Was reading a post about a SAHW leaving her husband, and how he should make sure to control his own finances. And it got me to thinking about just how unfair spousal maintenance (Alimony) is, for the vast majority of separations.
I previously have been of the mindset, that if a W stays home in order to support her H's career, then she has sacrificed her future earning potential for the benefit of the family as a unit.
When the W leaves her H, courts tend to use the H's earning potential as a basis to determine Alimony payments, since he has to provide for the same standard of living after separation as before (ie he has to compensate his XW for her undue financial hardship). But what of his loss of her contributions (of maintaining the home and rearing the children) that he suffers post-separation? The H has also made sacrifices in terms of time and bonding opportunities at home in order to provide for the family as a unit, but it seems that sacrfice is not only dismissed by the courts but penalized.
Alimony protects the WAW from the financial consequence of her sacrifice, while creating a situation where the LH not only has to take up the financial liability of her sacrfice, but penalizes him further since he is essentially relegated to maintaining the same income level to provide payments but face additional hardship of doubling the sacrfice of not having opportunities at home to bond with his children.
scenario: SAHM of 2 kids, H works 70 hours a week and earns $120,000 /yr but gets to tuck his kids in every night and bond with them every weekend. SAHM leaves, court determines she is entitled to standard full custody with every other weekend visitation for H, and is granted, say $1000/mo alimony. Post divorce, life looks exactly the same for her, except she is in an apartment rather than a house (probably even easier to keep clean) or else she is still in the house but complaining that she doesn't get enough support payments to cover the mortgage. Post divorce for him, he has to work an additional 6-8 hours a week to pay the increased bills or else move into a small apartment, doesn't see his kids, doesn't have meals or someone to help maintain the home and has even less money left over.
In other words, his ability to maintain the prior standard of living is no longer possible, so why would the courts put such hardship onto him? How is it for the benefit of the children, especially as they will no longer have their father in their daily lives?
For myself, I am post divorce and in an equal parenting arrangement, and while I was married my ex took on many of the domestic duties (or atleast that was my assumption based on her not going back into the workforce, or rather working in the home to be with our child and taking in others to supplement the bills) Under that arrangement I had much higher earning potential than I do now but that was because I chose to stick as close to home as possible. After separation my earning potential dropped much lower than my peers because at the time of my separation I had a 9-5 job in the city with flexible enough benefits to be able to share custody equally.
Had I been more focussed on my career I would have been stuck with that and not had a close bond with my son. It is too bad that courts essentially force breadwinners into that role permanently with alimony when the SAH spouse chooses to leave, it leaves children of divorced couples worse off.
I previously have been of the mindset, that if a W stays home in order to support her H's career, then she has sacrificed her future earning potential for the benefit of the family as a unit.
When the W leaves her H, courts tend to use the H's earning potential as a basis to determine Alimony payments, since he has to provide for the same standard of living after separation as before (ie he has to compensate his XW for her undue financial hardship). But what of his loss of her contributions (of maintaining the home and rearing the children) that he suffers post-separation? The H has also made sacrifices in terms of time and bonding opportunities at home in order to provide for the family as a unit, but it seems that sacrfice is not only dismissed by the courts but penalized.
Alimony protects the WAW from the financial consequence of her sacrifice, while creating a situation where the LH not only has to take up the financial liability of her sacrfice, but penalizes him further since he is essentially relegated to maintaining the same income level to provide payments but face additional hardship of doubling the sacrfice of not having opportunities at home to bond with his children.
scenario: SAHM of 2 kids, H works 70 hours a week and earns $120,000 /yr but gets to tuck his kids in every night and bond with them every weekend. SAHM leaves, court determines she is entitled to standard full custody with every other weekend visitation for H, and is granted, say $1000/mo alimony. Post divorce, life looks exactly the same for her, except she is in an apartment rather than a house (probably even easier to keep clean) or else she is still in the house but complaining that she doesn't get enough support payments to cover the mortgage. Post divorce for him, he has to work an additional 6-8 hours a week to pay the increased bills or else move into a small apartment, doesn't see his kids, doesn't have meals or someone to help maintain the home and has even less money left over.
In other words, his ability to maintain the prior standard of living is no longer possible, so why would the courts put such hardship onto him? How is it for the benefit of the children, especially as they will no longer have their father in their daily lives?
For myself, I am post divorce and in an equal parenting arrangement, and while I was married my ex took on many of the domestic duties (or atleast that was my assumption based on her not going back into the workforce, or rather working in the home to be with our child and taking in others to supplement the bills) Under that arrangement I had much higher earning potential than I do now but that was because I chose to stick as close to home as possible. After separation my earning potential dropped much lower than my peers because at the time of my separation I had a 9-5 job in the city with flexible enough benefits to be able to share custody equally.
Had I been more focussed on my career I would have been stuck with that and not had a close bond with my son. It is too bad that courts essentially force breadwinners into that role permanently with alimony when the SAH spouse chooses to leave, it leaves children of divorced couples worse off.
Put the internet to work for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment