Enough already

[Pursuinghappiness]

Looking at the jobs that were accreditted to stay at home parents, I cannot agree with some of them:

Its one article..there are a hundred more you can google if interested.

My point remains.

[HammerDad]

Its one article..there are a hundred more you can google if interested.

My point remains.

I've read more then a few in my day and others are much more accurate. I can't seem to find the one I read that was substantially more appropriate (IMO) which put the $$ figure in the $40-$45k mark. Why I found it more accurate? It was it proportioned the amount of time spent on each "job" and allocated that job the market rate for it.

So, ECE/daycare worker was the largest job in comparisson to the others. Followed by housekeeper. Then cab driver. Then line cook. The proportion for the day was something like:

24 hour day:

9-10 hours as daycare worker
1-2 hours housekeeper
1-2 hours cab driver/courier
1-2 hours line cook

It also spoke to other studies that, if you added up all the hours that they were allocating to each job, it worked out to over 100% of the ENTIRE day (as in crediting them 30 hours worked per day).

In no way will I suggest that a SAHP's job is easy. But I do think there is a recent affection for exagerating the duties of the role.

[LostFather]

Hey before writing insulting messages at least make an effort to read what was that about ...

As for "The price of a mom: $138,095". Shold court use it as amount to impute income?

Lmfao! I stayed home all day and worked evenings..ex was home with the kids for 2-3 hrs before throwing them into bed. When I got home from work. I did all the feedings diaper changes throughout the night and then started my day all over again at 7-7:30am.

Looking after my children was a pleasure and any woman who complains about having to stay home and doesn't have to work on top that.....get over yourself...cats out of the bag. Looking after children...I raised two....is not that difficult at all! It certainly has its moments but compared to going to work everyday...at a real job...labour...you should not only be grateful but honored to be able to stay home and raise your children.

and yes...impute that as income lol.

[Pursuinghappiness]

...you should not only be grateful but honored to be able to stay home and raise your children.

What woman or man suggested that raising children isn't something to be grateful for? As a full-time working professional, I'm also grateful and honored to have a job. Sometimes when I'm not busy at work, my job is very easy. I have luncheons, talks with coworkers, etc. I've had days at work where I can't breathe i'm so busy and days where I do very little. What's your point?

My point is that I get paid for my job outside of my home. Stay at home parents provide a familial service that is often done to ease the burden on the family with regarding to home and child care and they don't get paid. They also have the consquence of being out of the workforce which affects senority, retirement pay, benefit pay, job experience, future job status, etc.

During divorce spousal support often helps the spouse that made that sacrifice for the family by equiling out the assets that the other spouse was able to gain due to this arrangement. In that instance, spousal support is relevant and appropriate as I stated in my very first topic post.

[Pursuinghappiness]

And by the way, I would also have no issue with using an income of a SAHP in divorce, if the ex-spouse gave a paycheck to the SAHP during the marriage...but a lot of spouses think they can exploit the contributions of one spouse for career gain during the marriage with no impact to them in divorce. Luckily spousal support helps protect against that.

[WorkingDAD]

And by the way, I would also have no issue with using an income of a SAHP in divorce, if the ex-spouse gave a paycheck to the SAHP during the marriage...but a lot of spouses think they can exploit the contributions of one spouse for career gain during the marriage with no impact to them in divorce. Luckily spousal support helps protect against that.

what about paying for everything while other parent "stay-home" ? Would you consider this as form of pay check? Divide cost of living buy two and here is your pay check..

Or it's not count? right? It's not contribution from other spouse right? I wonder what would be your position on that...

[mcdreamy]

what about paying for everything while other parent "stay-home" ? Would you consider this as form of pay check? Divide cost of living buy two and here is your pay check..

Or it's not count? right? It's not contribution from other spouse right? I wonder what would be your position on that...

umm. no. Paying for everything? It would seem apparent that you aren't paying for daycare, laundry services, etc., or do you fail to grasp that concept?

I find this thread kinda humorous. I'm going for SS, and I'll get a fair chunk of it as well. I actually did sacrifice my career plan, because he wanted a warm dinner at night as well as have me work for him. His ideal.

(oh btw, littleman, workingdad and shellshocked, he's also pretty fooked on child support - and he's not the bio dad.. am I blowing your mind yet?)

[WorkingDAD]

umm. no. Paying for everything? It would seem apparent that you aren't paying for daycare, laundry services, etc., or do you fail to grasp that concept?

I do not see where I fail to grasp concept. Concept pretty much simple. When you stay home and lets say take care about household and (or) kids you already get compensation in all what provided to you by other spouse (housing, food, clothes, entertainments an so on so on). some may say compensations like that do not meet contribution. But in any case at very least this should be considered. What is wrong with that?

I find this thread kinda humorous. I'm going for SS, and I'll get a fair chunk of it as well.

Nothing humorous in this tread... Long term consequences for that "entitlement generation" will be not good

I actually did sacrifice my career plan, because he wanted a warm dinner at night as well as have me work for him. His ideal.

that was not only his but yours deal too. You did angry to that right? why don't you take part of your responsibility on that to? Or may be it hard to accept to you that it was convenient for you too? Can you honestly tell for your self tat you did not wanted that and try really hard to avoid it and move with your carrier ?

(oh btw, littleman, workingdad and shellshocked, he's also pretty fooked on child support - and he's not the bio dad.. am I blowing your mind yet?)

It is sad that you feel proud of yourself about that. Do you really believe that that will make you happy? You are for the big disappointment in a future. Trust me.

I do not want to ruing your sweet dream but it's not done deal so I would suggest you to direct at least some of your energy toward get yourself self efficient and not dependable on somebody... And as for CS from non-bio parent you better make sure you did pursue bio dad first...

[Pursuinghappiness]

BINGO!!!!

McDreamy's post is exactly my point. See how this works??? You have a partner at home who's contributions to the marriage go unappreciated, unfunded, and unacknowledged. You treat your SAHP spouse like they should lick your shoes and be grateful to take care of you and the kids and clean the house and miss the point that they're providing an important, essential service to your family that you'd have to find logistical and financial services to help with otherwise:

Spouse A: "YOU DO NOTHING BUT SIT AROUND ALL YOUR ASS ALL DAY EATING BONBONS!...blah, blah, blah"

Spouse B: "I TAKE CARE OF THESE KIDS AND THE HOUSE ALL DAY WHILE YOU ARE ABLE TO GET OUT AND HAVE A CAREER...blah, blah, blah"


They get tired of it, they get resentful...helps lead to a divorce...and guess what happens? The system is designed to escalate the conflict. Lawyers on both sides battle that the SAHP does nothing while breadwinner slaves away...while the SAHP shows that the other spouse is too wrapped up in work to bother managing the kids and home.

And guess what comes out of that? Both sides lose...the family loses. Because neither side has been treated fairly, neither spouse has acknowledged and appreciated the value of the other's contribution and divorce is designed to escalate conflict and bankrupt families.

This is why spousal support is necessary in some instances as was my original point, or you will continue this cycle. Spousal support was designed to equalize the contributions made by spouses during the marriage...which is why its usually given for the fraction of the time that the couple was married. It seeks to give the other party a chance to get to school and/or get back in the workforce,etc. Its a fair thing to do.

Its also the same reason that the courts are now trying to have 50/50 parenting. Because the working spouse shouldn't be penalized for working by having their children taken away from them. It, again, is the fair thing to do.

You can't say shared parenting is fair and say spousal support isn't...that's simply a load of crap. And the more you continue this bias, you will continue get screwed in court rather than mediating out FAIR agreements between divorcing couples that protect both of their interests.

So keep it up...but quit bitching that the system isn't fair. The system is just a reflection of the many assholes (like some of the people engaged in this thread) that can't be humane enough to be fair to the spouse they're divorcing.

[billm]

I don't think assigning value to the contributions during a marriage matter in any way - that is the purpose of marriage, to share all things.

Some in this thread are confusing SS with equalization - equalization handles splitting of all asset, including pensions etc, gained during the marriage, so arguing about who worked harder with respect to SS is pointless.

However, I prefer SS to simply be determined by events during the marriage that have limited ones ability to earn a living. Simple. If you both worked for example and took care of kids equally or did not have kids - NO SS! Even IF there is a big difference in incomes. One already lived off the other and gets half of their work efforts in that case, and that should not continue after marriage.

However if there was career damage AND that person makes less money than the other, then SS is fair - though it should be time limited when that damage can be mitigated in a reasonable amount of time. Permanent damage can mean permanent SS, but the fact that the greater income earner shared their greater income during the marriage should offset that damage.

Also, SS must have INCENTIVE built in for the recipient to earn their own living and increase their income - human nature dictates this. This means that SS should DECREASE every year. For it to stay the same and then suddenly stop makes no sense to me if the purpose is to help the person get back into the work force.

[winterwolf7]

Fair would have been wonderful, I was quite willing to split everything 50/50, pay CS and offered SS until the little one was old enough to be in school and she could go to work after only being home 3 years.

Instead she wanted 80% and SS for the rest of her sorry life.

She got 70% and SS for a few years. Her government bailout money plus the money from me means she makes more now than she ever did while her sorry butt was employed.

Fair indeed. She gets 70% of our assets, 55% of my salary, 100% of the baby bonuses and tax breaks, 100% disability money for our son, the car and custody of our son.

What did I get? Debt, poverty, hunger, misery, tortured by CAS. At least I get EOW with my son, though even that was not easy to get.

[billm]

Fair would have been wonderful, I was quite willing to split everything 50/50, pay CS and offered SS until the little one was old enough to be in school and she could go to work after only being home 3 years.

Instead she wanted 80% and SS for the rest of her sorry life.

She got 70% and SS for a few years. Her government bailout money plus the money from me means she makes more now than she ever did while her sorry butt was employed.

Fair indeed. She gets 70% of our assets, 55% of my salary, 100% of the baby bonuses and tax breaks, 100% disability money for our son, the car and custody of our son.

What did I get? Debt, poverty, hunger, misery, tortured by CAS. At least I get EOW with my son, though even that was not easy to get.

Was the order for 70% of the net worth, or 50% and you view it as 70%?

If the order was for 70%, what was the justification?

[winterwolf7]

I settled out of court a week before first case conference when she conceded to at least allow joint legal custody so I could in theory have some say in my son, his schooling and his treatment (he's autistic). He was more important than the money, and the extra 20k she got would easily have been consumed by continuing a trial.

After the first few months of separation her lawyer taught her to think big. Her first financial statement was honest enough, but she changed lawyers and subsequent ones got more and more outlandish, demanding I pay back all the money her family had given us for our matrimonial home. That home was purchased more than a year after we were married and she was entitled to half but not a penny more. However I wasn't willing to go bankrupt by continuing in court. She had no documentation for any of her claims, we asked repeatedly for 9 months but she ignored us.

[winterwolf7]

Basically she snowed me, took the 70% then got in touch with CAS to ruin the rest of my life. Have not recovered yet, and continue to hemorrhage money fighting CAS.

[cashcow4ex]

(oh btw, littleman, workingdad and shellshocked, he's also pretty fooked on child support - and he's not the bio dad.. am I blowing your mind yet?)

Wow .....all I can say is you are one disturbed, vindictive, pathetic individual.

I would wish you a life of misery and unhappiness, but it seems your already there!