Quote:
Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}  The only time I would consider spousal support amenable (in either direction) is if one parent was a stay-at-home parent because the other wanted them to be or they jointly decided one would stay home for the sake of the children. I have known women who gave up their careers in order to stay home with their children at the request of thier husbands and it was difficult for them to re-enter the workforce (especially when they retain majority custody of the children and have to find daycare -- big expense). I also think that the person who initiates the divorce makes a difference. If there is abuse or infidelity on the husband's part and the wife initiates a divorce, I would be more likely to award her spousal support until she is able to get her footing. If the wife initiates a divorce simply because she decides she no longer loves her husband then I don't see why he should continue to support her. If both parties worked I don't think there should be spousal support at all.
Child support is an entirely different matter. I feel that whichever parent has majority custody should receive child support, and that it be a sliding scale based on the involvement of the non-custodial parent. The more you have your kids (as a non-custodial parent) the less you pay. Also I think above a certain wage you don't need child support. In cases where the custodial parent is a high earner and the non-custodial parent either was a stay-at-home or had a part time job while the kids were in school perhaps, they should not have to pay exhorbitant child support. I also think it's dispicable to attempt to get out of paying child support by taking a crap job on purpose.
I am sure I have more opinions...  ...I will be happy to clarify any of my points since I am sure they are clear as mud. |
I kind of get the message of what you're saying but I'll hold you to a few points:
Quote:
Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity} The only time I would consider spousal support amenable (in either direction) is if one parent was a stay-at-home parent because the other wanted them to be or they jointly decided one would stay home for the sake of the children. |
The husband & wife also jointly decided to get married I'm assuming.
If they can break that decision, then you have to assume that you're breaking other decisions you made together and unfortunately there are consequences for that decision. If you break one, technically you shouldn't still receive benefits from a relationship that is no longer in place. A parent that is a stay-at-home parent is still making that decision to stay at home, no one is forced to do anything in this world as evidenced by the decision to divorce. I think if you really want to get rid of the nastiness involved with divorce, you need to seriously consider letting go of the other person financially.