woman's issue...but it's not, at least not solely.

4) Being out of the workforce for whatever reason is going to have significant, long-term effects on your ability to have a high-paying career and sock away money for retirement. If you have a skill that is in limited supply and/or one that requires licensing, the effect may not be as enormous, but otherwise it's almost impossible to catch up. Especially in regards to retirement savings -- those years without access to a 401(k) are ones you can never get back.

Sigh. I dunno -- maybe the answer is that every couple with a stay-at-home spouse -- male or female -- signs a post-nuptial agreement regarding disposition of the 401(k) and other issues? Hope that's not the only answer, because I don't see that coming to pass in a big way.

Let's just say that I would feel a whole lot better about paying support to my ex-wife if she had ambition to improve her station in life. We had three kids, and she got pregnant with her new husband months before our divorce was finalized. She bitched the final two years of our marriage that she never had a chance to go to school or work, and then, instead of attending school or working, she just has another kid. Freely admits that she isn't cut out for learning. Zero ambition and no goals. During our marriage, she never contributed and was happy to spend spend spend.

Fortunately, I'm only indebted for 112 months. She also gets half my retirement for the same length of time. Even though she remarried someone in the military. Just a pretty raw deal all around.

When my ex and I got married, she was in college. She dropped out to follow me because I was in the military. We didn't have any children. We got divorced after five years. I agreed to pay alimony for long enough for her to go back to college and finish a degree.

The problem was that she went back to school for only one semester. The next semester she went to Mardi Gras and never came back. She is still in New Orleans as far as I know. It took me five more years to get the court to let me terminate the alimony.

Great question. Some of my thoughts.

First, lets assume both parents thought it would be better for one to stay home with the kid(s). This is somewhat different from one wasn't working to begin with or one got downsized right before a kid was born or in the first year or so - at least in my book.

The closest position (that is paid) to stay-at-home parent is that of a nanny. According to http://www.nannies4hire.com (and this might be a bit out of date as the copyright is 2010) the national gross weekly salary for live-in nannies (this excludes payroll taxes on the employer) is about $600. So, for a 52 week year, without paying benefits, etc. it costs about $31,200 - but will obviously vary with location (CA, NY, DC will likely be much higher than, say, St. Louis). Over 18 years, that amounts to $561,600. With employer payroll taxes, it comes to about $604,500.

Now, most likely somebody can't just drop out of the workforce and hop back in the second Junior turns 18, but this gives an idea of the cost the stay-at-home is saving.

Presumably, the parents feel it is best for one of them to do most of the raising - perhaps to instill religion or particular values, or because they think they will provide better care than a nanny. So, the value they place on one parent being home with the kid(s) is HIGHER than these numbers.

As to a particular case, I think some of it depends on what the spouse was doing for work before staying home. A corporate executive? Cashier at the grocery store? Secretary? Nurse? Truck driver? Some types of work are much easier to go back to years later than others. Some you simply cannot go back to the same way at all (resign as CEO/CFO of a company, and you aren't simply going to waltz back in 20 years later & get a similar job). Others, it's not really much of an issue.

I have been a stay-at-home for 4.5 years now. I couldn't go back to my old job without taking a lot of classes first, and I'd have to go back in at a lower pay grade.

Of course, sometimes a stay-at-home will end up with new skills that may be marketable. Once you've run a few big fundraisers for the PTA, designed a yearbook or two, or become a super-fast knitter, you have some new marketable skills, but they might not pay what the previous job did.

All in all, I think spousal support does make sense in cases where one spouse stayed home with the kids for even a few years. But, I think the length and amount really ought to vary with the particulars of the situation.

Say the kids are long since grown when the divorce happens. The stay-at-home could have gone back to work, but it was agreed that it wasn't worth it for whatever reason (perhaps it gave them more time together on the weekends or it would have pushed them into a higher tax bracket making that spouse's pay go almost entirely to taxes). In that case, the at-home may have trouble (particularly in a bad economy) finding a job due to age.

Figure a couple finishes having kids early, around age 28 (most don't start that early in big cities, but just for kicks we'll use this). The kids are off to college when the at-home is about 46. The divorce starts five years later, and concludes in the 7th - the spouse is now 53, and likely hasn't worked more than a bit of ad hoc part-time work in about 25 years.

Now, from the other side of the table, and I do know somebody paying about half of their takehome pay to a former spouse (and it's ridiculous in this case)... I think in many cases, it shouldn't be a share of income given for so-many years, but it might be more equitable to give the previously-at-home spouse a portion of any savings. That savings was a direct result of the choice to stay home (yes, I know, conventional wisdom is you need 2 salaries to raise kids, but it's not true. Childcare is so expensive almost all the extra salary - if not MORE than it - goes to the IRS and childcare. I ran the numbers for us and it didn't make any sense for me to keep working).

Savings on work clothes, commutes, being able to take advantage of sales at stores, childcare, and more are typically the result of one spouse staying at home. So, I think it might be best if a good chunk of the couple's net worth goes to that spouse - particularly if the other had an affair or initiated the divorce. I could see a year or two of support after that, but not more.

If you had to sell your house and give half the equity to your ex, along with half your 401k, IRAs, savings, checking, investments, CD's, etc. And provide a portion of your take-home pay for 1-2 years, well, that should be sufficient - except in egregious cases such as spousal abuse.

BUT, if the at-home had an affair or initiated the divorce, then I think splitting basic accounts (checking, savings, not 401k or retirements) and joint assets(such as a house) should suffice.

As you can see, I'm not in a camp of "do it this way!" because I think these things, like most family finances, are very individual and scenario-related. BUT, I think the lifetime support (or even decade) is usually quite excessive and makes one spouse a cash cow for the other. I'm okay with that if the divorce was caused by the spouse doing something really horrible (well beyond an affair here, more like abuse, or attempt to molest somebody). But I certainly hope that's not the majority of cases!

We know that children don't have any marketable value to their parents, so what they are, in economic terms, is an "expense"

Um, excuse me, but whom do you think will be paying for the parent's social security?

As for support after a marriage, it shouldn't be life time. Perhaps a fixed term equal to the number of years of marriage, set at the rate of the last year of marriage.

I think we are looking at this the wrong way 'round. Let's say both spouses work the whole time.

They split, assets split down the middle and child support apportioned.

No alimony.

Now look at one spouse works outside, the other works inside the home.

They split, assets get split, child support apportioned.

and somehow he owes her alimony in most cases equal to the length of time they were married.

Because it MUST be HIS fault that she worked in the home and not outside it, and now he OWES her something.

Does this actually seem fair? Is it fair to the woman that works outside the home? Is it fair to men? Is it making the best of a situation that is bad? Or?

I paid my ex alimony for years... and instead of polishing up her college education to be current and plunge back into a career... instead, the alimony is long over, the last childsupport is over when she is 52...

and she's still working a part time job.

Is it somehow my fault that she has never wanted to work, and saw me as a meal ticket? That I found out she quit her job and was staying home with the kid a few days AFTER she told her employer?

Should I have demanded to impute her income? Should I have demanded part of her retirement account, since I don't even have one?

EVERY one of these situations are different, so having some kind of prescription matrix IF this, THEN that, ELSE something...

One thing does come through. IF the kids had been with me, the employed one, instead of her, she could have figured out what she could do with her life, and DONE IT.

Instead of bleeding me into a financial meltdown, and making one of her kids hate her guts.

Maybe THAT is your answer. The kids go with the person that can support them, while the other spouse gets a job. Isntead of a money transfer that wrecks everything.

My major complaint is that fault should absolutely factor into an alimony decision. Otherwise, marriage becomes the only contract-like relationship in society where it doesn't matter who breaches the contract.

Ideally, a married couple decides how they want their economic lives to be arranged, and relies on that arrangement in making their decisions. In many cases, the couple will decide that one spouse should stay home to raise kids and run the home while the other works for a salary. Suppose for modern gender equality purposes that the woman is the high powered lawyer and the dad stays at home.

Does anyone seriously thing that stay at home dad should get the same alimony from working mom regardless of whether:

1. Dad left mom and kids for a younger model?
2. Mom left dad because dad was an alcoholic who put the kids in danger?
3. Mom and Dad amicably agreed that they didn't love each other any more and split with no one at fault?
4. Dad took the kids and left because Mom was physically abusive towards him and verbally abusive to the kids?
5. Mom left Dad because she wanted to trade up for her rich boss?

Abersouth above says "Be grownup and live with decisions." In the case of a faultless stay at home parent, the decision by both spouses was that the working parent would support the stay at home parent. If the working parent breaches the agreement by cheating or abuse, why should the stay at home parent suffer?

Unrelated 22-year-olds, living on bread and water.

I hate that argument.

Of course, mostly because we're not really having enough children to keep social security going. And we haven't paid nearly enough into social security compared to what we'll theoretically draw out of it. From that point of view, SS is a fabulous investment.

Right up until the whole system is so top heavy that it fall right over, crushing any number of Boomers who failed to save for their retirement.

What if your kid is a wastrel?

Conversely, what if your kid is the next Facey-spacey-book founder and is richer than Croesus and faces such a monstrous tax bill that he moves to another country and renounces his US citizenship? the only way your kid avoids social security taxes is if s/he's living on the dole or exits the system entirely.

Of course, we're both assuming that there will be employment opportunities down the road. I'm not so sure how that will turn out. It isn't looking too good, and I'm not exactly optimistic things will improve any time soon.

Assuming those kids didn't bury themselves under mountains of debt acquiring a college education.

We do live in interesting times...

...fault should absolutely factor into an alimony decision. Otherwise, marriage becomes the only contract-like relationship in society where it doesn't matter who breaches the contract. ~ Brian

And the only one in which the breaching party could actually profit from the breach.

If marriage was just a contract, like any other contract, at the end of it, you would get out of it, exactly what you agreed to take out going into the marriage. Financial remedies, for fault could be pre determined, and if adultery by either party was a breech, that could be accounted for also. ~ Isab

The problem is that marriage cannot be reduced to "just a contract."

The husband owes some support in cases where the wife gave up work/career/etc for kids. How long and how much depends upon the circumstances. Fault isn't relevant for the support decision, I think, as it's much more about ... compensating for roads not taken.

So, does the husband who gave up a promising job opportunity another country or state get to demand compensation from the soon-to-be-ex-wife who insisted they stay near her parents? You know, for the road not taken at her insistence.

Fault is relevant.

Why should the government even be involved in the issue at all? The amount of spousal support payable should be whatever the parties voluntarily agree to when they get married - ie governed by whatever their prenup (if any) says.

If government didn't step in then people would have to turn their mind to the issue in advance if they want to protect themselves. As this discussion shows many reasonable people have very different ideas of what is "fair". Each couple should decide for themselves in advance what they consider fair and not get the government to impose its own version of fairness.

Great question, unfortunately don't have the time to fully do it now. But for now, we are talking opportunity cost, everyone does it every day of their lives, including the working guy. Didn't see uch about his opportunity costs. Do I take that promotion even though it means travel all the time, nope can't I'm married.
Kids are expensive, so dad worked a lot of OT to help and now would be punished for it.
This is entirely on the idea that Moms lifestyle sholdn't change much after divorce, and that lost skills should be accomodated.
Well neither should Dads lifestyle be changed much, and shouldn't he be compensated for the lost skills and lost fun time with family.
So a corrilary queestion in all fairness would be how long would Mom have to pay or compensate Dad for his lost skills in ironing and cooking. To keep up the life he is accustomed to he must now hire a live in housekeeper. That should be paid by Mom.
We are laso all assuming there were children, what if there weren't? Should he have to pay her if she decided she would rather work on her tan rather than work with an MBA?

I can tell you that, while you can both work -- and even both work full-time...

This is the heart of it. A person with a SAH spouse will continue to reap the rewards of that arrangement long after the marriage is over. The SAH spouse, on the other hand, will take a lifelong hit to income and standard of living as soon as the marriage ends unless there's some provision for spousal support. Both people will take a lifestyle hit, of course. There's no getting around that.

I think all of this needs to be considered in light of the length of the marriage. After a 20-year-long hiatus from work, a career will never recover. A 3-year break means less of a hit.

The reason cause can't be considered is because we have no real idea how the marriage broke down. Being the one to file for divorce doesn't mean much. What if a man files for divorce after his wife cheats on him? If they promised monogamy, who broke the contract there? What if she cheated on him because he never wanted to have sex with her? What if he never wanted sex because she was a bitch? It's a mess, and the court is not in the position to sort it out.

So a corrilary queestion in all fairness would be how long would Mom have to pay or compensate Dad for his lost skills in ironing and cooking. To keep up the life he is accustomed to he must now hire a live in housekeeper. That should be paid by Mom.

Except that even with spousal support, Mom (in your example) is going to have to work to have anything close to her previous lifestyle. I don't know anyone getting support who can live like they used to off of that money alone. So both sides are going to have to do more for less payoff than they were getting together.

I don't care about these people's very personal and entirely self-inflicted problems.

Obviously, things are different than back in the old days. It used to be that people stayed married, often because they didn't have other choices. Now that they have choices, they can't make good ones.

People are so stupid. I wish pugs would take over the world.

@ MonicaP " This is the heart of it. A person with a SAH spouse will continue to reap the rewards of that arrangement long after the marriage is over."

That is an interesting assumption that I disagree with. In the career path, maybe. In all aspects of life NO! Everyone gives things up and makes choices. When you look at it in the false way of the only effect to be considered is effect on career you are ignoring most of life. He sacrificed time with his kids. How do you put a price on that? Shebenifits greatly from it which will reap rewards later. A closer tie with children is a HUGE reward. Better social network, more friends, those are often her benifits. that pay off greatly later. Personal safety, Home is safer than work, and that ties into a longer life span. What is the value on him likely dieing a year or two earlier because he was working outside of the home?

"A consideration: A wife gets no pension from wifing."

Sorry if it's been hashed out but a lot of today's comments are tl/dr.

This should have been addressed during the divorce. look up QDRO. If he was lucky enough to escape being QDRO'd at the time then I could see a fairness argument for continuing support.

That said, after 9 years he has probably more than paid his dues. Back of the envelope calculation: (his retirement assets at divorce - his retirement assets at marriage) - (her retirement assets at divorce - her retirement assets at marriage)

"Why should the government even be involved in the issue at all?"
I went through a divorce in a state with a formulaic child support calculation established by state statute. The only thing you can possibly squabble over is the amount of each other's gross income. It really reduced conflict. So, there's your counter argument, the more we hash this out at the state level the less personal conflict we 'should' have at the negotiating table. Personal conflict sucks for the kids. So, for the children ;)

"This is the heart of it. A person with a SAH spouse will continue to reap the rewards of that arrangement long after the marriage is over. The SAH spouse, on the other hand, will take a lifelong hit to income and standard of living as soon as the marriage ends unless there's some provision for spousal support." MonicaP

This nails it.

So the answer is, that under NO ACCOUNT should anyone stay home, everyone should work, NO EXCEPTIONS.

This gels with what my divorce lawyer said...

"Should you ever re-marry..."
'not bloody well likely.' says I.
"If you ever remarry, do not let her stay home and not work. If she had worked, you'd split the assets and be done."

Once we start haggling over "opportunity costs" we've gone into wacky-land... I had to give up a promising commercial photography career, and become a programmer, because my wife refused to get a job... and I needed, in her words, to "man up and provide." As others have mentioned, I have been unable to move for work, because every TDY even for a week or two freaked her out. She made it clear after the end that I could mover wherever I wanted to, but "you don't get to see your kids when you aren't here." Which is true enough, but also meaning they wouldn't be coming and visiting me.

Wives who stay home are NOT the only ones with huge opportunity costs.

So they probably shouldn't be allowed to stay home.

My mother, the independent 2nd wave feminist, cannot even stand to be in the same room, and calls her worthless deadweight.

Alimony isn't fair to men [who rarely get it] it's CERTAINLY not fair to working women [who also rarely get it], so the only group that gets it are those that work in the home.

We probably need to look at it and decide what it's for.

Manimony has been barely touched here.

http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/faq/emotional/who-initiates-divorce-men-or-women.html

"It’s the wife who files for divorce in about two-thirds of divorce cases, at least among couples who have children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the proportion has changed slightly over the years; for example, in 1975, approximately 72 percent of the divorces in the U.S. were filed by women, whereas by 1988, only about 65 percent were filed by women.

The Same throughout the 19th Century
A study reported in the American Law and Economics Review in 2000, "These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women" also showed that more recently, women file more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US. Even though the individual states’ data vary somewhat and the numbers have fluctuated over time, throughout most of the 19th century about 60 percent of divorce filings were by women.

Moreover, in some of the states where no-fault divorce was introduced, over 70 percent of the divorce filings were by women. Among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by wives is a whopping 90 percent."

Crying as men now get awarded manimony in 8% of divorces.

From marieclaire . . .

It's a rueful milestone in our inexorable march to equality: Across the nation, divorce courts are increasingly ordering women to pay "manimony" (called "maintenance" or "support" in some states) to their ex-husbands. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, men represented just over 2 percent of the 448,000 Americans who received alimony in 2000. Nine years later (the latest year for which statistics are available), that figure had quadrupled. "I probably had three cases involving women paying maintenance over the past five years. Now I have three cases at the same time," says Marta Papa, a St. Louis divorce attorney.

Another consideration:

What about the man who gave up easy jobs with short hours that left him with lots of free time and plenty of money for surfing, hunting, four-wheeling, whore mongering, really cool cars, road trips to interesting places, or vacations in Cancun or Bangkok...

... or gave up the opportunity to go to college and pursue an exciting, lucrative, fulfilling career...

... and instead worked at whatever shit job he could get - hanging drywall, pouring concrete, laying asphalt, cutting trees, roofing, pulling wells on a bullshit rig in an oil field...

...worked 50- 60- 70-hour weeks, all the overtime he could get...

...sacrificed the time he wished he could have spent raising and enjoying and getting to know his children as they grow up...

...so his beloved wife would be able to forgo the "opportunity" to work 40+ hours a week at some shit job... I mean, uh... "rewarding career" (grocery store checker, home health aid, data entry, carpet cleaner)... and instead fulfill her desire to not have to work so she could devote her time to the more fulfilling pursuit of making a home, and raising and enjoying her children as they grow up.

That scenario is more typical of the lives of most of the men I've ever known, including my father and grandfathers, my uncles, my brothers-in-law, most of my male friends, and myself (until I finally woke up and realized that though I provided them with a good living, I lived in a different world from my wife and daughters, and was getting the shit end of the stick).

Now tell me honestly. In the event of a divorce, don't you think a stay at home wife should be required to pay her husband something to compensate for all the lost opportunities and lost potential, for all the years he sacrificed - pissed away - working from morning til night at some monotonous, mundane, soul-killing job to make sure his wife and his kids had a decent home, decent clothes, decent food, decent educations, and plenty of enriching experiences and fun? What would be fair? I want to be reasonable. How about one third of her income for the number of years they were married? Or maybe just for five or ten years, to enable him to maintain the standard of living he provided for his wife and kids, while he goes to college and develops the skills and knowledge he needs to get established in the career he would have had if he had not given it up for his family.

There are many ways to bring value to a marriage that don't involve working outside of the home. Money is fungible and there are many things that my husband hates to do, that I do for him.

Would our life be improved if I took after tax earned income and paid someone to do those things that I do for us?

No, we would not, in fact the tax system punishes the two earner couple making 150k, and the punishment is worse, if the two earner couple has a big income disparity.

After I got out of the Army, I tried working part time when my youngest was starting kindergarten. I did the taxes the following year, and found out that I netted fifty cents an hour for my part time job.

There are people who are actually working for nothing, after they pay the the costs associated with getting and keeping the lower paying job, and then pay to have the stuff done, that two busy full time workers can't do for themselves.

The only problem is, most people can't do the math to find out what their actual rate of return on that second job is.

Unfortunately trust and loyalty are almost gone in this country, and too many marriages turn into a game of tit for tat, where honest concern for both your partners and your children's best interests (financial and otherwise) go out the window.

This doesn't mean that I think alimony is a good thing. If it does nothing but make divorce less painful, it is not a good thing.

Welfare and disability should also be really hard to get. Getting a job should be easier (and more rewarding under the tax code) than it currently is.

Well, to quote crid on another topic:

"People can fuss about this stuff all they want. And they have. And here we are. Do you like the way family courts looked last week? Do you think they'll be better next week?"

"I'm guessing that pattern #1 is, they divorce"

"After, oh, three or four generations of this shit, and with a handsome new President who has the will to micromanage our lives anyway, maybe we should stop dreaming of the day when government can step into these most personal realms and make us all feel fairly treated"

"Do you seriously, seriously think that courts are going to make things go better? Should they have to? Is this not obviously all about a generation of parents who never grew up themselves?"

> there's your counter argument, the more we hash
> this out at the state level the less personal
> conflict we 'should' have at the negotiating table

Not really - I'm proposing that we simply enforce whatever bargain the parties agreed to before marriage. It is as formulaic as the child support guidelines you recommend.

@Isab: All too true, most don't do the math that the expenses of a dual income often eat up that second income. Friends did the math, and found that part timing her job as a second income was about as much as the day care. So they went the opposite route, and took in one kid as an at part time home day care. She made almost as much money as she would have at her old job part time. But this way she got to be with her kid and be at home, and the financial benifit the expenses were MUCH less.

I wrote up a whole other post before I finally I figured out the best way to do an alimony setup.

I was in the USAF for just shy of 8 years and was forced out under the Weight Management Program; honorable discharge for convenience of the Air Force. Essentially you are now divorced because you didn't meet the standards. The USAF gave me X number of dollars per month of service (discharge pay), plus the number of days I had in leave (60 days) and I would have qualified for unemployment once I got beyond the discharge pay amount. (I used it to pay off bills.) I think the unemployment pay was 27 weeks at the time. I also had the Montgomery G.I. Education bill benefits. That is pretty much straight books and tuition paid to the school, not to you. I think a general discharge had the same rules.

The under less than honorable and dishonorable discharges had different rules. (Or in other words a faulted divorce.)

So if there were a similar formula for the courts to use for divorces, I could probably consider it equitable.

The other the system needs to adjust is the income the same as it was in the marriage. If the divorce is because the guy was an assistant-CXX that has lost his job and (s)he dumps him. (S)He is screwed because (S)He was making $10K a month and is now making $3K a month but still has to pay for the old salary is also wrong.

I know you're specifically not asking for what's legal, but I don't think I can answer this without taking that into account.

Spousal support was originally intended to take care of just the woman you describe: someone who hits the Pause button on her life and career in order to be A Wife.

Typically, marriages were long and the woman (whether she raised children or not) left the work force completely. If she divorced after 10 years (a milestone in CA), then tried to re-enter the work force, she was effectively on the same level as a kid fresh out of high school or college. Plus she's older and why would anyone want to hire an older person when a younger one will work harder for less money?

On one hand, I think spousal support is outdated and bordering on insulting to suggest that a grown adult person is utterly unable to support him or herself. Further, that you are ENTITLED to be paid to maintain a certain lifestyle - no matter how lavish - solely because because you had this lifestyle during marriage? That seems bizarre. Things change. Nobody owes you anything. Be an adult. Take care of yourself.

On the other hand, if someone is suddenly on the market with other 40-year-olds but has none of their skills, how is that person supposed to compete?

I've often heard women say, "I made a bargain. He promised to take care of me and then he left me." Fair or not fair, people behave horribly, and they break their promises. Is this the law's business? Generations of divorce lawyers say Yes.

In California spousal support is most often awarded for a period of half the duration of the marriage. If the marriage lasts the magical 10 years, however, and one party has been supported by the other for more than a year I think, spousal support is Forever, and the amount to be paid is decided by the judge.

I can see the earner paying to support the other for a short time, and also paying for some kind of school or career training. But would you want to live as an indentured servant forever just so your able bodied ex could work or not work, and drive a new Lexus every year?

And what about the countless couples where one person worked like a dog to put the other through law school or med school or whatever, only to be dumped once training is complete and success is gained? Is there no compensation for that?

Lastly, divorce can't help but be charged with emotion, particularly in cases where one partner cheated. Spousal support is often used by one party as a punishment to the other, which only lessens its credibility.

I'll tell you this, though: I'd quit working and go on welfare before I'd pay a damn penny to my ex, who lied, cheated, and humiliated me, then skipped away, leaving me 20 years older with a mountain of debt and obsolete skills, pretty much at the peak of a huge recession. And no spousal support.

Christ, Snoopy, you're hired. Do you do touch-up work for fresh copy? What's your day rate.

No insurance... No cops.

SwissArmy says:

So the answer is, that under NO ACCOUNT should anyone stay home, everyone should work, NO EXCEPTIONS.

***

Except that as two-income families have become the norm, there's been LESS economic security, not more, at least according to Elizabeth Warren's research as outlined in her book, "The Two Income Trap".

However you feel about her politics, her book is great. I don't agree with all her solutions, but she outlines the problems and their causes very well.

Having the two-working-parent norm has ended up in a lot of unintended consequences that may not be the best for society.

So many good arguments here, most of which are making me much happier about being single, never married, and childless. Well the last I always wanted, but occasionally I get depressed about the other two.

I suppose my answer is "it depends". From what I've seen, the "I gave up my career for him and supported him, so he owes me" argument is real. But mostly I'm talking about educated professionals where there were serious opportunity costs. Yes, if they were destined to work at Walmart anyway what have they lost, and they gained a few years in the sun.

I have married friends who are a dentist and a database programmer. I'll let you guess which is which. He has gone part time (and off work for quite a while before that) to look after their kids and help her set up her practice (oops, gave it away). In their long term interests. If she walked off on him, of course she owes him - morally. On the other hand, when my ex and I split up (who wasn't working when I met her through injury), I paid her rent for two years afterwards because to move in with me she gave up her own flat and life, then had to move into a shared place. Did I owe her? Not really - I didn't interrupt her career, supported her financially for eight years. But I felt I had to, she uprooted her life for me, supported me when I needed it, I was capable of it, and I wanted to. She's since got back to work and is in a much better situation.

Problem is, all that leads to having to quantify in court who contributed what, and that's not always easy. Potential future earnings are hard to predict. Analogies to nanny wages don't work either (unless of course you're sleeping with the nanny, in which case you're screwed in more ways than one).

I can see why you're looking for input on this one Amy. I don't know either. It would be lovely if we had a world where people just did things they felt they needed to do, instead of having to write rules around it.

Who gets alimony?

Alimony was never intended to be a life long system of support. Remember alimony goes back to the period when women were almost never known to file for divorce, and men did so with equal rarity. If a woman DID divorce, then she was expected to remarry after a relatively short period of time.

A woman was a man's responsibility back then. Father, then husband, and the big draw for unions once upon a time was the promise that they'd get their members a wage that would keep the wives from having to work.

We don't live in that world anymore.

A woman can go to school, get a job, and have a career.

And she can do so at any time, it no longer takes 12 hours to prepare the meals for the day, now it takes about 5 minutes, and even the most laborious meal is labor light.

So why, in the event of divorce, should either party get alimony?

There are some circumstances:

1. One party remained at home to provide for the children, in which case alimony should be rather like the GI bill, the income earner pays for the education of the homemaker, plus a small stipend to cover living expenses. But this remains dependent upon enrollment plus retaining an appropriate GPA. If they opt for a short term trade school, then they can instead opt for the cost of education plus living expenses for up to half the duration of the marriage.

Children still below the age where they can choose whom to reside with, remain with the income provider as long as payments continue.

2. One party worked to pay for the school or training that gained the dominant breadwinner the long term household income. (in which case alimony should be given for the number of years spent in school.

3. If both parties worked, no alimony period, regardless of how they are employed. If one party paid for the other to go to school, the one who got the free education is liable for the cost of repaying that education, deductable from alimony if other circumstances apply that would normally grant it.

This covers just a few basic scenarios, but the other side of the coin is this, what does the payer get in return for alimony?

Yes the one getting paid did have certain expectations and a standard of living and so on and so forth, but doesn't the other party get used to certain things as well?

Chris Rock did a pretty good routine on this:

Doesn't the man get accustomed to certain things in a marriage, what about what he's accustomed to?

To judge: Your honor, check this out, look I'm used to fucking her 4 times a week, now I don't mind the money...but I'd like some pussy payments.

If the payer is used to a home cooked meal or a clean house or a morning blowjob or however things worked for them...doesn't the payer get some of what they are "accustomed" to?

The point Robert is not day to day expenses - yes your hypothetical bloke 'paid' for his daily blowjob and clean house by supporting her, but did his partner suffer financially by doing that and not being in the workforce for that time? Opportunity costs, and whether they exist, are the essence of this argument, dickhead, not straightforward payment for services. I'm not 100% decided myself, but at least you could argue on the right ground. I do know that arguments along the lines of "it's not fair to have to pay my ex if don't I get court ordered sex with her" aren't going to work. You want to show it's unjust, try harder. After all, you can be in a marriage and still not be getting any.

Anyway, would you really stick your dick in the mouth of someone who has a grudge against you? Quite aside from the morality, the stupidity of it would be unfathomable.

All I know is, when I got divorced, I waived the alimony because I just wanted OUT. The child support is a joke, but at the time, I was making more money than he was. Now that Ex is on disability, and the child support will be over at the end of this year (I cannot believe that #2 is going to be 18! ACK!), not much has changed. I'm still working, I'll be working til I drop, and Ex will still be sitting on his ass and collecting his disability. Am I bitter? No. I have my pride, and also my own ability to take care of myself. These idjits out there with their over-inflated senses of entitlement have no CLUE what it means to be self-sufficient, and they don't WANT to know. And therein lies the problem. Unless and until people have a sense of self-worth, SOMEbody else MUST pay for them. I'm just glad it isn't me.

In re: the dual earner family. Best advice we ever got from my in-laws before marrying was to never, ever, ever figure my income into our budget. Live only off of his income, mine was bonus. When I quit to become a SAHM, no problem. Now that I'm on my second career making payola and we are still living only on his income, this being our lifestyle is a boon. If we were to part ways, I would be self-supporting, no alimony, and just child support.

There are a lot of interesting assumptions here.

1) That people who are the primary breadwinners work soul-sucking jobs to support SAH partners. There are plenty of jobs that both pay well and are interesting. If you're in a soul-sucking career, that's a personal mistake.

2) People who stay at home have endless opportunities for personal fulfillment. Staying at home is also a job, one that can be just as soul-sucking as any other job or just as enjoyable.

Anyway, would you really stick your dick in the mouth of someone who has a grudge against you? Quite aside from the morality, the stupidity of it would be unfathomable.

Yeah, I don't get this thinking, either. "We hate each other. I'd like you to die in a fire, you worhtless bitch. Now suck my dick. Nothing can possibly go wrong."

This discussion reminds me of listening to some female radio talk show host many years ago. (I can't remember who it was.) She had divorced her husband and got custody of the children. She wanted him to pay child support. As it turns out, the husband made about $10,000 a year. Her attorney told her that the court would look at his circumstances, and since she made a lot more money than him, she would be ordered to pay him alimony and he would pay for the child support out of that.

"Having the two-working-parent norm has ended up in a lot of unintended consequences that may not be the best for society." NicoleK

I agree with you, totally, except that our present approach has gotten us to the top of all perverse incentives... and the only way to protect everyone from them is to make everyone work for money.

I agree with you, totally, except that our present approach has gotten us to the top of all perverse incentives... and the only way to protect everyone from them is to make everyone work for money.

Not many people are better off financially after a divorce, even with spousal support. No real incentive there.

When my husband and I discussed whether I would work after the baby was born, we charted the possible outcomes. Me working would help us most if our marriage failed. I wouldn't need money from him, which would benefit us both.

Me staying home helps us most if our marriage succeeds. He makes three times the salary I did, and me being home means he can concentrate on advancing in a career he loves. He won't need to take time off to take care of a sick kid or when daycare is closed. Before, we would spend our weekend and weeknight time catching up on life: laundry, grocery shopping, cleaning, etc. Now he can take classes and take part in networking events that help his career. We're working as a team to build the life we want, not preparing for individual survival should we divorce.

If all things are equal, it makes sense to mitigate potential damage. But we can't prepare equally well for success and failure, so it makes more sense to optimize for success.

"Not many people are better off financially after a divorce, even with spousal support. No real incentive there. " MonicaP

It has been my experience, with the knowledge of many friends in this position, that this isn't about "finances", this is about punishment and control.

This seems to include both genders... There are plenty of women out there that finally threw the bum out, only to have him come back and wreck as much a possible... and there are plenty of women who will do the same.

Interestingly, I thought I was working as part of a team too. I have been disabused of that idea, in this case.

I don't believe you will get a very convincing standard. There are too many unique circumstances to make a broad statement about support.

My own personal feeling is that support is a very crude transaction. How do you monetize love, honor, respect, loyalty, or support? Or figure the cost when those things (that are not things) are no longer provided? Is marriage a simple transaction? X many loads of laundry + Y many sex acts + Z many cooked meals = so many dollars?

Money is a common ground in divorce, but only
barely. It reduces a lot on things to a transaction that never should be.

Good point LTW, but my point, humorously covered in the matter of sex, could be applied to other matters.

Perhaps the best approach would be to attach a dollar value to every daily task that was done benefiting the one who would be expected to pay...and then setting a payment amount partially based upon what is expected to stop. i.e. what is the value of a home cooked meal? OK the cost of that is going to be deducted. What is the value of a blowjob? Ok the cost of that is going to be deducted.

And the one to be paid could increase payment by providing some of those services on a short term basis, i.e. a clean house or a home cooked meal once per week.

Frankly in todays world I can think of only a very few circumstances in which alimony is warrented for anyone.

I do believe we should toss away the idea that anyone is entitled to live the lifestyle they formerly had. No, if you leave the restaurant, your table is no longer yours, you won't get steak in the mail either. If you want out, to start over, do it and be well. But unless your life stopped and froze for 10 years while raising a kid...what the fuck have you been spending your time on?!

Children start school at an early age, from that point forward less and less parental supervision is required simply because the child gets better and better at taking care of themselves...or they're away in the care of another entity, such as a school or camp etc.

Sure for the first few years a lot is required in time and effort...but fuck, how much time does a mother spend supervising a 12 year old boy?

By the time I was 12 I was out the door as soon as I could be, then back home for dinner. Weekends I'd disappear in the morning and be back for lunch, then out again until dinner. My companions and I would go from house to house or to the park etc. my parents needed to do very little to care for me at that age except for keeping the house in order.

Why a woman, or a man, deserves long term alimony as a reward for what inevitably becomes a life of relative ease, is beyond me. A few years maybe, or if the stay at home played a large role in the mate's success, yes as proceeds of their "investment" in the spouse, but there needs to be a clear limit.

Robert, In spite of what you believe there is nothing more difficult than being a good parent to a kid between the ages of 11-16.
School is a hundred and eighty days long, and runs from 8:30-3.
We lived too close to the schools to be on a bus route, and too far to realistically walk.
After school, there were sports practices, music lessons, clubs, dance etc, and if you didn't want your entire family living on fast food, there were meals to cook, laundry to do, and dishes to wash. I don't know of too many families that made this work well, unless one of them was a teacher, and kept essentially the same schedule that their kid did.
I am also totally opposed to alimony, unless you have a spouse with a real disability.

When I was in the army, my children were small, and it was far easier to drop them off at day care for 12 hours, than it would have been to hire a driving service, and a chef to do everything I did when they were between 10-16.

I did the math, and to work then would have cost me more than I could make
What really made me (and my cousin who was in the same boat) angry, is all the working and single parents who think that if you don't work, you are obviously wealthy enough to do all these things gratis, for their kids too, as if it was some kind of civic duty, on your part to take their kids to and from school so they could work.

Also have you checked the rates to insure a 16 year old driver? My insurance tripled when I finally let my son get a license at 17. That was the year, I went back to work, so I could pay all the additional expenses incurred by me not being at home.

(Actually I did it to pay college expenses, but found out that is a trap too ) because need based scholarships are structured, so if your parents are below a certain income level you don't pay, and if your parents work and are prudent, their after tax income goes to inflate the higher education bubble.

My brother has gotten totally screwed in his divorce. His wife, college educated always said she would go back to work when the kids went to school but instead had multiple affairs. Refused to work, never cooked a meal, missed birthdays, never took the kids to school, etc.Total Princess and he let her get away with it. Never did anything for anyone else but we could never figure it out until my mom said, "I bet she has a boyfriend". Oh she had many. Divorce comes and she gets Child Support and ALIMONY. Lives in the house with the BOYFRIEND she was having an affair with while married and now works as a Photographer selling trips Internationally with him and travels at least 2 weeks out of the month. Leaves the 16 year old with a grandparent while she is in Burma, or Japan, or wherever. Looks like she wants to work now. She only ever cared about herself and even told the courts of all her affairs but it didn't matter. What a great role model she is for two children and the court mandates she still be supported by my brother. So she makes enough for a vacation this summer to an Island and takes kids, boyfriend, and kids friends. Sounds like they have lots of money !! So Alimony is a mixed bag in my view. When it is used as a life long manipulation, it is not far to women who deserve it.