Spousal Support

[oink]

Why is a Mom's job to teach, isn't it a parents job to set examples for their childrem??? Do you live in the dark ages,, ummm don't answer that, your posts are self-explanatory.

Moms and daughters.......see where am going with this? Am sure you have seen and heard stories of the moms letting the daughters getting away with stuff, and as a dad you find yourself boxed into a corner i.e. mother - daughter bond

You actually think any dad will teach their daughter(s) to rely on some guy to feed them, i.e. raising them to feel entitled and potential SS claimants?

"dark ages" has you written all over it if you do

 

[blinkandimgone]

Moms and daughters.......see where am going with this? Am sure you have seen and heard stories of the moms letting the daughters getting away with stuff, and as a dad you find yourself boxed into a corner i.e. mother - daughter bond

You actually think any dad will teach their daughter(s) to rely on some guy to feed them, i.e. raising them to feel entitled and potential SS claimants?

"dark ages" has you written all over it if you do

Happens all the time, thus the expression: "Daddy's little girl..."

 

[DowntroddenDad]

Moms and daughters.......see where am going with this? Am sure you have seen and heard stories of the moms letting the daughters getting away with stuff, and as a dad you find yourself boxed into a corner i.e. mother - daughter bond

You actually think any dad will teach their daughter(s) to rely on some guy to feed them, i.e. raising them to feel entitled and potential SS claimants?

"dark ages" has you written all over it if you do

My experience with the mother/daughter bond is that it isn't as strong as you think. Many teenage girls rebel against their mothers. Mine haven't gone quite that far, but they are telling me about battles they have had with their mom, because they haven't had that issue with their dad. It isn't that I am a permissive dad at all. I've seen similar behaviour in girls who come from well grounded two parent families.

 

[MS Mom]

Are there no men at all that receive spousal support?

The indvidual dynamics of a relationship are so different, I'm not sure that spousal support could be looked at in any other way than individually.

What if the dynamics of the relationship were such that both parties agreed to one staying home throughout the relationship even though they have equivalent education and incomes? These types of agreements are made, yet often completely forgotten when it comes to determining who's entitled to what after splitting.

The entitlement of spousal support should be based on the dynamics of that relationship, the terms by which two parties came together and formed a family at one point.

I wonder if all those that hate paying support and have nasty things to say about the ex's that receive the support all knew that their spouse was uneducated when they chose to marry them?

It's like there's this expectation that people do a 360 and change complely now they're separated. I mean, Oink didn't you know your spouse was uneducated? Didn't her habits, debts, spending patterns, etc, etc, tell you exactly how this person would be after you split? I know it's all utopia in the beginning, but seriously now?? It's like people are surprised by their former partner's lack of education or career pursuits.

 

[blinkandimgone]

A reminder that this thread is not intended to debate gender roles of either payor or payee, or to list all the reasons why spousal support should NOT be paid.

Please reply if you would like to share your opinion on if there are situations where SS should be paid, and what those are.

The rest can be thoroughly debated in the hundreds of other threads devoted to dissing SS and recipients.

Thanks!

 

[FB_]

Are there no men at all that receive spousal support?

The indvidual dynamics of a relationship are so different, I'm not sure that spousal support could be looked at in any other way than individually.

What if the dynamics of the relationship were such that both parties agreed to one staying home throughout the relationship even though they have equivalent education and incomes? These types of agreements are made, yet often completely forgotten when it comes to determining who's entitled to what after splitting.

The entitlement of spousal support should be based on the dynamics of that relationship, the terms by which two parties came together and formed a family at one point.

I wonder if all those that hate paying support and have nasty things to say about the ex's that receive the support all knew that their spouse was uneducated when they chose to marry them?

It's like there's this expectation that people do a 360 and change complely now they're separated. I mean, Oink didn't you know your spouse was uneducated? Didn't her habits, debts, spending patterns, etc, etc, tell you exactly how this person would be after you split? I know it's all utopia in the beginning, but seriously now?? It's like people are surprised by their former partner's lack of education or career pursuits.

The impact of these decisions should be heavily weighed when they are made and the person who decides to stay home (Male or Female) should heavily consider the impact of their future earning potential should the marriage end. People make choices they should live with the consequences. I know people never want to think of the worst case but they really should.

 

[MS Mom]

The impact of these decisions should be heavily weighed when they are made and the person who decides to stay home (Male or Female) should heavily consider the impact of their future earning potential should the marriage end. People make choices they should live with the consequences. I know people never want to think of the worst case but they really should.

And, the person who does stay at home should have that contribution considered when determining spousal support. Presumably the decision was made as a family? If it wasn't - that's the basis for the problem right there.

There seems to be this desire to paint all spousal support receipients with the same brush - and it seems to be a brush with a really ugly colour....and that just isn't fair.

There are many out there that wouldn't have the success in their careers without the ongoing support of their lesser-earning spouses.

There are many out there that married for the completely wrong reasons (there's a crap load of talk about women marrying up, but seems to be little talk of men who marry women purely for appearance, not their intelligence or earning capability). Yet, it's exactly what you bitch about after the split up and spousal support needs to be paid.

 

[FB_]

And, the person who does stay at home should have that contribution considered when determining spousal support. Presumably the decision was made as a family? If it wasn't - that's the basis for the problem right there.

There seems to be this desire to paint all spousal support receipients with the same brush - and it seems to be a brush with a really ugly colour....and that just isn't fair.

There are many out there that wouldn't have the success in their careers without the ongoing support of their lesser-earning spouses.

There are many out there that married for the completely wrong reasons (there's a crap load of talk about women marrying up, but seems to be little talk of men who marry women purely for appearance, not their intelligence or earning capability). Yet, it's exactly what you bitch about after the split up and spousal support needs to be paid.

I look at it the other way. The person making the decision to stay home needs to be responsible for their decision. They should be asking themselves how will this affect me should the marriage end. Will I be able to support myself? There is also nothing stopping the couple to agree that if this decision is made then the party is giving up x potential and spousal support of y should be established. Blindly going through life not taking into account what could reasonably happen is not smart. If it is in fact a family decision than the parties could absolutely agree on support.

 

[shellshocked22]

I find it interesting the posters who comment to the effect of...

"Husband ACCEPTED his wife staying at home with children" and as a result he is obligated to pay SS.

-so if he disagreed with it he should have kicked her to the curb and divorced her at that point ?

-presumably SHE accepted (and wanted ?) to stay at home. Why shouldn't the stay at home mom "accept responsibility" for not going back to work and hustle when she's divorced like everyone else who earns their keep honestly ? Even if the male did insist she stay at home, she could have disagreed and gone back to work.

However, to answer the original question WHEN it IS acceptable to pay SS in my opinion..

a) Max of 3 or 4 years of SS(for longer, say 10 years plus ) marriages to give lower income earner a chance to get back into the work force. It should also be gradually reduced each year to give a financial "incentive" to get a job sooner rather than later....

b) If her spouse had died with little assets or insurance she would be on her own - why is divorce any different ?

c) If the divorce was NOT her idea then I would be somewhat more favourable. If SHE initiated divorce, I don't think she should get it. Same as employment - if you boss fires YOU, then you get severance. If you QUIT, why should your employer pay you.

Bottom line one real reason for SS - or at least a major one - is desire by government to avoid paying any social welfare costs so the system goes after the better earning spouse (generally male) .

People getting married should be warned in the event of divorce little chance of SS. If they don't like it, then dont' get effing married !!!!

 

[billm]

...
The indvidual dynamics of a relationship are so different, I'm not sure that spousal support could be looked at in any other way than individually.

...

I agree but...

I feel the government is moving toward making SSAG law and remove the concept of looking at individual cases much the same as CS (FCSG).

 

[stripes]

I would say SS should be awarded as compensation, where it can be demonstrated that one party sacrificed his/her earning potential for the benefit of the family unit while the marriage was intact, not simply if one party earned less than the other. I think there are some fairly clear markers which could be used to determine sacrifice of earning potential - frequent moves for one spouse's career, one spouse earning a professional credential while supported by the other spouse, one spouse doing the majority of the (unpaid) child care which enabled the other spouse to work longer hours or take advantage of career opportunities, etc. All of this can be documented.

I don't buy the argument made by some payors that their ex chose to be a stay-at-home parent against the other party's will and thus should not receive SS. If your ex was still staying at home after the children were school-aged, and you did nothing about it at the time, you've tacitly agreed to (and possibly benefited from) the situation.

I'd like to see SS explicitly tied to a plan for the receiving party to become economically independent as soon as possible - tied to the tuition-and-books cost of upgrading one's education, perhaps; or covering the costs of getting into the job market. SS should be a form of capital financing for autonomy, not a salary or a reward. As such, I don't think it should be tied to the recipient's marital status, if s/he remarries or lives common-law. SS shouldn't be a substitute for a spouse's income; it should be an investment in the recipient's financial independence.

The lawyer I worked with in my collaborative process (which didn't go too well, but that wasn't her fault) is a very big name in family law jurisprudence. Because I have a research background, she asked me to dig out information about employment rates and wage differentials for a background paper she was writing for the provincial law society about the need for objective and transparent judicial guidelines for SS. In her view, the current situation where judges award payments or lawyers agree on them more or less arbitrarily, sometimes with the help of a blunt instrument like DivorceMate, only leads to bad blood, as payors always think they're paying too much and recipients always think they're not getting enough. A set of objective standards that one could point to and say "that's why spousal support in this case is such-and-such" might not make everyone happy, but it would at least be clear.

That's my two cents.

 

[Learner]

I am no great fan of SS but I know of a couple that recently separated because the husband decided to dump his mid 50's wife for a new woman 20 years younger. The wife hasn't worked in 20 years because the husband wanted her at home with the kids. She definitely is entitled to SS.

 

[MS Mom]

I am no great fan of SS but I know of a couple that recently separated because the husband decided to dump his mid 50's wife for a new woman 20 years younger. The wife hasn't worked in 20 years because the husband wanted her at home with the kids. She definitely is entitled to SS.

Without a doubt.

The new, 20 year younger woman though should not be when they split.

 

[lplp]

I think before marriage ,should be mandatory to see a lawyer as is when marriage is over .
What do you expect in marriage?
Who should work?
Who looks after kids?
Who pays the bills?
What happens if we hate each other ?
What happens with the money on split?



etc etc,,, should be mandatory before marriage ,, not after.. problem solved..

 

[oink]

I think before marriage ,should be mandatory to see a lawyer as is when marriage is over .
What do you expect in marriage?
Who should work?
Who looks after kids?
Who pays the bills?
What happens if we hate each other ?
What happens with the money on split?



etc etc,,, should be mandatory before marriage ,, not after.. problem solved..

Yes ....in an ideal world I agree, but how will lawyers, judges and the govt make money then?

Who pays the bills...like really, what are these people...teenagers?

 

[GoDiegoGo]

It would be nice if ss was only used for some retaining or to give a year or two to find employment. But this would only work if there was a specific cutoff date without any conditions... Whether they finish school, find employment, or not.

Too many people will always try to take advantage of it and still drag it out.

Start school, then decide they would prefer a different course.
Show a couple emails they sent out, and claim no jobs are available.


To be entitled to ss, they should have to show how not only they sacrificed their job, but also how the other parent benefited. They can take a year off each time a child is born, but the ministry of labor already says that year of mat leave still counts as time worked, keeping both parents' employment equal.

 

[takeontheworld]

Yes ....in an ideal world I agree, but how will lawyers, judges and the govt make money then?

Who pays the bills...like really, what are these people...teenagers?

Legalize weed....lawyers and judges be so busy setting up the new law and tax laws and government will profit from the tax they place on it.

 

[oink]

Legalize weed....lawyers and judges be so busy setting up the new law and tax laws and government will profit from the tax they place on it.

Wow...am surprised, does that mean you condone it, and wouldn't have a problem with it if your daughter rolled up a big fat one?

 

[blinkandimgone]

**edited out personal info*

 

[arabian]

Interesting thread. As a recipient of SS I did indeed have to prove entitlement and need. Not difficult whatsoever after 30 yrs of marriage.

There are many, many things that people do not take into consideration when attacking those of us who have been judicially awarded SS.

My ex screwed me over BIG TIME through our business and left me accountable for all of the business debt while he went bankrupt. You might think "well why didn't she go bankrupt as well?" Simple. Bankruptcy laws and BIA will not allow it. Some big changes came down to bankruptcy laws over the past 5 yrs. One big one being - if you are a director in an incorporated business you cannot declare personal bankruptcy. I was screwed.

It gets better.

Family law takes priority over pretty much anything else.

So the only way I could receive a dime from my ex was through SS.

Before you go pissing on me, please know that I am a hard-working individual. I do not live an easy life. My ex has taken me to court over 6 times to try to have the divorce judgment overturned. I was successful each and every time. However, I have substantial legal bills.

I am in my late 50's. I have lost all of my personal inheritance and life savings. My ex is living well. He successfully moved our money to places unknown.

30 yrs of marriage. Had I known I certainly would have ended the marriage decades ago.

This is a condensed version of my story by the way. I am sure there are others out there like me.

I am all for women being independent. I was independent and I am still independent. I am simply trying to recoup some of my losses. I realize that my situation is likely impossible in some regards.

I most certainly will continue to do everything within my power to collect any money that is due to me.