Back Child Support

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:23:38 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .
I have never posted before and just recently started reading the posts
on this newsgroup. After "thinking out loud" with another divorced
dad, I have come to what i believe is a purely logical and fair
position on this whole situation. I realize that it may be purely
philosophical and so I would appreciate any feedback that people might
offer.

snip
.

5) the argument that one person sacrificed to stay home full time and
"look after the kids" is not valid and an insult to the children.
that decision was agreed to by both spouses and made the most sense at
the time. Times change and someone has decided to change the
relationship. Responsibility comes with that decision, the
resonsibility to be self-sufficient.

OK, let me get this straight. Fred and Wilma meet in college, become
engaged and eventually marry. She works as a receptionist to pay his way
through medical school. She works while he gets his medical practice off
the ground. When his practice is flourishing, they decide to have children,
and together they decide that they do not want their precious children
raised in child care--he is now making sufficient money to give them all a
good life. She should stay home and care for the home and children. For
the next 20 years, she does just that. When 3 out of their 5 children are
out of high school/ attending college, he falls for Betsy Bigboobs, a sweet
young thang that flatters his ego and rubs his crotch. He comes home and
tells Wilma that it's over, and he moves in with Betsy. Wilma is 47 years
old and has not worked outside the home for 20 years, but has done what they
mutually agreed upon. SHE does not want the marriage to end--only he (and
Betsy Bigboobs) does. SHE should be left having to seek a minimum wage job,
and live in desparate poverty whild HE enjoys what both of them worked
together for? After she put him through medical school, so he could earn
that big salary? After she kept the agreement that both of them made? How
do you justify that?


Interesting response - I suppose I was looking for a general
reflection on my overall presentation rather than an examination of a
specific case. Specific cases can always be put forth to deny the
validity of a general proposition, however, it is what it is. I don't
seek to justify. I simply seek input to make some notions gel so ...
thank you.

In this time of "no fault divorce' which I don't necessarily agree
with, Fred has clearly benefited career-wise from being able to attend
school while they agreed that Wilma work and support him through
school. While in medical practice, Wilma clearly benefited by the
mutual decision of being able to stay at home and raise the children
without the burden of financially supporting herself. She enjoyed
some wonderful advantages during the 20 years that she was at home.
No rent, a great opportunity to be deeply involved with the children,
food, freedom to buy what she wanted, a nice home, great investments,
the opportunity for educational and career advancement (her decision
not take advantage of personal growth opportunities), involement in
school and social relationships, a warm cocoon of security, etc.

There is no "should" regarding who, if anyone, stays home to raise the
kids. It was a mutual decision. Each party is free to object to each
arrangement. Also keeping in mind that she was only truly needed at
home until the youngest was in grade one - after that - what is she
doing all day? They probably have a house-keeper come in once a week
to clean and keep order. She has a great deal of time to pursue many
interests, so why does she not use some of that time to further her
education or get a job? Does she believe that she is on holiday or
retired? Now that her services are no longer required to such a great
degree by the children, why does she not take it upon herself to do
something outside of the home, perhaps to financially support the
home, get extra money for vacations, renovations,etc. while at the
same time making valuable social and career contacts? - Again,
taking responsibility for one's decisions. Why should someone else be
responsible for the consequences of her decision not to make some use
of the 6 hours every day that the kids are at school? No judgement,
simply a reflection based on her decision not to further her career
and education when she had the opportunity.

The Marriage breaks down, "no fault" although he is obviously
responsible. Regardless, her list of responsibilities now change.
They are both responsible for caring for the children half-time and
covering all expenses 50-50, including university ( although the kids
should be covering this as much as possible). Both Wilma and Fred
have spent the last 20 years doing what they wanted, as agreed to by
the other spouse. They split - She must now become more responsible
for the duties/income that were previously provided by her husband.
keeping in mind that she is walking away with half of the house value
and half of the investments. after 20 years married to a doctor, I am
sure that 500,000 is not out of the question. she now has the time,
and opportunity to improve her education and find employment. even if
she only got 50,000 she could go without a job for at least a year.
She's college educated - what's required for upgrading skills?

I understand that Fred benefited from her sacrifice early in the
marriage and for the 20 years that she stayed at home. I understand
that Wilma benefited from this as well. They both also benefited
from his sacrifice at school and during the 20 years that he provided
the family income. Looks like a lot of mutual decisions and mutual
benefit.

So the point remains, they both benefited from the marriage. The
children end up seeing each parent half time. She walks away with
half of the assets to continue her life as she decides. She doesn't
need him. She is independent and free to follow her life path.

What power!

Notice that, with my model, there are no lawyers, courts, bias,
fighting etc. I know that people have enough on their plates
processing the loss that comes with separation without having on-going
and expensive legal battles. The kids ultimately benefit. ( if the
parents act respectfully and responsibly)

That was fun - Any more?

With regard to John Smith's message below, I entirely agree with the
sentiments expressed, as no doubt would nearly all of the fathers who
participate in this news group.

However, the problem lies not in spelling out the direction in which the
system must move. The problem is that there is a whole range of special
interests, notably divorced and never-married mothers and the various
components of the divorce industry, who benefit from the status quo, and
will fight tooth and nail to protect it. These special interests have
powerful and influential groups to represent them. By contrast, fathers
(and men generally) have no political clout in matters where the interests
of the two sexes are in conflict. As Warren Farrell says, "in the battle of
the sexes, only one side shows up."



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I have never posted before and just recently started reading the posts
on this newsgroup. After "thinking out loud" with another divorced
dad, I have come to what i believe is a purely logical and fair
position on this whole situation. I realize that it may be purely
philosophical and so I would appreciate any feedback that people might
offer.

1) As soon as there is a separation/divorce, the time with the
children must be spent equally with both parents (except in cases of
child abuse which has been supported by previous independent medical
or police reports - an abusive spouse can be a non-abusive parent) If
schedules do not permit equal sharing of time, then adjustments can be
made.

2) If the time difference is substantial eg.80% to one parent, then
some exchange of money can take place to fairly compensate for the
additional costs incurred for clothing and food - realistically about
$100 - $200 per child per month depending on age.

3) Both parent are equally responsible for the medical/ dental/
extra-curricular and additional expenses incurred by each child.

4) all assets incurred during the marriage are to be split 50/50. you
leave the marriage with the same things you brought into it. Other
than that, no money should be transfered between the parent's homes.
EG. No spousal support. Upon a separation/divorce each spouse is a
responsible adult and is reponsible to support themselves based on the
decisions that they have made.

5) the argument that one person sacrificed to stay home full time and
"look after the kids" is not valid and an insult to the children.
that decision was agreed to by both spouses and made the most sense at
the time. Times change and someone has decided to change the
relationship. Responsibility comes with that decision, the
resonsibility to be self-sufficient.

6) the argument that one person sacrificed job status or anything
else is also not valid for the same reasons. Take responsibilities
today for the decisions that you make today.

7) The argument that 'Each house will have a different standard of
living and so there must be support payments to equalize the
difference' is not valid because there is nothing to support the
notion that the standard of living HAS to be the same between houses.
Also, each parent has made educational and career choices both before
and during the marriage that were agreed to by both parties. If one
starts a marriage with a low-paying position and does nothing to
improve that situation, that is the person's decision. The marriage
ends, then they go back to the low paying position - only logical. It
is unreasonable and irresponsible to believe that a marriage is the
answer to all of your life's financial responsibilities because,
'whether married or not, they will always take care of me'

7) one societal and political view is that people/women are not
capable of making their own decisions or of taking responsibility
dealing with the outcome of their decisions. This is clearly evident
by the laws and courts' decisions to continue oppressing women by
encouraging them to take as much as they can from their ex-husbands.
The message is "Poor woman, you cannot make it on your own, so we will
make you reliant on a man for your existence". Presented this way, I
cannot see how any self-respecting woman would permit the courts to
continue treating them this way.

I am sure that we discussed more but that is all that came to mind
this hour.

I would like to see things move in this direction.

oh - by the way... I have not said anything with any bias toward any
persons or gender. I simply presented ideas based on my view of
fairness and demonstrate how the courts are miles from this ideal.

if you would like to respond to this, please keep it respectful and
refrain from judgements or insults on me. I simply seek open
discourse and the opportunity to think about things in different ways.

thanks


On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:56:07 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article . net, Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article . net, G
says...


"Gini" wrote in

It seems we do not have the backbone to fight this oppression?
=====
Actually, many many men believe the system is just.
=====

They can believe what they want, until they have to start
surrendering
their
pay checks to these vultures.
====
I should clarify--Many men believe that the system acts in the best
interest of
the kids and have no complaints about the amount of support they
pay.
These men
have been through here on many occasions and are some of the more
outspoken
critics of the father's rights agenda. I am not sure whether
father's
rights
proponents even comprise a majority of non-custodial parents.
====

Dr. Braver, in his book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, wrote
about
the
research he did into how men and women feel about the outcomes of
divorce
in
five categories - Custody, Visitation, Child Support, Other Child
Financial
Areas, and Property Division. In all five categories women were more
satisfied than men.

Dr. Braver looked into why women were more satisfied than men. His
research
was the first study to actually interview people involved in the
system
and
it was conducted after the implementation of the federally mandated CS
guidelines were implemented and the default for wage garnishments was
put
in
place. What he found was women got what they wanted and therefore had
greater positive feelings of control over the process and had feelings
of
empowerment. Men, on the other hand, felt less satisfaction with no
influence over the outcome.

What was remarkable in Dr. Braver's study was not a single father
thought
the system favored them in the slightest, and 3/4 thought that it
favored
mothers. 45% of fathers found the system to be very slanted to moms
and
30%
found the system to be somewhat slanted to moms. Only 25% of fathers
thought the system was not slanted. And 0% thought the system favored
dads.

To my knowledge there has been no research studies done on how many of
the
75 out of 100 fathers reporting dissatisfaction are motivated to get
involved in father's rights issues. However, the 25% of fathers who
feel
the divorce system is not slanted would not have the motivation to
support
father's rights. Since fathers' perceptions of the five divorce
categories
are relatively the same in every category, it is safe to assume 75% of
fathers are dissatisfied with their CS order, 25% think it is about
right,
and no fathers believe they were favored in the CS order, i.e. paying
less
than anticipated.

I find it hard to accept Gini's statement that "many men believe the
system
acts in the best interests of kids" when no fathers in Dr. Braver's
research
thought the treatment of fathers was favorable. To accept that
premise
one
would have to conclude fathers believe by screwing them over the
children
are better off.
===
C'mon, Bob--You've been around here long enough to have experienced the
visitation of men who do nothing but chastize the dads here. They don't
stay
long but they do trickle in. I'm not sure that just because a man
doesn't
get
what he feels he should in a divorce settlement that he's willing to
stand
up
against the system. I perceive that there is a significant percentage
of
men who
would not do that. Take my husband, for instance. He hadn't a clue that
he
was
being screwed by the system until I told him he was. He still remains
much
less
vocal and accepting of it than I am. He feels/felt that if he were to
speak out,
people would perceive him as not wanting to support his kids. He's much
happier
with me doing the talking. When my stepson came to live with us, DH
wouldn't
even consider asking his ex for support. He still has the attitude that
it
is
primarily a man's responsibilty to finance the offspring. My guess is
that
there
are a lot of men like that. They are just hesitant to speak out.
===

I am not disagreeing that there have been men coming through here who
have
proclaimed CS awards to be "fair." My recollection is the vast majority
of
those men were living with/married to a woman who was awarded CS, and
their
argument was the other guy was ordered to pay this fair, low-ball amount,
and he was not paying it. And if they were ordered to pay CS (which they
were not), they would gladly pay whatever the court ordered to do the
right
thing and support their children. That argument is based on pure
conjecture, not reality.

The few others I remember stating how generous they were paying their CS
in
full, on time, and providing extras for the children, ended up paying
less
than $150 per month, far below the national CS award average of $400 per
child. And, of course, there was the troll from Yuma who changed
identities
more often than I change clothes. He claimed to be paying high CS,
paying
his child's mother's mortgage on a ranch, remodeling her kitchen, and was
buying her lavish presents and vacations.

I have never heard any man who was paying the normal high CS awards with
all
the add-ons for day care, health coverage, special needs of the children,
college support, etc. claim they were happy providing huge amounts of
child
support and felt it was their obligation.

"When 3 out of their 5 children are out of high school/ attending college, he falls for Betsy Bigboobs, a sweet young thang that flatters his ego and rubs his crotch."


You see, with that statement, women want revenge, and they use Family Law courts to "he will pay for breaking our contract", and "betsy will also suffer, I will get alimony and I will never marry, I will show him and Betsy".

So either way, a man gets the shaft, and the women is ALWAY so sweet and keeps her end of the deal, ALWAYS. If women would leave their emotions out their divorce, the family courts would be EMPTY!!!!

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:23:38 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
. ..
I have never posted before and just recently started reading the posts
on this newsgroup. After "thinking out loud" with another divorced
dad, I have come to what i believe is a purely logical and fair
position on this whole situation. I realize that it may be purely
philosophical and so I would appreciate any feedback that people might
offer.

snip
.

5) the argument that one person sacrificed to stay home full time and
"look after the kids" is not valid and an insult to the children.
that decision was agreed to by both spouses and made the most sense at
the time. Times change and someone has decided to change the
relationship. Responsibility comes with that decision, the
resonsibility to be self-sufficient.

OK, let me get this straight. Fred and Wilma meet in college, become
engaged and eventually marry. She works as a receptionist to pay his way
through medical school. She works while he gets his medical practice off
the ground. When his practice is flourishing, they decide to have
children,
and together they decide that they do not want their precious children
raised in child care--he is now making sufficient money to give them all a
good life. She should stay home and care for the home and children. For
the next 20 years, she does just that. When 3 out of their 5 children are
out of high school/ attending college, he falls for Betsy Bigboobs, a
sweet
young thang that flatters his ego and rubs his crotch. He comes home and
tells Wilma that it's over, and he moves in with Betsy. Wilma is 47 years
old and has not worked outside the home for 20 years, but has done what
they
mutually agreed upon. SHE does not want the marriage to end--only he (and
Betsy Bigboobs) does. SHE should be left having to seek a minimum wage
job,
and live in desparate poverty whild HE enjoys what both of them worked
together for? After she put him through medical school, so he could earn
that big salary? After she kept the agreement that both of them made?
How
do you justify that?


Interesting response - I suppose I was looking for a general
reflection on my overall presentation rather than an examination of a
specific case. Specific cases can always be put forth to deny the
validity of a general proposition, however, it is what it is. I don't
seek to justify. I simply seek input to make some notions gel so ...
thank you.

In this time of "no fault divorce' which I don't necessarily agree
with, Fred has clearly benefited career-wise from being able to attend
school while they agreed that Wilma work and support him through
school. While in medical practice, Wilma clearly benefited by the
mutual decision of being able to stay at home and raise the children
without the burden of financially supporting herself. She enjoyed
some wonderful advantages during the 20 years that she was at home.
No rent, a great opportunity to be deeply involved with the children,
food, freedom to buy what she wanted, a nice home, great investments,
the opportunity for educational and career advancement (her decision
not take advantage of personal growth opportunities), involement in
school and social relationships, a warm cocoon of security, etc.

There is no "should" regarding who, if anyone, stays home to raise the
kids. It was a mutual decision. Each party is free to object to each
arrangement. Also keeping in mind that she was only truly needed at
home until the youngest was in grade one - after that - what is she
doing all day? They probably have a house-keeper come in once a week
to clean and keep order. She has a great deal of time to pursue many
interests, so why does she not use some of that time to further her
education or get a job? Does she believe that she is on holiday or
retired? Now that her services are no longer required to such a great
degree by the children, why does she not take it upon herself to do
something outside of the home, perhaps to financially support the
home, get extra money for vacations, renovations,etc. while at the
same time making valuable social and career contacts? - Again,
taking responsibility for one's decisions. Why should someone else be
responsible for the consequences of her decision not to make some use
of the 6 hours every day that the kids are at school? No judgement,
simply a reflection based on her decision not to further her career
and education when she had the opportunity.

The Marriage breaks down, "no fault" although he is obviously
responsible. Regardless, her list of responsibilities now change.
They are both responsible for caring for the children half-time and
covering all expenses 50-50, including university ( although the kids
should be covering this as much as possible). Both Wilma and Fred
have spent the last 20 years doing what they wanted, as agreed to by
the other spouse. They split - She must now become more responsible
for the duties/income that were previously provided by her husband.
keeping in mind that she is walking away with half of the house value
and half of the investments. after 20 years married to a doctor, I am
sure that 500,000 is not out of the question. she now has the time,
and opportunity to improve her education and find employment. even if
she only got 50,000 she could go without a job for at least a year.
She's college educated - what's required for upgrading skills?

I understand that Fred benefited from her sacrifice early in the
marriage and for the 20 years that she stayed at home. I understand
that Wilma benefited from this as well. They both also benefited
from his sacrifice at school and during the 20 years that he provided
the family income. Looks like a lot of mutual decisions and mutual
benefit.

So the point remains, they both benefited from the marriage. The
children end up seeing each parent half time. She walks away with
half of the assets to continue her life as she decides. She doesn't
need him. She is independent and free to follow her life path.

What power!

Notice that, with my model, there are no lawyers, courts, bias,
fighting etc. I know that people have enough on their plates
processing the loss that comes with separation without having on-going
and expensive legal battles. The kids ultimately benefit. ( if the
parents act respectfully and responsibly)

That was fun - Any more?

Absolutely. My mother was a stay at home mom for all 8 of her children.
She worked as hard as my father ever did, volunteering in our classrooms,
chaperoning field trips, plus chauffeuring all 8 of us to our respective
activities on top of all the house work--no maid for us. My father was the
breadwinner. When I got to college and had stars in my eyes over some
now-long-forgotten guy, my dad warned me that I'd better make sure that I
had a career that would support me, and not be totally dependent on some gut
to do it. I thought, at first, that he resented my mom being dependent on
him, and never developing a career of her own. Turns out, though, that he
had just been diagnosed with heart problems, and was terribly worried of
what would become of Mom if he were suddenly no longer there. We lost him 4
months after their 50th wedding anniversary. I cannot imagine either one of
them feeling, throughout their marriage, that the other had the gravy part
of their marriage. I cannot imagine either one feeling that he/she was
stuck with more work/ responsibility than the other. Being a SAH mom is not
a rent-free, all-luxuries-included free ride. It is just as much work as
both partners working outside the home, and sharing the housework 50/50. I
don't understand why the "paycheck" person is considered to be working,
while the stay-at-home is considered to be vacationing.

As for the scenario I mentioned, don't you feel that Fred now owes Wilma a
career, and should work and pay all her expenses, just as she did while he
attended school? That seems fair to me. She did it for him--now he can do
the same for her.

In general, though, I think 50/50 default custody is the way to go. Take
away the financial incentives to break up a marriage, and more marriages
might last 50 years. And if the system were set up so you "counseled and
mediated" you way into divorce, that would be a vast improvement over
grabbing a lawyer and coming out swinging. I just don't think that SAH moms
from long term marriages should be dumped like garbage on the side of the
road while dad rides off on a newer model.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:54:37 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:23:38 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I have never posted before and just recently started reading the posts
on this newsgroup. After "thinking out loud" with another divorced
dad, I have come to what i believe is a purely logical and fair
position on this whole situation. I realize that it may be purely
philosophical and so I would appreciate any feedback that people might
offer.

snip
.

5) the argument that one person sacrificed to stay home full time and
"look after the kids" is not valid and an insult to the children.
that decision was agreed to by both spouses and made the most sense at
the time. Times change and someone has decided to change the
relationship. Responsibility comes with that decision, the
resonsibility to be self-sufficient.

OK, let me get this straight. Fred and Wilma meet in college, become
engaged and eventually marry. She works as a receptionist to pay his way
through medical school. She works while he gets his medical practice off
the ground. When his practice is flourishing, they decide to have
children,
and together they decide that they do not want their precious children
raised in child care--he is now making sufficient money to give them all a
good life. She should stay home and care for the home and children. For
the next 20 years, she does just that. When 3 out of their 5 children are
out of high school/ attending college, he falls for Betsy Bigboobs, a
sweet
young thang that flatters his ego and rubs his crotch. He comes home and
tells Wilma that it's over, and he moves in with Betsy. Wilma is 47 years
old and has not worked outside the home for 20 years, but has done what
they
mutually agreed upon. SHE does not want the marriage to end--only he (and
Betsy Bigboobs) does. SHE should be left having to seek a minimum wage
job,
and live in desparate poverty whild HE enjoys what both of them worked
together for? After she put him through medical school, so he could earn
that big salary? After she kept the agreement that both of them made?
How
do you justify that?


Interesting response - I suppose I was looking for a general
reflection on my overall presentation rather than an examination of a
specific case. Specific cases can always be put forth to deny the
validity of a general proposition, however, it is what it is. I don't
seek to justify. I simply seek input to make some notions gel so ...
thank you.

In this time of "no fault divorce' which I don't necessarily agree
with, Fred has clearly benefited career-wise from being able to attend
school while they agreed that Wilma work and support him through
school. While in medical practice, Wilma clearly benefited by the
mutual decision of being able to stay at home and raise the children
without the burden of financially supporting herself. She enjoyed
some wonderful advantages during the 20 years that she was at home.
No rent, a great opportunity to be deeply involved with the children,
food, freedom to buy what she wanted, a nice home, great investments,
the opportunity for educational and career advancement (her decision
not take advantage of personal growth opportunities), involement in
school and social relationships, a warm cocoon of security, etc.

There is no "should" regarding who, if anyone, stays home to raise the
kids. It was a mutual decision. Each party is free to object to each
arrangement. Also keeping in mind that she was only truly needed at
home until the youngest was in grade one - after that - what is she
doing all day? They probably have a house-keeper come in once a week
to clean and keep order. She has a great deal of time to pursue many
interests, so why does she not use some of that time to further her
education or get a job? Does she believe that she is on holiday or
retired? Now that her services are no longer required to such a great
degree by the children, why does she not take it upon herself to do
something outside of the home, perhaps to financially support the
home, get extra money for vacations, renovations,etc. while at the
same time making valuable social and career contacts? - Again,
taking responsibility for one's decisions. Why should someone else be
responsible for the consequences of her decision not to make some use
of the 6 hours every day that the kids are at school? No judgement,
simply a reflection based on her decision not to further her career
and education when she had the opportunity.

The Marriage breaks down, "no fault" although he is obviously
responsible. Regardless, her list of responsibilities now change.
They are both responsible for caring for the children half-time and
covering all expenses 50-50, including university ( although the kids
should be covering this as much as possible). Both Wilma and Fred
have spent the last 20 years doing what they wanted, as agreed to by
the other spouse. They split - She must now become more responsible
for the duties/income that were previously provided by her husband.
keeping in mind that she is walking away with half of the house value
and half of the investments. after 20 years married to a doctor, I am
sure that 500,000 is not out of the question. she now has the time,
and opportunity to improve her education and find employment. even if
she only got 50,000 she could go without a job for at least a year.
She's college educated - what's required for upgrading skills?

I understand that Fred benefited from her sacrifice early in the
marriage and for the 20 years that she stayed at home. I understand
that Wilma benefited from this as well. They both also benefited
from his sacrifice at school and during the 20 years that he provided
the family income. Looks like a lot of mutual decisions and mutual
benefit.

So the point remains, they both benefited from the marriage. The
children end up seeing each parent half time. She walks away with
half of the assets to continue her life as she decides. She doesn't
need him. She is independent and free to follow her life path.

What power!

Notice that, with my model, there are no lawyers, courts, bias,
fighting etc. I know that people have enough on their plates
processing the loss that comes with separation without having on-going
and expensive legal battles. The kids ultimately benefit. ( if the
parents act respectfully and responsibly)

That was fun - Any more?

Absolutely. My mother was a stay at home mom for all 8 of her children.
She worked as hard as my father ever did, volunteering in our classrooms,
chaperoning field trips, plus chauffeuring all 8 of us to our respective
activities on top of all the house work--no maid for us. My father was the
breadwinner. When I got to college and had stars in my eyes over some
now-long-forgotten guy, my dad warned me that I'd better make sure that I
had a career that would support me, and not be totally dependent on some gut
to do it. I thought, at first, that he resented my mom being dependent on
him, and never developing a career of her own. Turns out, though, that he
had just been diagnosed with heart problems, and was terribly worried of
what would become of Mom if he were suddenly no longer there. We lost him 4
months after their 50th wedding anniversary. I cannot imagine either one of
them feeling, throughout their marriage, that the other had the gravy part
of their marriage. I cannot imagine either one feeling that he/she was
stuck with more work/ responsibility than the other. Being a SAH mom is not
a rent-free, all-luxuries-included free ride. It is just as much work as
both partners working outside the home, and sharing the housework 50/50. I
don't understand why the "paycheck" person is considered to be working,
while the stay-at-home is considered to be vacationing.

As for the scenario I mentioned, don't you feel that Fred now owes Wilma a
career, and should work and pay all her expenses, just as she did while he
attended school? That seems fair to me. She did it for him--now he can do
the same for her.

In general, though, I think 50/50 default custody is the way to go. Take
away the financial incentives to break up a marriage, and more marriages
might last 50 years. And if the system were set up so you "counseled and
mediated" you way into divorce, that would be a vast improvement over
grabbing a lawyer and coming out swinging. I just don't think that SAH moms
from long term marriages should be dumped like garbage on the side of the
road while dad rides off on a newer model.

I agree with your point that SAH moms (or some dads i know) have an
equally necessarily and valid position in the marriage as the
paycheque person. I also know that many SAH moms have a lot of time
on their hands - this coming from my SAH mother with 6 kids. That is
partially the reason that many women seek work outside of the home.
Really, if she decides to stay at home, all the husband can really do
is agree and support her. He cannot make her get a job

My mom was educated and degreed as a teacher of nurses quite radical
for a woman of the early 50's. She was fully independent and ready to
support herself for her lifetime when dad came along. She did work
outside the home for a month here and there - I think mostly to get
some outside social contact. If their marriage ended or if he died
she was ready to support herself through her own decision to educate
herself and not be fully reliant on the inicome of her husband. Other
people don't decide this and need to experience the consequences of
their decisions.

I don't believe that Fred Owes Wilma anything and that Wilma deserves
anything other than she had when she entered the marriage and what she
benefited form participation in the marriage - ie - half of the
assets. Consider that, had they not both agreed to the decisions that
they made, neither would have benefited so greatly form the marriage
in both financial and non-financiel ways. she had the opportunity to
educate herself during the 20 yearts but decided to continue to be
fully reliant on her husband - that is not taking responsibility for
her life. She wants to continue not taking responsibility by saying
that he "owes" her for years of sacrifice - nonsense! - they both
sacrificed and both benefited.

also, He provided her the opportunity for at least 10 years as the
kids were growing to get an education - she decides not to take
advantage of this, why should he "owe" her anything. They are
separated, she sucks spousal and shild (another word for spousal)
support from him and continues to not take responsibility for her
life. If there was no support payments from him she would be forced
to better/educate/employ herself - or not. Again it is her decision.

here's another idea to consider - she worked and supported him thru
school for a couple of years - as a result of that, he worked and
supported her thru 20 years of marriage. - i think she won the better
end of that deal. again, she was the paycheque person while he was at
med school - a mutual decision and both benefited from what each was
doing. Later, he became the paycheque person while she stayed at
home. again, a mutual decision and both benefited each was doing.

I agree that anyone from a long- term or any- term marriage should be
dumped like garbage - that diisrepspectful to the other person, and
the vows that were taken. I do not believe that one person should be
punished for that,. Cearly, the courts don't either or they would not
believe in 'no fault' divorce.

Hmm - that brings up another interesting question - If a person is
clearly responsible for the breakup of a marriage - should they be
somewhow penalized or should the whole situation just be explained by
human nature, let the split happen and get on with their lives - a
discussion for another time

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:54:37 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:23:38 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message

snip


I agree with your point that SAH moms (or some dads i know) have an
equally necessarily and valid position in the marriage as the
paycheque person. I also know that many SAH moms have a lot of time
on their hands - this coming from my SAH mother with 6 kids. That is
partially the reason that many women seek work outside of the home.
Really, if she decides to stay at home, all the husband can really do
is agree and support her. He cannot make her get a job

My mom was educated and degreed as a teacher of nurses quite radical
for a woman of the early 50's. She was fully independent and ready to
support herself for her lifetime when dad came along. She did work
outside the home for a month here and there - I think mostly to get
some outside social contact. If their marriage ended or if he died
she was ready to support herself through her own decision to educate
herself and not be fully reliant on the inicome of her husband. Other
people don't decide this and need to experience the consequences of
their decisions.

I don't believe that Fred Owes Wilma anything and that Wilma deserves
anything other than she had when she entered the marriage and what she
benefited form participation in the marriage - ie - half of the
assets.

Fred's education, and his ability to command a larger salary was an asset
acquired after the marriage - therefore she's entitled to half. (according to
your theory)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 03:05:48 -0600, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:54:37 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:23:38 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message

snip


I agree with your point that SAH moms (or some dads i know) have an
equally necessarily and valid position in the marriage as the
paycheque person. I also know that many SAH moms have a lot of time
on their hands - this coming from my SAH mother with 6 kids. That is
partially the reason that many women seek work outside of the home.
Really, if she decides to stay at home, all the husband can really do
is agree and support her. He cannot make her get a job

My mom was educated and degreed as a teacher of nurses quite radical
for a woman of the early 50's. She was fully independent and ready to
support herself for her lifetime when dad came along. She did work
outside the home for a month here and there - I think mostly to get
some outside social contact. If their marriage ended or if he died
she was ready to support herself through her own decision to educate
herself and not be fully reliant on the inicome of her husband. Other
people don't decide this and need to experience the consequences of
their decisions.

I don't believe that Fred Owes Wilma anything and that Wilma deserves
anything other than she had when she entered the marriage and what she
benefited form participation in the marriage - ie - half of the
assets.

Fred's education, and his ability to command a larger salary was an asset
acquired after the marriage - therefore she's entitled to half. (according to
your theory)

well, it is true that his education and ability to command a larger
salary was acquired after the marriage, it doesn't necessarily follow
that she is entitled to half of anything other than the assets
acquired during the marriage.

I would say that she has had the opportunity over at least 10 years to
gain the same "ability to command a larger salary" but decided not to
act on that opportunity. Fairness is being given the same opportunity.
Entitlement means that someone owes you something, rather than taking
responsibility for your own decisions. both parties agreed to
everything in the marriage right until Fred called it quits. I still
don't see how anybody owes anything or is entitled to anything. It
was fair and equal before the split, why is it different after?

here's a measure of one's own bias... suppose Fred was the Wife and
Wilma PhD stepped out on him and left him . How does the picture
change for you?

again, I ask, Why should anybody leave a marriage with any sense of
entitlement? al each party should get is what they came in with and
half of the assests when they leave. And half time with the kids.

Fred did nothing illegal or physically damaging to the other person
and so should not be punished, in the legal sense. While he is a
scumbag, he is her scumbag and she needs to deal with the new
situation that life has presented to her. not too difficult now that
she is sitting on half a mil.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:54:37 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:23:38 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
m...
I have never posted before and just recently started reading the posts
on this newsgroup. After "thinking out loud" with another divorced
dad, I have come to what i believe is a purely logical and fair
position on this whole situation. I realize that it may be purely
philosophical and so I would appreciate any feedback that people might
offer.

snip
.

5) the argument that one person sacrificed to stay home full time and
"look after the kids" is not valid and an insult to the children.
that decision was agreed to by both spouses and made the most sense at
the time. Times change and someone has decided to change the
relationship. Responsibility comes with that decision, the
resonsibility to be self-sufficient.

OK, let me get this straight. Fred and Wilma meet in college, become
engaged and eventually marry. She works as a receptionist to pay his
way
through medical school. She works while he gets his medical practice
off
the ground. When his practice is flourishing, they decide to have
children,
and together they decide that they do not want their precious children
raised in child care--he is now making sufficient money to give them all
a
good life. She should stay home and care for the home and children.
For
the next 20 years, she does just that. When 3 out of their 5 children
are
out of high school/ attending college, he falls for Betsy Bigboobs, a
sweet
young thang that flatters his ego and rubs his crotch. He comes home
and
tells Wilma that it's over, and he moves in with Betsy. Wilma is 47
years
old and has not worked outside the home for 20 years, but has done what
they
mutually agreed upon. SHE does not want the marriage to end--only he
(and
Betsy Bigboobs) does. SHE should be left having to seek a minimum wage
job,
and live in desparate poverty whild HE enjoys what both of them worked
together for? After she put him through medical school, so he could
earn
that big salary? After she kept the agreement that both of them made?
How
do you justify that?


Interesting response - I suppose I was looking for a general
reflection on my overall presentation rather than an examination of a
specific case. Specific cases can always be put forth to deny the
validity of a general proposition, however, it is what it is. I don't
seek to justify. I simply seek input to make some notions gel so ...
thank you.

In this time of "no fault divorce' which I don't necessarily agree
with, Fred has clearly benefited career-wise from being able to attend
school while they agreed that Wilma work and support him through
school. While in medical practice, Wilma clearly benefited by the
mutual decision of being able to stay at home and raise the children
without the burden of financially supporting herself. She enjoyed
some wonderful advantages during the 20 years that she was at home.
No rent, a great opportunity to be deeply involved with the children,
food, freedom to buy what she wanted, a nice home, great investments,
the opportunity for educational and career advancement (her decision
not take advantage of personal growth opportunities), involement in
school and social relationships, a warm cocoon of security, etc.

There is no "should" regarding who, if anyone, stays home to raise the
kids. It was a mutual decision. Each party is free to object to each
arrangement. Also keeping in mind that she was only truly needed at
home until the youngest was in grade one - after that - what is she
doing all day? They probably have a house-keeper come in once a week
to clean and keep order. She has a great deal of time to pursue many
interests, so why does she not use some of that time to further her
education or get a job? Does she believe that she is on holiday or
retired? Now that her services are no longer required to such a great
degree by the children, why does she not take it upon herself to do
something outside of the home, perhaps to financially support the
home, get extra money for vacations, renovations,etc. while at the
same time making valuable social and career contacts? - Again,
taking responsibility for one's decisions. Why should someone else be
responsible for the consequences of her decision not to make some use
of the 6 hours every day that the kids are at school? No judgement,
simply a reflection based on her decision not to further her career
and education when she had the opportunity.

The Marriage breaks down, "no fault" although he is obviously
responsible. Regardless, her list of responsibilities now change.
They are both responsible for caring for the children half-time and
covering all expenses 50-50, including university ( although the kids
should be covering this as much as possible). Both Wilma and Fred
have spent the last 20 years doing what they wanted, as agreed to by
the other spouse. They split - She must now become more responsible
for the duties/income that were previously provided by her husband.
keeping in mind that she is walking away with half of the house value
and half of the investments. after 20 years married to a doctor, I am
sure that 500,000 is not out of the question. she now has the time,
and opportunity to improve her education and find employment. even if
she only got 50,000 she could go without a job for at least a year.
She's college educated - what's required for upgrading skills?

I understand that Fred benefited from her sacrifice early in the
marriage and for the 20 years that she stayed at home. I understand
that Wilma benefited from this as well. They both also benefited
from his sacrifice at school and during the 20 years that he provided
the family income. Looks like a lot of mutual decisions and mutual
benefit.

So the point remains, they both benefited from the marriage. The
children end up seeing each parent half time. She walks away with
half of the assets to continue her life as she decides. She doesn't
need him. She is independent and free to follow her life path.

What power!

Notice that, with my model, there are no lawyers, courts, bias,
fighting etc. I know that people have enough on their plates
processing the loss that comes with separation without having on-going
and expensive legal battles. The kids ultimately benefit. ( if the
parents act respectfully and responsibly)

That was fun - Any more?

Absolutely. My mother was a stay at home mom for all 8 of her children.
She worked as hard as my father ever did, volunteering in our classrooms,
chaperoning field trips, plus chauffeuring all 8 of us to our respective
activities on top of all the house work--no maid for us. My father was
the
breadwinner. When I got to college and had stars in my eyes over some
now-long-forgotten guy, my dad warned me that I'd better make sure that I
had a career that would support me, and not be totally dependent on some
gut
to do it. I thought, at first, that he resented my mom being dependent on
him, and never developing a career of her own. Turns out, though, that he
had just been diagnosed with heart problems, and was terribly worried of
what would become of Mom if he were suddenly no longer there. We lost him
4
months after their 50th wedding anniversary. I cannot imagine either one
of
them feeling, throughout their marriage, that the other had the gravy part
of their marriage. I cannot imagine either one feeling that he/she was
stuck with more work/ responsibility than the other. Being a SAH mom is
not
a rent-free, all-luxuries-included free ride. It is just as much work as
both partners working outside the home, and sharing the housework 50/50.
I
don't understand why the "paycheck" person is considered to be working,
while the stay-at-home is considered to be vacationing.

As for the scenario I mentioned, don't you feel that Fred now owes Wilma a
career, and should work and pay all her expenses, just as she did while he
attended school? That seems fair to me. She did it for him--now he can
do
the same for her.

In general, though, I think 50/50 default custody is the way to go. Take
away the financial incentives to break up a marriage, and more marriages
might last 50 years. And if the system were set up so you "counseled and
mediated" you way into divorce, that would be a vast improvement over
grabbing a lawyer and coming out swinging. I just don't think that SAH
moms
from long term marriages should be dumped like garbage on the side of the
road while dad rides off on a newer model.

I agree with your point that SAH moms (or some dads i know) have an
equally necessarily and valid position in the marriage as the
paycheque person. I also know that many SAH moms have a lot of time
on their hands - this coming from my SAH mother with 6 kids. That is
partially the reason that many women seek work outside of the home.
Really, if she decides to stay at home, all the husband can really do
is agree and support her. He cannot make her get a job

My mom was educated and degreed as a teacher of nurses quite radical
for a woman of the early 50's. She was fully independent and ready to
support herself for her lifetime when dad came along. She did work
outside the home for a month here and there - I think mostly to get
some outside social contact. If their marriage ended or if he died
she was ready to support herself through her own decision to educate
herself and not be fully reliant on the inicome of her husband. Other
people don't decide this and need to experience the consequences of
their decisions.

I don't believe that Fred Owes Wilma anything and that Wilma deserves
anything other than she had when she entered the marriage and what she
benefited form participation in the marriage - ie - half of the
assets. Consider that, had they not both agreed to the decisions that
they made, neither would have benefited so greatly form the marriage
in both financial and non-financiel ways. she had the opportunity to
educate herself during the 20 yearts but decided to continue to be
fully reliant on her husband - that is not taking responsibility for
her life. She wants to continue not taking responsibility by saying
that he "owes" her for years of sacrifice - nonsense! - they both
sacrificed and both benefited.

also, He provided her the opportunity for at least 10 years as the
kids were growing to get an education - she decides not to take
advantage of this, why should he "owe" her anything. They are
separated, she sucks spousal and shild (another word for spousal)
support from him and continues to not take responsibility for her
life. If there was no support payments from him she would be forced
to better/educate/employ herself - or not. Again it is her decision.

here's another idea to consider - she worked and supported him thru
school for a couple of years - as a result of that, he worked and
supported her thru 20 years of marriage. - i think she won the better
end of that deal. again, she was the paycheque person while he was at
med school - a mutual decision and both benefited from what each was
doing. Later, he became the paycheque person while she stayed at
home. again, a mutual decision and both benefited each was doing.

I agree that anyone from a long- term or any- term marriage should be
dumped like garbage - that diisrepspectful to the other person, and
the vows that were taken. I do not believe that one person should be
punished for that,. Cearly, the courts don't either or they would not
believe in 'no fault' divorce.

Hmm - that brings up another interesting question - If a person is
clearly responsible for the breakup of a marriage - should they be
somewhow penalized or should the whole situation just be explained by
human nature, let the split happen and get on with their lives - a
discussion for another time

I guess what is really frustrating me about your attitude is your idea that
each person made individual decisions, rather that the 2 of them together
made *a decision* that he wpuld be the breadwinner, and she would be the
house/children manager. It was not 2 individuals making individual
decisions, but a married couple making a joint decision. Perhaps they did
discuss the idea of her returning to school or work, but decided together
that it was better for the children/family for her to be at home. You talk
as if she frittered away countless hours while the children were in school
and hubby was working without concern for her future. Is there no place in
your thinking for a joint decision? Or do you think everyone should enter
into marriage with the thought that the person they are marrying could
possibly be a world class jerk, so they should build up defenses just in
case?

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 03:05:48 -0600, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:54:37 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:23:38 -0800, "teachrmama"

wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message

snip


I agree with your point that SAH moms (or some dads i know) have an
equally necessarily and valid position in the marriage as the
paycheque person. I also know that many SAH moms have a lot of time
on their hands - this coming from my SAH mother with 6 kids. That is
partially the reason that many women seek work outside of the home.
Really, if she decides to stay at home, all the husband can really do
is agree and support her. He cannot make her get a job

My mom was educated and degreed as a teacher of nurses quite radical
for a woman of the early 50's. She was fully independent and ready to
support herself for her lifetime when dad came along. She did work
outside the home for a month here and there - I think mostly to get
some outside social contact. If their marriage ended or if he died
she was ready to support herself through her own decision to educate
herself and not be fully reliant on the inicome of her husband. Other
people don't decide this and need to experience the consequences of
their decisions.

I don't believe that Fred Owes Wilma anything and that Wilma deserves
anything other than she had when she entered the marriage and what she
benefited form participation in the marriage - ie - half of the
assets.

Fred's education, and his ability to command a larger salary was an asset
acquired after the marriage - therefore she's entitled to half.
(according to
your theory)

well, it is true that his education and ability to command a larger
salary was acquired after the marriage, it doesn't necessarily follow
that she is entitled to half of anything other than the assets
acquired during the marriage.

I would say that she has had the opportunity over at least 10 years to
gain the same "ability to command a larger salary" but decided not to
act on that opportunity. Fairness is being given the same opportunity.
Entitlement means that someone owes you something, rather than taking
responsibility for your own decisions. both parties agreed to
everything in the marriage right until Fred called it quits. I still
don't see how anybody owes anything or is entitled to anything. It
was fair and equal before the split, why is it different after?

here's a measure of one's own bias... suppose Fred was the Wife and
Wilma PhD stepped out on him and left him . How does the picture
change for you?

again, I ask, Why should anybody leave a marriage with any sense of
entitlement? al each party should get is what they came in with and
half of the assests when they leave.

A man enters a marriage with clear title to a house worth 100k. During the
marriage, he sells such house for 200k (inflation). He then purchases
another home with the net proceeds. This house is worth somewhat less than
200k since the net proceeds are the gross minus expenses tied to the sale of
the first house. Let's say 180k. After divorce, what should the ex-wife get
(if anything) and why?

And half time with the kids.

Fred did nothing illegal or physically damaging to the other person
and so should not be punished, in the legal sense. While he is a
scumbag, he is her scumbag and she needs to deal with the new
situation that life has presented to her. not too difficult now that
she is sitting on half a mil.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:16:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:54:37 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:23:38 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
om...
I have never posted before and just recently started reading the posts
on this newsgroup. After "thinking out loud" with another divorced
dad, I have come to what i believe is a purely logical and fair
position on this whole situation. I realize that it may be purely
philosophical and so I would appreciate any feedback that people might
offer.

snip
.

5) the argument that one person sacrificed to stay home full time and
"look after the kids" is not valid and an insult to the children.
that decision was agreed to by both spouses and made the most sense at
the time. Times change and someone has decided to change the
relationship. Responsibility comes with that decision, the
resonsibility to be self-sufficient.

OK, let me get this straight. Fred and Wilma meet in college, become
engaged and eventually marry. She works as a receptionist to pay his
way
through medical school. She works while he gets his medical practice
off
the ground. When his practice is flourishing, they decide to have
children,
and together they decide that they do not want their precious children
raised in child care--he is now making sufficient money to give them all
a
good life. She should stay home and care for the home and children.
For
the next 20 years, she does just that. When 3 out of their 5 children
are
out of high school/ attending college, he falls for Betsy Bigboobs, a
sweet
young thang that flatters his ego and rubs his crotch. He comes home
and
tells Wilma that it's over, and he moves in with Betsy. Wilma is 47
years
old and has not worked outside the home for 20 years, but has done what
they
mutually agreed upon. SHE does not want the marriage to end--only he
(and
Betsy Bigboobs) does. SHE should be left having to seek a minimum wage
job,
and live in desparate poverty whild HE enjoys what both of them worked
together for? After she put him through medical school, so he could
earn
that big salary? After she kept the agreement that both of them made?
How
do you justify that?


Interesting response - I suppose I was looking for a general
reflection on my overall presentation rather than an examination of a
specific case. Specific cases can always be put forth to deny the
validity of a general proposition, however, it is what it is. I don't
seek to justify. I simply seek input to make some notions gel so ...
thank you.

In this time of "no fault divorce' which I don't necessarily agree
with, Fred has clearly benefited career-wise from being able to attend
school while they agreed that Wilma work and support him through
school. While in medical practice, Wilma clearly benefited by the
mutual decision of being able to stay at home and raise the children
without the burden of financially supporting herself. She enjoyed
some wonderful advantages during the 20 years that she was at home.
No rent, a great opportunity to be deeply involved with the children,
food, freedom to buy what she wanted, a nice home, great investments,
the opportunity for educational and career advancement (her decision
not take advantage of personal growth opportunities), involement in
school and social relationships, a warm cocoon of security, etc.

There is no "should" regarding who, if anyone, stays home to raise the
kids. It was a mutual decision. Each party is free to object to each
arrangement. Also keeping in mind that she was only truly needed at
home until the youngest was in grade one - after that - what is she
doing all day? They probably have a house-keeper come in once a week
to clean and keep order. She has a great deal of time to pursue many
interests, so why does she not use some of that time to further her
education or get a job? Does she believe that she is on holiday or
retired? Now that her services are no longer required to such a great
degree by the children, why does she not take it upon herself to do
something outside of the home, perhaps to financially support the
home, get extra money for vacations, renovations,etc. while at the
same time making valuable social and career contacts? - Again,
taking responsibility for one's decisions. Why should someone else be
responsible for the consequences of her decision not to make some use
of the 6 hours every day that the kids are at school? No judgement,
simply a reflection based on her decision not to further her career
and education when she had the opportunity.

The Marriage breaks down, "no fault" although he is obviously
responsible. Regardless, her list of responsibilities now change.
They are both responsible for caring for the children half-time and
covering all expenses 50-50, including university ( although the kids
should be covering this as much as possible). Both Wilma and Fred
have spent the last 20 years doing what they wanted, as agreed to by
the other spouse. They split - She must now become more responsible
for the duties/income that were previously provided by her husband.
keeping in mind that she is walking away with half of the house value
and half of the investments. after 20 years married to a doctor, I am
sure that 500,000 is not out of the question. she now has the time,
and opportunity to improve her education and find employment. even if
she only got 50,000 she could go without a job for at least a year.
She's college educated - what's required for upgrading skills?

I understand that Fred benefited from her sacrifice early in the
marriage and for the 20 years that she stayed at home. I understand
that Wilma benefited from this as well. They both also benefited
from his sacrifice at school and during the 20 years that he provided
the family income. Looks like a lot of mutual decisions and mutual
benefit.

So the point remains, they both benefited from the marriage. The
children end up seeing each parent half time. She walks away with
half of the assets to continue her life as she decides. She doesn't
need him. She is independent and free to follow her life path.

What power!

Notice that, with my model, there are no lawyers, courts, bias,
fighting etc. I know that people have enough on their plates
processing the loss that comes with separation without having on-going
and expensive legal battles. The kids ultimately benefit. ( if the
parents act respectfully and responsibly)

That was fun - Any more?

Absolutely. My mother was a stay at home mom for all 8 of her children.
She worked as hard as my father ever did, volunteering in our classrooms,
chaperoning field trips, plus chauffeuring all 8 of us to our respective
activities on top of all the house work--no maid for us. My father was
the
breadwinner. When I got to college and had stars in my eyes over some
now-long-forgotten guy, my dad warned me that I'd better make sure that I
had a career that would support me, and not be totally dependent on some
gut
to do it. I thought, at first, that he resented my mom being dependent on
him, and never developing a career of her own. Turns out, though, that he
had just been diagnosed with heart problems, and was terribly worried of
what would become of Mom if he were suddenly no longer there. We lost him
4
months after their 50th wedding anniversary. I cannot imagine either one
of
them feeling, throughout their marriage, that the other had the gravy part
of their marriage. I cannot imagine either one feeling that he/she was
stuck with more work/ responsibility than the other. Being a SAH mom is
not
a rent-free, all-luxuries-included free ride. It is just as much work as
both partners working outside the home, and sharing the housework 50/50.
I
don't understand why the "paycheck" person is considered to be working,
while the stay-at-home is considered to be vacationing.

As for the scenario I mentioned, don't you feel that Fred now owes Wilma a
career, and should work and pay all her expenses, just as she did while he
attended school? That seems fair to me. She did it for him--now he can
do
the same for her.

In general, though, I think 50/50 default custody is the way to go. Take
away the financial incentives to break up a marriage, and more marriages
might last 50 years. And if the system were set up so you "counseled and
mediated" you way into divorce, that would be a vast improvement over
grabbing a lawyer and coming out swinging. I just don't think that SAH
moms
from long term marriages should be dumped like garbage on the side of the
road while dad rides off on a newer model.

I agree with your point that SAH moms (or some dads i know) have an
equally necessarily and valid position in the marriage as the
paycheque person. I also know that many SAH moms have a lot of time
on their hands - this coming from my SAH mother with 6 kids. That is
partially the reason that many women seek work outside of the home.
Really, if she decides to stay at home, all the husband can really do
is agree and support her. He cannot make her get a job

My mom was educated and degreed as a teacher of nurses quite radical
for a woman of the early 50's. She was fully independent and ready to
support herself for her lifetime when dad came along. She did work
outside the home for a month here and there - I think mostly to get
some outside social contact. If their marriage ended or if he died
she was ready to support herself through her own decision to educate
herself and not be fully reliant on the inicome of her husband. Other
people don't decide this and need to experience the consequences of
their decisions.

I don't believe that Fred Owes Wilma anything and that Wilma deserves
anything other than she had when she entered the marriage and what she
benefited form participation in the marriage - ie - half of the
assets. Consider that, had they not both agreed to the decisions that
they made, neither would have benefited so greatly form the marriage
in both financial and non-financiel ways. she had the opportunity to
educate herself during the 20 yearts but decided to continue to be
fully reliant on her husband - that is not taking responsibility for
her life. She wants to continue not taking responsibility by saying
that he "owes" her for years of sacrifice - nonsense! - they both
sacrificed and both benefited.

also, He provided her the opportunity for at least 10 years as the
kids were growing to get an education - she decides not to take
advantage of this, why should he "owe" her anything. They are
separated, she sucks spousal and shild (another word for spousal)
support from him and continues to not take responsibility for her
life. If there was no support payments from him she would be forced
to better/educate/employ herself - or not. Again it is her decision.

here's another idea to consider - she worked and supported him thru
school for a couple of years - as a result of that, he worked and
supported her thru 20 years of marriage. - i think she won the better
end of that deal. again, she was the paycheque person while he was at
med school - a mutual decision and both benefited from what each was
doing. Later, he became the paycheque person while she stayed at
home. again, a mutual decision and both benefited each was doing.

I agree that anyone from a long- term or any- term marriage should be
dumped like garbage - that diisrepspectful to the other person, and
the vows that were taken. I do not believe that one person should be
punished for that,. Cearly, the courts don't either or they would not
believe in 'no fault' divorce.

Hmm - that brings up another interesting question - If a person is
clearly responsible for the breakup of a marriage - should they be
somewhow penalized or should the whole situation just be explained by
human nature, let the split happen and get on with their lives - a
discussion for another time

I guess what is really frustrating me about your attitude is your idea that
each person made individual decisions, rather that the 2 of them together
made *a decision* that he wpuld be the breadwinner, and she would be the
house/children manager. It was not 2 individuals making individual
decisions, but a married couple making a joint decision. Perhaps they did
discuss the idea of her returning to school or work, but decided together
that it was better for the children/family for her to be at home. You talk
as if she frittered away countless hours while the children were in school
and hubby was working without concern for her future. Is there no place in
your thinking for a joint decision? Or do you think everyone should enter
into marriage with the thought that the person they are marrying could
possibly be a world class jerk, so they should build up defenses just in
case?

I don't really look at it as "Attitude" just bouncing ideas around.

I completely agree with you. and add - Individual desires lead to
joint decisions to accommodate the wishes of each party. It has to be
a joint decision or there is no growth, only stagnation.

You are right - maybe they did decide that she stay at home. However,
she is the driving force of that decision. If she truly wanted to
work outside of the home, the couple would be required to make
adjustments to accommodate that, eg. him dong more of the driving for
the kids, or shopping, or working less hours, etc., her providing
suplemental income, etc. I still maintain that after the youngest is
in grade 4 or 5, there is not much parenting that the SAH person needs
to do. Sure, there are the tasks involved with running a house and
preparing meals, if she is responsible, but there are alot more free
hours in the day. She essentially decides what happens with those
hours and he essentially agrees. another joint decision.

I believe that marriage is all about joint decisions and individual
responsibility. it is about communication so that the wishes of each
person can be addressed and accommodated. It is about respect for the
relationship and the integrity to abide by the vows or promises made.
It is about personal respect so that you make sure your feelings are
known and somehow accommodated. I don't like equality, Where everyone
gets the same thing. I prefer Fairness, where people get what they
need. I also don't like compromise, where everyone ends up a loser.
I prefer needs-based discussion, where everyone gets what they need
without another person losing anything.

to your last question - I believe that people need to be continually
growing and learning. It is a recognition of self-worth and
self-respect. If Wilma had done that, she would have seen that her
world is more than staying at home and providing for her family,
especially when her family no longer needs her to the same degree.
She has dreams and aspirations, Interests and needs. Physical,
social, career, relationship, education, presonal interest and growth,
travel, spirituality, etc, are all areas of life that she may like to
explore. Having done all that, when fred does as fred did, she has
some other pillars to hold her up. it's not about defences, it's
about personal growth and initiative, especially when the opportunity
presents itself. that is a much stronger position in life rather than
placing all of your eggs in the basket of ANYONE else behaving
properly forever. It leads to a more self-reliant, strong, and
independant preson. She was college educated, she might have heard
some of this before.

He took advantage of his opportunities while she was working. She did
not take advantage of her opportunities while he was working.

They both benefitted equally from the joint decisions made during the
marriage. When the marriage ends, they both benefit equally from the
assets of the marriage. no more money needs to change hands, except
whre one party has additional expenses due to additional expenses
brough on by having the kids substantially more than the other party -
like 75%. I can't see that happening in this case. also, she is
walking away with a fortune from half of the assets.