How long should a couple be together before the wife is entitled to alimony or any other monetarial (sp?) provisions?

Do you count the amount of time they have been together as a whole, the time they have been married, the time they have been living together as one under one roof?

Does the answer differ between couples with kids vs. no kids?

:thinkin Discuss, debate, satisfy my curiosity of picking your brains.

Well my mom receives/received (I say present tense becuase he owes back pay) alimony. In Ohio at the time of their divorce I believe the criteria was that you had to be considered part of a long term marriage. Long term marriage = 15+ years of marriage. They were married for 18 officially at the time of divorce. So she received it for 7 years.

I thought they have pretty much done away with alimony except for certain instances?? I could be wrong :dunno

I like the idea of states setting their own guidelines and then getting lawyers to hash it out.

Frankly, I have a hard time with the idea of alimony because it's a throwback to a patriarchal society in which women depended on men for support.

I don't like the idea of a certain number of years = X number of dollars for Y number of months. They really need to look at how the marriage impacted both partners and any children. Did one parent have a really good job and the other one have to put a career on hold in order to be home with a special needs child? Was there a reasonable expectation of the SAHP going back to school once the kids were in full-time school, thus making themselves marketable?

Spousal support when there are no children? I'm having a hard time seeing why this would be necessary, unless it could be proven that one partner was not allowed to seek employment, or was denied the opportunity for promotion, or had to take a lower-paying position purely because of the other partner.

Seriously- let the lawyers hash it out and advocate for their clients.

I wouldn't want alimony. Child support, yes, because it's both parent's responsibility to financially provide for their children.

But I am an able-bodied, intelligent, ambulatory person who is perfectly capable of providing for myself.

I think general alimony applied to all divorces/couples is ridiculous.

IMHO - the only ties that should bind AFTER a divorce are children and medical issues. Other than children and med issues I see no reason why one spouse should continue to support the other.

I think alimony granted in all non-child/med issue related divorces is old fashioned and dates back to when women were ALWAYS dependent of their husbands. But in this day and age a woman can earn just as much money as any man so there's no reason for it.

Per a time limit - no, no time limit. When you get married it makes everything official. Your "time limit" is your engagement time.

I think general alimony applied to all divorces/couples is ridiculous.

IMHO - the only ties that should bind AFTER a divorce are children and medical issues. Other than children and med issues I see no reason why one spouse should continue to support the other.

I think alimony granted in all non-child/med issue related divorces is old fashioned and dates back to when women were ALWAYS dependent of their husbands. But in this day and age a woman can earn just as much money as any man so there's no reason for it.

Per a time limit - no, no time limit. When you get married it makes everything official. Your "time limit" is your engagement time.
I don't know i think if i spent my good working years taking care of my husband and children only to be starting over at age 30 something there is nothing wrong with reaping the benefit of that. Most employers don't want to hire people who don't have years of experience even with a degree. If you have a big gap in your work experience it doesn't make you a prime candidate for hire.

I don't know i think if i spent my good working years taking care of my husband and children only to be starting over at age 30 something there is nothing wrong with reaping the benefit of that. Most employers don't want to hire people who don't have years of experience even with a degree. If you have a big gap in your work experience it doesn't make you a prime candidate for hire.

AND that should be considered, by all means. That's what i means by one spouse putting a career or education on hold; and that should absolutely be recognized.

Lawyers. Let 'em hash it out.

What I dont get it when i watch court shows on tv is where one person thinks they are entitled to this and that...

I think things like money in the bank should be split if its a joint account.

But i dont agree with the spousal thing with no kids...That is an abled bodied person who can work, thats my opinion.

AND that should be considered, by all means. That's what i means by one spouse putting a career or education on hold; and that should absolutely be recognized.

Lawyers. Let 'em hash it out.

I agree, I think the lawyers should hash it all out. My mom wasn't asking for the alimony but her laywer thought she could get and his lawyer was a dumbass so she got it. She didn't really make more money, I think it was more equal parts BUT she had the more staedy job. My dad and his lawyer were just idiots and he lied about how much he made...for the positive... he owned his own business. So would you refuse it if it was granted to you? I sure as heck wouldn't.

I think wives who have stayed home raising children on the agreement of both husband and wife do deserve some type of alimony till they can get on their own feet.

But I just have a problem with women who have no kids, were barely married and then think they are entitled to anything they want to dig their claws into.

Maybe I am bitter from my divorce and how it went down, but sometimes you just have to leave the money alone and walk away from the marriage. Money is just money it comes and goes and when you die you don't take it with you so why continue to argue bout it :rolleyes

I like the idea of states setting their own guidelines and then getting lawyers to hash it out.

Frankly, I have a hard time with the idea of alimony because it's a throwback to a patriarchal society in which women depended on men for support.

I don't like the idea of a certain number of years = X number of dollars for Y number of months. They really need to look at how the marriage impacted both partners and any children. Did one parent have a really good job and the other one have to put a career on hold in order to be home with a special needs child? Was there a reasonable expectation of the SAHP going back to school once the kids were in full-time school, thus making themselves marketable?

Spousal support when there are no children? I'm having a hard time seeing why this would be necessary, unless it could be proven that one partner was not allowed to seek employment, or was denied the opportunity for promotion, or had to take a lower-paying position purely because of the other partner.

Seriously- let the lawyers hash it out and advocate for their clients.

I agree here. I don't buy alimony for a person with no children... I mean, it would have to be an extreme case really, like they were unable to work or something, physically or mentally. Even in cases where one partner stayed at home, I think the spousal support should last long enough for the partner to obtain gainful employment... they should not be penalized for being the breadwinner in the family setting by being forced to financially support a capable adult.

I think wives who have stayed home raising children on the agreement of both husband and wife do deserve some type of alimony till they can get on their own feet.

But I just have a problem with women who have no kids, were barely married and then think they are entitled to anything they want to dig their claws into.

Maybe I am bitter from my divorce and how it went down, but sometimes you just have to leave the money alone and walk away from the marriage. Money is just money it comes and goes and when you die you don't take it with you so why continue to argue bout it :rolleyes

I agree!

I think wives who have stayed home raising children on the agreement of both husband and wife do deserve some type of alimony till they can get on their own feet.

But I just have a problem with women who have no kids, were barely married and then think they are entitled to anything they want to dig their claws into.

Maybe I am bitter from my divorce and how it went down, but sometimes you just have to leave the money alone and walk away from the marriage. Money is just money it comes and goes and when you die you don't take it with you so why continue to argue bout it :rolleyes
that i tend to agree with i mean if you were married a nano second and it has been less then a year since you were out of work sans children then you don't have an excuse get up and work.

my DH's ex-wife recieved spousal support and they were only married 4.5 years. Wasnt much but she got it.

Alimony is hard to get these days when you DO get it generally it is awarded for half of the mount of the marriage (married one year you get 6 months married 20 years you get 10 years. OR until the spouse getting alimony remarries)

Alimony is hard to get these days when you DO get it generally it is awarded for half of the mount of the marriage (married one year you get 6 months married 20 years you get 10 years. OR until the spouse getting alimony remarries)
in texas you have to be married 10 years before you can even get spousal support.

My friend was married 14 years supported her husband and took care of her child. She picked up and moved every 3-4 years and put her education on hold. He meet some bimbo on the internet and left her for the bimbo. Hell Yeah she should get alimony! Even though she has a job. She could have done better had she not put all her dreams on hold.