Possibility of Spousal Support

[Tayken]

Here is the kicker situation to compare against.

Married partners.
One worked.
One didn't.

Working partner dies suddenly.

No life insurance.

No life time of support. At best the surviving spouse gets welfare. But, statistically speaking the majority go back to work and some how... survive and don't end up on the streets or die of starvation.

Ultimately, there are very few "stay at home parents" and there are even less every year. At one point the concept of "spousal support" will be a historical event that people study as no one will be a "stay at home parent". Especially if inflation keeps on this pace...

Here is a Forbes article that touches on the subject: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajoh...h=3732e7213eca

[pinkHouses]

I didn't ask for sympathy and it is not my situation.
I find it repulsive that one person is indebted in servitude to work for the other for many continuing years (life) while the other does not work at all.
They sure as heck are not being imputed 60K/year.

I have heard of guys working till they were 70+ years while for the previous 15 their ex had no responsibility for work and lived quite the fun life.

That housework or whatever during the marriage is no longer provided and the court puts what monetary value on it?

P.S. My ex didn't sacrifice anything, she simply didn't like her job and quit. I did more parenting and housework than they did.

[rockscan]

There are 3 levels, nothing is written in stone and strict though:

low, mid and high when it comes to spousal support and there are varying ranges in each.
The length of spousal support varies as well.

The worst thing ever is the support for the rest of their life at some level.

It is offensive that anyone would be forced into a lifetime of service to someone else because they were generous enough to let them be a househusband or housewife for 20 years.

It is contradiction to say that a housewife's work has value and so should be compensated but after the marriage this value has no value when it comes to compensating the employed spouse.

And here’s where you lose sympathy. My mom stayed home because my dad was a traveling salesman. Someone had to be there for us until a certain age. As a result, she lost about 15 years in the workforce and necessary training (when she was ready to go back, computers had replaced typewriters). She worked at home on various odd jobs (research, assembly, craft support) but that wasn’t enough to support us. Meanwhile my father’s employment and income increased by 60%. Not to mention he refused to pay child support. Which meant he had to pay a monthly amount until she died. He complained about it all the time including a month after her death which was incredibly painful as she had been seriously ill. I had zero sympathy for him.

Being a “housewife” is not easy. Hell, most of the complaints from people the last 18 months have been about their kids being home. One of you did stay home to keep house which allowed the other to advance in their career. Regardless of who made that decision or why, it isn’t fair to claim you are indentured. Your ex was technically indentured at home. Finding a job after losing several years at home isn’t easy. Whatever their reasons or excuses, many ex’s have the potential of no option of getting a good paying job because of the time lost.

[iona6656]

It is contradiction to say that a housewife's work has value and so should be compensated but after the marriage this value has no value when it comes to compensating the employed spouse.

but isn't there usually a basic income imputed into spousal support?

Also- it's more than just the "housewife's work" - it's the sacrifice that person (male or female) made in furtherance of a family. Often times that person is sacrificing future earning potential if a decision is made that they will be the one to stay at home with the family.

[pinkHouses]

There are 3 levels, nothing is written in stone and strict though:

low, mid and high when it comes to spousal support and there are varying ranges in each.
The length of spousal support varies as well.

The worst thing ever is the support for the rest of their life at some level.

It is offensive that anyone would be forced into a lifetime of service to someone else because they were generous enough to let them be a househusband or housewife for 20 years.

It is contradiction to say that a housewife's work has value and so should be compensated but after the marriage this value has no value when it comes to compensating the employed spouse.

[iona6656]

I want to know too! My lawyer told me no way around spousal support.
How was it your ex was not entitled to it and why was your lawyer so confident?

basically what rockscan said. length of marriage (mine was <5 years); if anyone's career took a hit from the marriage it was mine as I took the year mat leave, turned down a career advancing offer, etc etc....

his income is/was very good. etc. no issue of self-sufficiency.

[ifonlyihadknown]

Yes, I'm an "indentured servant" for an indefinite period of time. I think my only hope is to retire with no savings or pension and hope to be released from bondage.

[rockscan]

Funny, my ex refused to work and had a pattern of quitting jobs but I was told by everyone, including people on this forum, that all this meant was that I agreed to this (I didn't) and therefore was on the hook for support.

Hopefully the OP will have better luck than I did.

You had a “rule of 65” element to your case and she was approaching retirement which made it difficult. In a 25 year marriage where the ex doesn’t work (and probably didn’t work when the kids were young) it’s hard to argue non entitlement.

[ifonlyihadknown]

He would have to prove entitlement and refusing to work or having a pattern of quitting jobs may work against him.

Funny, my ex refused to work and had a pattern of quitting jobs but I was told by everyone, including people on this forum, that all this meant was that I agreed to this (I didn't) and therefore was on the hook for support.

Hopefully the OP will have better luck than I did.

[rockscan]

I want to know too! My lawyer told me no way around spousal support.

Might have been in reference to your case. There are a number of factors that result in spousal support and your case may have had a few. Including length of marriage, income of each party, sacrifices the recipient made to support your career etc.

[pinkHouses]

I want to know too! My lawyer told me no way around spousal support.
How was it your ex was not entitled to it and why was your lawyer so confident?

[iona6656]

I don't think "spouses" should be supporting each other after separation. I am on your side and agree its a silly claim but, until a majority of high income earning women point out the nonsense it will just continue to be nonsense.

I would be curious to see the case law around this if it DOES stick.

For the OP, my ex used the threat of SS against me- I earned almost 2x as much as he did when we separated (155 v. 85) and at a meeting with our lawyers his lawyer tried to make it seem like he was SO benevolent because he wasn't even asking for SS and reserved the right to do so. My lawyer basically laughed in her face. Well, not laughed- but smirked and said "You can certainly try to make that claim". They never did.

Like your ex- they were trying to claim it to offset CS, and as a general bargaining tactic. Didn't work. I wouldn't worry about it for now.

[LMum]

You may not like it but, the "no big deal" argument in response to the sacrifices of a parent staying home with a child rarely ever work.
(

There was never a sacrifice, he qualified for EI (in a way that I wont mention here but you get the idea). He never ever quit his job for me or his child. It was selfish on his part but oddly convenient for us at the time, if that makes any sense.

Trust me, this man has never made one sacrifice for me or our son. It was self motivated and then "used" to make himself look good.

But I understand I may have a fight on my hands. I will leave that up to him and his lawyer to prove it.

[Tayken]

He stayed home for less then one year, my child is 12 years old now. It was only while he was drawing EI and he didn't sacrifice anything for me, or my career. It was more to save money on daycare since he was at home.

Again, this argument has been made by "men" countless times and it didn't stick. It won't stick for you unfortunately. More women need to point out the imbalances in the whacky world of "spousal support".

Even judges have pointed out how whack the SS Guidelines are. Justice Quinn famously said:

[158] I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional).

Funny to point that even Justice Cornell agrees:

At one point, it appeared that I would have no choice but to resort to the use of the dart or Ouija board referred to by Quinn J. in Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII), [2010] O.J. No. 5148 (S.C.).

Suffice to say... The missing magic 8-ball in the equation that judges use to determine SS is never mentioned.

Get ready to have every argument used against a high income earner thrown at you to make their case for SS. It may not stick but, often it does stick. Your counter argument is weak btw but, you said you have a lawyer so they will respond properly to all these claims. You may not like it but, the "no big deal" argument in response to the sacrifices of a parent staying home with a child rarely ever work.

I don't think "spouses" should be supporting each other after separation. I am on your side and agree its a silly claim but, until a majority of high income earning women point out the nonsense it will just continue to be nonsense.

[LMum]

Especially with your admissions that he stayed home with the child. How is this different than any argument that many women make?

He stayed home for less then one year, my child is 12 years old now. It was only while he was drawing EI and he didn't sacrifice anything for me, or my career. It was more to save money on daycare since he was at home.