Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19802
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I take responsibility for my decision, but that doesn't mean I should not get some support at least till I can stand on my feet.
---> I am not against spousal support and/or alimony, but it has to be balanced.
And how about custody? I am a good dad by any standard. Do I deserve to be the primary custodian because I have been the main attachment figure and have stronger bond with the kid?
---> No. Think of it this way...should your STBX get the larger share of the assets because she was the breakwinner?
I do appreciate your tough responses sometimes, I am here for a reality check not be cuddled.
---> LOL...you definately won't get cuddled by me. ;)
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19802
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I'm a little confused, Gecko. If you believe you are 100% responsible for the choices you've made, then why did you accept SS?
---> I never said I was 100% responsible.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Susanf31
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 10630
|
|
fisrt you say this:---> I'm not dismissive or belittling...I just believe in accepting responsibility for one's choices.
Then you say that you aren't 100% responsible. So do you or do you not accept 100% responsibility for your choices?
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19802
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
fisrt you say this:---> I'm not dismissive or belittling...I just believe in accepting responsibility for one's choices.
Then you say that you aren't 100% responsible. So do you or do you not accept 100% responsibility for your choices?
---> Huh? The choice to be a SAHP is a JOINT decision...one can be held responsible for one's contribution to that decison without being held responsible for the whole decision.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Man
recently joined
Reged: 04/13/07
Posts: 24
|
|
Gecko says "LOL...you definately won't get cuddled by me. ;)"
You broke my heart, why so cruel:-)
|
Man
recently joined
Reged: 04/13/07
Posts: 24
|
|
How much is a housewife worth?
Laura Barton
Thursday March 8, 2007
Guardian
It was in her 1964 book Sixpence in Her Shoe that Phyllis McGinley observed
that to be a housewife is "sometimes an ungrateful job if it is looked on
only as a job. Regarded as a profession, it is the noblest as it is the most
ancient of the catalogue. Let none persuade us differently or the world is
lost indeed."
John Charman might bear this in mind if he is to reach even a vague
understanding of what it is to be a housewife. A self-made insurance tycoon
worth £131m, Charman and his wife Beverley began divorce proceedings in
2004, after 27 years of marriage. Last year, the high court decided that Mrs
Charman was worth £48m (37% of the couple's assets). Mr Charman this week
appealed that she is deserving of only £20m, with his legal representatives
pointedly referring to her as a "housewife". The decision, he argued,
"failed to have proper regard for the contribution I made by being the only
one to create the wealth".
Really? More than a decade ago, a report by the US Bureau of Labor
Statistics stated that to employ all the cooks, cleaners, chauffeurs and
nannies needed to meet a housewife's annual contribution to the home would
cost $120,900 (£62,590). A fair settlement would also take into account a
woman's loss of earnings from the career she abandoned - Mrs Charman, for
example, was a civil servant. It is also arguable that Mrs Charman's
financial worth is greater still, as without her contribution to the
household, her husband could not have pursued his immense fortune.
"This is a very unusual case," says Katherine Rake of the Fawcett Society,
which campaigns for gender equality, "so we wouldn't comment specifically on
it, but we would say that divorce has a negative impact on women's economic
circumstances that lasts much longer than it does for men."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Dueling British articles :
British judge strikes blow to alimony
Posted on April 14, 2007
from Staff Reports
A British judge has ruled ex-husbands can not be expected to compensate their ex-wives for future earnings.
The judge ruled in England, which is known for favoring women in divorce proceedings, that a baker identified as Mr. H does not have to give Mrs. H a share of his future earnings after their divorce, The Times of London reported Saturday.
Mrs. H, who was awarded nearly $26 million in cash and assets in the divorce, argued she should also be entitled to a share of her ex-husband's future profits after their marriage fell apart due to his infidelity. She gave up her career as a teacher after their marriage to raise the couple's children.
"This is not a case in which the wife gave up a career that was likely to provide substantial income or monetary reward," the judge said. "She was a teacher."
The judge said Mrs. H's contribution to her husband's status as a high earner was small.
"His high level of income is primarily based on his talents, hard work and good fortune in pursuing his career," he said.
Copyright Market-Day.net/United Press Intl
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
To answer your original questions ( my my how diverting the arguments have been ) , you can request alimony base on your STBX's current ( not future ) income :
(1) In every action brought, either for a divorce or for a separation, the court may require either party to pay alimony for the suitable maintenance of the adverse party, to pay such sums as shall be deemed proper and necessary to conserve any real or personal property owned by the parties or either of them, and to pay any sums necessary to enable the adverse party to carry on or defend the action, during its pendency. It may award costs against either party and award execution for the same, or it may direct such costs to be paid out of any property sequestered, or in the power of the court, or in the hands of a receiver.
You should also be aware of Michigan's rather unique 100 mile rule :
722.31 Legal residence change of child whose parental custody governed by court order.
Sec. 11.
(1) A child whose parental custody is governed by court order has, for the purposes of this section, a legal residence with each parent. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a parent of a child whose custody is governed by court order shall not change a legal residence of the child to a location that is more than 100 miles from the child's legal residence at the time of the commencement of the action in which the order is issued.
(2) A parent's change of a child's legal residence is not restricted by subsection (1) if the other parent consents to, or if the court, after complying with subsection (4), permits, the residence change. This section does not apply if the order governing the child's custody grants sole legal custody to 1 of the child's parents.
(3) This section does not apply if, at the time of the commencement of the action in which the custody order is issued, the child's 2 residences were more than 100 miles apart. This section does not apply if the legal residence change results in the child's 2 legal residences being closer to each other than before the change.
(4) Before permitting a legal residence change otherwise restricted by subsection (1), the court shall consider each of the following factors, with the child as the primary focus in the court's deliberations:
(a) Whether the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent.
(b) The degree to which each parent has complied with, and utilized his or her time under, a court order governing parenting time with the child, and whether the parent's plan to change the child's legal residence is inspired by that parent's desire to defeat or frustrate the parenting time schedule.
(c) The degree to which the court is satisfied that, if the court permits the legal residence change, it is possible to order a modification of the parenting time schedule and other arrangements governing the child's schedule in a manner that can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship between the child and each parent; and whether each parent is likely to comply with the modification.
(d) The extent to which the parent opposing the legal residence change is motivated by a desire to secure a financial advantage with respect to a support obligation.
(e) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.
(5) Each order determining or modifying custody or parenting time of a child shall include a provision stating the parent's agreement as to how a change in either of the child's legal residences will be handled. If such a provision is included in the order and a child's legal residence change is done in compliance with that provision, this section does not apply. If the parents do not agree on such a provision, the court shall include in the order the following provision: “A parent whose custody or parenting time of a child is governed by this order shall not change the legal residence of the child except in compliance with section 11 of the “Child Custody Act of 1970”, 1970 PA 91, MCL 722.31.”.
(6) If this section applies to a change of a child's legal residence and the parent seeking to change that legal residence needs to seek a safe location from the threat of domestic violence, the parent may move to such a location with the child until the court makes a determination under this section.
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"More than a decade ago, a report by the US Bureau of Labor
Statistics stated that to employ all the cooks, cleaners, chauffeurs and
nannies needed to meet a housewife's annual contribution to the home would
cost $120,900 (£62,590). A fair settlement would also take into account a
woman's loss of earnings from the career she abandoned "
If you want the PAY for those positions, you cannot also then ask for lost earnings.
BTW, the "number" they come up with is the cost of PROFESSIONALS. For example, my wife drives the kids to ball games, school, etc. But a professional driver requires a CDL, she does not.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
..that the wage earner is supposed to keep paying the lower wage earner, so he/she can get back on their feet, ei have the ability to earn more money, yet the SAHP is not required todo the thing THEY did.
I would love to see THIS kind of divorce settlement:
"Mr. Smith, you will pay, in spousal support, $X of dollars, for X amount of time, in order to give your ex spouse time to learn a new trade, or advance in the workforce.
Mrs. Smith, YOU will go to your ex husbands house, and clean it, do the laudry, and cook three meals a week, for X amount of time, in order to give your ex spouse a chance to learn to do these tasks on his own..."
Wouldn't THAT be TRULY fair?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
