Well, that's not EXACTLY how I feel, because I believe in it as a TEMPORARY MEASURE when a special circumstance (like a long-term SAHM) is considered.<P><I><B>As a note, before I continue, I COMPLETELY POSITIVELY ABSOLUTELY believe in CHILD SUPPORT until all children of the marriage reach 18, and then can continue if the children go to college or in the case of a child with special needs. Both parents must contribute in those situations.<P>Further, this has no bearing on a situation where a child is produced from an affair relationship -- I have no desire to go "there" in this discussion. <P>Just understand that I believe 100% in child support! <BR></I></B><P>But, in the case of spousal support ~<P>I was married for 20 years. My ex and I separated, several times, and I was at home with my children for nearly one year. While I was there, one child turned 18, and the other was on the cusp of turning 18. I worked outside the home, making a decent salary - not great, not as good as it had been when we both worked (ex-H and I) and provided jointly for the family, but okay.<P>My legal advisor told me that I could get upwards of $600 a month for ME ALONE simply because it was a long term marriage. Didn't matter who did the leaving (he did) who cheated (we all know that story, at the time he was on woman number whatever, from church, although yes, I did cheat once ) or who had the better job... none of it mattered. All that mattered was that the law said I deserved to be compensated. <P>Huh?<P>I worked, my ex was giving me child support that we both agreed upon (and it was less that would have been court ordered because I didn't want to bankrupt him) and we had an understanding. <P>So, why should I have gotten support from him?<P>I'd like to discuss this... <P>Convince me that spousal support isn't a sexist, (the man usually has to pay, children or no children involved) archaic, regressive, punitive (no matter who did what, because even in the case where the woman cheats and leaves she can get spousal support) way to sock it to men.<P>------------------<BR>~Sheryl<P>And we know. We who have seen. ~Pellegrino

Interesting topic.<P>In a discussion with my NSETBX, she mentioned that she was being nice by not asking for spousal support. Huh? She abandoned me for someone else. Spousal support? <B>Not A F*****G CHANCE.</B><P>However, in the case of someone abandoning their mate for somebody else, spousal support my be in order for enough time for the abandoned spouse to get their life back together.<P>------------------<BR>nick<P>it's only time that heals the pain <BR>and makes the sun come out again

Yes, what cOOker said. <P>Although shouldn't every situation be decided accordningly? Say a woman is of that generation of women who stayed at home and ran the household. Hasn't had a "job" in 30+ years, if ever. Raised children, cared for the house, the husband,etc., etc. She's in her 50's or over 60 but not yet old enough to receive SS. She should get some sort of support, shouldn't she? I mean as more than a temporary measure.<P>Just a thought.<P>Snow<p>[This message has been edited by Snowwhite (edited June 08, 2001).]

I think I'd feel exactly as you do if I was in your situation because of pride, but in my case, my lawyer says I may have to pay my STBXH spousal support. <P>We owned and ran a business together until H chose alcohol, drugs, and OW (28 years younger than me) over marriage, family, and responsibility. I was just granted a temporary restraining order to keep H away from home and business. He had kicked me and kids out and moved OW in 2 weeks ago. In that time he trashed the house, had it cleaned, and trashed it again. When I retook possession of the house to "protect our community asset" I (and people helping me) found drugs, syringes, and other drug paraphenalia. I called the police to come back to the house. Now H and OW are on the run. <P>Since I am asking for sole possession of the business, I will probably have to pay him alimony. My initial thought was that this would be humiliating and emasculating to H, for same reasons of implied sexism that you are concerned about (On the other hand, he might see it as a great way to continue his current lifestyle since he's in no shape to find another job, nor is OW, so their only source of income that I know of is her unemployment from our business - yes, a former employee). In other words, it can be the betrayed wife who pays the cheating husband in some cases...

My wayward is actually asking for SS. I doubt she will get it. She has worked through most of the marriage. Also, she has been living with BF since she moved out. In California, that is grounds for denying SS.<P>As for others, I agree with the other posters. Although, being the BS this time, I think some punishment might be in order.<P>Now think about that. Just as I think that the person that wants to leave should lose custody (except in cases of DV, etc.), maybe it is time that we charge the WS for loss of companionship, love, or whatever else you can think of. For some, it might act as a brake to their behavior.<P>Waddya tink?<P>Gramps

GREAT dialogue here, guys!!<P>I was just discussing this with my fiance, and in his case, he "paid" spousal support in a lump sum, via giving her the deed to the house, therefore relinquishing his half of the equity... which is interesting also...<P>There seems to be no "alienation of affection" statute as a bargaining chip with regard to the cheating spouse, although you can sue the OP for it... so Gramps, you are right that there seems to be no "punishment" via the law for the cheating spouse. That's interesting too... <P><think, think>

I would LOVE to be in a position to sue some of the OW. Can they be sued for being stupid? ("yes, I'm married but my wife hates me...") I've thought often about taking these two to court. Might make them think twice about picking up their next MM. Would LOVE to see them squirm... <P>Snow

The bitter part of me says, he&* yeah, I deserve something for what he has put me through. Another thing my lawyer said to consider was I am supporting three people (myself and two sons) on one salary and WS is living with OW thus living on two salaries. According to my lawyer, the judge will look at this when awarding alimony!

Interesting. In my State long term marriages can get spousal for a period of time. It also considers other things. When my ex and I divorced I was told I could get spousal. Now, my ex made more money then me but not a lot and by the time he were to pay child support he'd be making less. I was floored when I was told that. It didn't seem fair to my ex. I'm in my 30's, educated and have always worked full-time at a decent paying job. I waived the spousal. Now my husband....His ex also is colleged educated, mid 30's and has always worked making around 50,000 per yr. She asked him for spousal.....short-term mariage of 5 yrs. They were working on a settlement without him having an attorney. If he had an attorney and she asked that in Court she would have been laughed out of the room because in this State they don't give it for a woman of her status. But, she told husband that if he didn't give her more money (on top of the 1,500 he was already paying in cs) that she'd limit the time he got to see his kids etc... So, he agreed to spousal also. For me personally, I've always felt good knowing that I'm capable of taking care of myself and my kids all by myself without causing financial hardship on anybody if they are already paying their cs. But, the situation is different for others. Obviously, if your a SAHM something must be awarded until you are able to get back up to speed in the working world or your kids hit school age.

Yes, it would seem that a case by case review is the best choice... they differ.<P>Yes, you can sue the OW (or OM) in some states... and I'm torn about that. My ex had at LEAST five OW, and their situations differed too... from, didn't realize he was married (nice but stupid or naive), to out and out b!tch/whore. The icky ones I would LOVE to have sued, just for spite/revenge. <P>But, I was also an OW once, and in that case, the OM was living with someone, told me lies, and I believed him. I was the one who broke MY marriage vows, and that means my ex could have sued the OM. I don't know if I could have been sued by the GF of the OM, but that is SCARY...<P>So, I see both sides on that one.<P><B>Living with memories</B>, I hear you about supporting kids with one salary which used to be two, and your WS living high on the hog with OW. <P>My ex had money coming out his butt, I came to find out, because he was doing work at this apartment (getting free rent) and doing side work, as well as his job... yes, he paid our rent (in lieu of child support) which was $600 (and I was fine with that) but my three kids and I struggled. <P>Years before, he and I had seperated out our incomes, so I didn't know how much he was making, banking, or anything else. It was my pay which paid the household bills, he paid his car payment and the extras, because he said he needed the money to sustain his side work (buying supplies, etc.) It was unfair while we were married still, although it helped me when we separated because I was used to paying all the bills already.<p>[This message has been edited by Nyneve (edited June 08, 2001).]

I think whoever does the leaving* should do so the way they came in to the marriage...without a monthly check paving the way. <P><BR>*Though in issues of abuse, my position would obviously be different.*<P>Lisa<P>

Oh yes, in cases of abuse it is a TOTALLY different issue... hmmm... and I would guess you'd have to *prove* abuse... hmmmm...boy, that's a totally new can o' worms...

My opinion? There should be no spousal support. If there are minor children, I do believe that if the custodial spouse needs more money to provide for the children's well being, that is part of child support. Viewed as pay for taking a greater than 50% of the 'babysitting' portion, then I can see it, but as a substitute for a job, no. I also don't believe in that bunk about (in my case) 18 years of laundry, dishes, cooking, etc. Yes, that is hard work, but it is done to everyone's benefit. No sense in getting bitter about the balance of work. These are the roles provided by the 'arrangement', and there is an equally powerful, and equally whiney response from the main breadwinner on this one. Let's leave that out of it.<BR>Lawyers are pond scum, through and through. Divorce lawyers and personal injury lawyers are largely responsible for the mindset we are discussing. I hate divorce, and I harbor some resentment to my ex-wife for giving up at a time when I was doing what she asked of me, what God asked of me, and pretty much what anyone else asked of me. I don't need a lawyer who doesn't even know me using his legal expertise to let my ex-wife's 'view' of things turn into unnecessary expense, and further heartache for ALL of us. We have four boys: 17, 15, 13, and 6. That is a boatload of additional expense for me. At 50%/50%, I STILL PAY HER $91 a week, and she has as much training/skills as I do. Do I think its fair? No, I do not. Do I pay it? So far, and as long as I can possibly maintain it, I will, but it is for my children, not to finance her life without me. If she needed help, and I could help, I would. I've given her $60 in the two weeks I've been divorced to help out. This is her no payday Friday, and I'll probably give her some more money, but you know that I have a plan to restore our marriage, so keep that in mind.<BR> My ex-wife is an intelligent, capable, dependable person. Duh. She is equally capable to me, and more so in her own ways, so I feel that she should take care of herself. There is no legal arrangement for that. There is also not a state overseen legal arrangement for child support, which is ordinarily the case in Illinois. She did a no-fault divorce for $146 with no lawyers. I insisted. She went to see a lawyer...he filled her head with BS, and she tried to force me into that. I have the advantage of being an excellent father in most respects, so our children would not support her. I got the house, and 50/50 custody. I think (aside from her taking a few things I wanted!) that my divorce is turning out to be more 'realistically equitable' than my marriage was for the last 10 years.<BR>Look, this thing we are all in just stinks to high heaven (literally, and it doesn't smell too good there, either!), and lawyers reap the benefits, not the people they are supposed to serve. If someone here really 'stuck it' to someone else, regardless of the circumstances, that is just wrong. You need to leave the relationship in a state that will allow some healing. It may even mean giving up something else you don't want to. That's life, and as long as you don't give more than you can, that's okay. 'Be angry...do not sin.'<p>[This message has been edited by waiting_for_her (edited June 08, 2001).]

Love the input... kinda surprised I haven't heard more though...<P>waiting_for_her's words are exactly what I expected to hear from a man who's W has left him and yet wants spousal support... sad, but true.<P>So, just bringin' this up to see if we can get some more thoughts!

Hi Sheryl ~ Here's my opinon regarding MY situation!<P>First of all, how are you going to determine the leaver?<P>I consider my H the leaver...though I am the one that filed. I want out of my marriage because he can't be faithful and won't get help for his alcoholism. My H makes comments about my making a mistake, and begged me not to leave him....and yet....he's with the OW. <P>I consider marriage, among other things, a contract. We got married with the agreement that we would have and raise children together. That he would go to work, and I'd stay home and raise our children.<P>Fast forward 10 years. He has not been saddled with ANY of the responsiblities of child rearing or housework. Therefore, he has been able to pursue his own career with no hinderances. He's now a VP and making 125K base salary, along with bonses. He's 33. Unless his alcoholism speeds up the progress, he'll probably see many future increases in salary.<P>And me? I quite school to marry him, with the understanding that his career would support me. I don't have a degree, and I don't have any job history to speak of. We have 3 kids however that have always had me home. My husband has supported me...but he's also never had the expenses of childcare either!!<P>I was happy to be at home, supporting my family in this way.<P>I did over the last 5 years or so, begin to teach myself a number of skills in the technology industry. I know quite a bit about computers and web development. With some time, effort, education and work, I'll be able to get myself a job. I am not without options at all - in fact, I have been doing a project this week for my husband's company as an independent contractor. <P>But my time doing this takes away from our children. <P>The reality is, we had an agreement, and my H blew it big time. As a result of his choices, I am without a career and facing a financial struggle while trying to raise our children alone.<P>Why should the kids lose out because of his choices? Oh yes, I know, he'll owe child support, and alot of it. But it won't be enough to allow me to continue to stay home and raise them. Are they better off in daycare? Why should they have to suffer the consequences while their father runs off to be "in love" with another woman and HER 2 kids?<P>As far as I am concerned, he owes me. I am 10 years behind in a career and education. I have no way of catching up to what I might have achieved if I had pursued my own career instead of raising children. <P>Now I have to start over...with the burden of 3 kids, to have a career. My sick days and vacations will be used up taking care of them. I won't be able to work late...I'll have to be rushing out to pick up the kids from daycare. I'll have all kinds of hinderances to pursuing a career that my husband never had...because of MY sacrifices for him. <P>So honestly Sheryl, I think he darn well owes me support. I think morally he ought to be fully financially supporting me until our daughter is raised. <P>I think it is insane that spouses can walk out and demand that the caregiving spouse get a job. And then all that money goes to daycare...why not just pay the spouse to stay home and continue caring for the kids?<P>He chose to leave, why should his kids lose the active participation of BOTH parents because he wants another woman and walks out on his agreement?<P>Had we both agreed when we married, that we would both work - this might be a different story. And if there were no children....again, different story. And honestly, I'll be pretty happy if I get 5 years of full support with reduced support for another 5. Once our daughter is 10, I hope I'll be able to support myself just fine - but I'll never get to the financial levels that he has achieved with MY support. <P>So he personally gained alot, and I'm burdened with alot.<P>In my case, spousal support darn well is owed. Ok, granted, the courts don't care. But that's what I think is "fair".<BR><P>------------------<BR><I>Pain is a given, misery is optional.</I>

Okay <B>BR</B>, you make some WONDERFUL points.<P>Let me ask you this though... and hang with me here, even though you may want to slap me smack in the nose...<P>Say you get divorced against your will (it happens all to often, as we know) and two years down the road you meet, are courted by, and marry a new man. Let's say he asks you to stay home and finish raising your children, (possibly have another baby, and that's just a side-note, doesn't really factor in) and caring for him. Would you do it?<P>I ask because... so many times, young moms (and older ones in first marriages) believed their spouses would support them until their kids got old enough, and *then* they could have their shot out there in the big world. <P>In one case I know of, the woman did just that. Her H cheated, she was left with three very young kids, had no skills, etc. and sunk financially (never mind her emotional state!). She somehow got her family back on track (hard work, elbow grease, good communication skills, help of family and gov't support) and met another man, whom she married. When he suggested she shouldn't work outside the home she said -- NO WAY -- no man is gonna hold my life over my head again!<P>So, I wonder, what would you do? <P>See, I've always felt this way about alimony/spousal support. I guess after the first affairs my then-H had, I considered divorce, but realized, like so many young moms, that I couldn't make it alone, and it wasn't fair of me to ask David (even though he was a cheating, lying, scumball) to give up 75% of his paycheck. He'd never make it! So, I stayed with him and tried to build a better marriage. We all know what happened after that.<BR> <BR>I don't know why I feel as strongly as I do, and I do have an open mind, so I'm trying to understand...<BR>

Sometimes spousal support is justified. Sometimes spousal support is not justified. But the determining factors are often complex.<P>All the courts care about is getting one case out of the way so they can get on to the next one. If the laws are inconvenient, the courts will ignore them or work around them. If the laws can't be ignored, then the case will be force-fit into some algorithm or template in an arbitrary manner.<P>So, we can discuss the principle of the matter all we want, but what difference does it make, really?<P>Can you tell that I'm a little bitter about this?<BR>

GDP,<P><ouch!><P>Well, you told me, eh?<P>Hey, I'm bitter too... but not about this issue, per se.<P>I saw this subject mentioned on another thread, and decided to begin a new one to address it.<P>I really want to get a handle on it... I have no idea why it bothers me so...

Sorry, Sheryl, I didn't mean anything personally. I guess I'm being a spoilsport.<P>On the other aspect of this topic that was raised, about each spouse being self-supporting, I think it is important that each spouse at least be <I>capable</I> of supporting him- or herself. That's just prudence.<P>I encouraged my wife to gain skills and experience so that she <I>could</I> be self-supporting if necessary (I was thinking about the possibility of my death), and without being forced to do something she would be unhappy doing. She did this.<P>Imagine my surprise when the courts awarded my wife (temporary) spousal support based on the level of income she <I>had</I> been earning, rather than what she <I>could</I> be earning if she worked full-time. (In our case, there are no kids or family responsibilities.)<P>My wife had been working part-time because she had other things she would rather do with her time than work, and I made enough money at my jobs that she didn't <I>have</I> to work full-time. When my wife decided to desert me, the courts turned my longstanding generosity in supporting her lifestyle into an obligation to enable her irresponsibility.<BR>

Oh, no need for an apology, Gnome... honest.<P>What happened to you wasn't fair -- and is JUST EXACTLY what I'm talking about...<P>I have to run, but maybe later I can come back and write about what made me think of this thread...