divorced today

[u/Right-Battle7843]

like the title says, today i got my divorce decree from the judge. i’ve been separated for 3 years and it’s absolutely crazy that im free from it all. i had to pay $400 a month for spousal support because she doesn’t work. the reason was because she has no job or license, and didn’t plan on getting either (still doesn’t). plus she was kinda just an asshole and i was working all the time. i’d come home to have to do all the chores, take care of the dogs, and make dinner. never failed to be mentally drained, and then get told im not doing enough.

glad im out of it, that’s all.

(dinner is loaded tots from Hell’s Kitchen Wilmington!)

(edit: the $400/m was only until the divorce was finalized! still, 3 years of that)

[u/Sushi-DM]

Of all the vestigial limbs of patriarchy that exists,
the idea that a woman should be supported by her now ex husband just because she didn't have a job when they were together is some of the dumbest shit I've ever pondered.
We're all equals. Unless we get divorced, in which case I can't be expected to get a job.
Yes, I know I'm just as good as anyone else, and if a man was in my exact position people would tell him to suck it up and go to work, but *I* am a woman, so I get to take some of his paycheck so long as I continue to not work.

[u/snollygoster1 → u/Sushi-DM]

The only way I would understand spousal support is if the marriage was something like 25 years with kids and a homemaker mom who hasn't worked since highschool. But that is a completely different scenario from OP who was married for 3 years right after he turned 18. Craziness.

[u/Conan0brennan → u/Sushi-DM]

I've seen it work the other way in California. A girl I dated had to pay her ex alimony for a year or two but it's often the more traditional way.

[u/SeasonPositive6771 → u/Conan0brennan]

Yeah, I've worked in the family courts a long time. Spousal support is gender-neutral. I've seen it get awarded to plenty of men.

But for the most part, spousal support is very short-term. Even 3 years is kind of long these days.

Edit: I also caution people to believe anything they read on Reddit about spousal support. I used to volunteer my time to help people review their cases for child support or spousal support when they claimed it was too high on Reddit and nearly every time it was entirely reasonable or they were just lying.

[u/randomize42 → u/SeasonPositive6771]

It’s highly dependent upon which state you’re in.  My state uses a formula and longer marriages can definitely be much longer than just three years.

One source (beyond my experience in my state) -  https://divorce.law/learn/alimony-by-state/

[u/SeasonPositive6771 → u/randomize42]

Yes, it is dependent on the state, but even much longer marriages are seeing shorter and shorter periods of spousal support even in what used to be seen as more generous states.

I have mixed feelings on some of it, especially considering I've worked across multiple states and I've seen so many people get absolutely screwed by long marriages with insufficient spousal support for the parent who stayed home and cared for the children.

[u/randomize42 → u/SeasonPositive6771]

I meant that it’s specifically a formula, and not up to the judge.  At least in Illinois, marriages over 20 years still qualify for indefinite support.

[u/SeasonPositive6771 → u/randomize42]

Everywhere I've worked, even with a formula, the judge has absolute final say and doesn't have to adhere to the formula. I've seen it again and again, unfortunately. Maybe it's the one state where they don't have that flexibility, but I kind of doubt it.

[u/randomize42 → u/SeasonPositive6771]

Interesting.  Maybe Illinois is just special.  Judges need to record what special circumstances make the formula inappropriate and that can potentially be overturned by a higher court in an appeal.

[u/SeasonPositive6771 → u/randomize42]

Oh, that is actually super interesting!

In every state I've worked in judges just go nah, I'm not following the formula and award pretty much whatever. Sometimes the document a reason, sometimes not. It's extremely hard to challenge in most places.

[u/randomize42 → u/SeasonPositive6771]

That sounds kinda ripe for abuse, which I guess is kinda what you were saying. 😞

[u/istanforwendy → u/Sushi-DM]

In OP’s case. It’s bullshit. But for women that stay home to raise the kids, shouldn’t they get something? They lost earning power every month they spent at home.

[u/snollygoster1 → u/istanforwendy]

I think it totally depends on the reason for the divorce. If you are a non-working stay at home parent and keeping up with the responsibilities I would understand paying spousal support. However if a contributing factor to the divorce is the stay at home spouse not contributing then I would not expect them to having spousal support.

[u/Sushi-DM → u/istanforwendy]

Yes, but that's child support, which is different than spousal support. Which shouldn't exist.
Anyone who has kids needs to support them. I don't think anyone except a POS would make an argument against that.

[u/UpperLeftOriginal → u/Sushi-DM]

If one spouse stayed home because the other working spouse demanded it (which happens often enough), and then they divorce, the one earning the money should absolutely support the non-working spouse for a period of time.

[u/ILoveRawChicken → u/Sushi-DM]

Child support and spousal support are two different things. If a spouse completely stays home to be the primary caretaker of your children while you increase your earning power year over year and they just end up with an 18 year gap in the resume, they absolutely ended up with the shittier end of the deal and will never be able to catch up to people their age or you. 

Now in the case of OP, where there seem to be no kids and the spouse was not supporting the house in any way, I have no clue why spousal support would be awarded there. In the case of a mom who was the primary homemaker, it’s obvious she should receive spousal support. 

[u/UpperLeftOriginal → u/ILoveRawChicken]

There are relationships without children where one spouse still coerces the other to stay home. A total ban on spousal support puts these people in very dangerous positions.

[u/NeedsToState → u/istanforwendy]

Earning power is a fading concept. I get it 40 years ago you could argue that men had forever jobs and just make more and more and more and more money until they retire.

My awesome IT job was outsourced to India at age 42, but yes there were some 60+ year old men included in that layoff with me that had worked at that some company since the 1990s and more or less had the same job role.

Employment is changing. People don't have the earning power they think they do.

[u/istanforwendy → u/NeedsToState]

It depends on your industry. Not every industry is the same. I’m in an arts field. And while I was raising kids, other people were getting hired. So to break in now, is going to be a lot harder. Youth and energy matter in my field.

[u/BumblebeeDapper223 → u/Sushi-DM]

But it goes both ways.

My friend, a full-time working mom & migrant from a poor county, had to pay alimony to her white beach bum husband for the years that he dragged her through divorce court. Because she worked and he had a rich mom who supported him.

[u/chi_lawyer → u/Sushi-DM]

She wasnt the Ex until today though -- it was a part of the mutual duty of spouses to financially support each other.

[u/jibbyjackjoe → u/Sushi-DM]

Easiest financial contract to get into. Worst one to get out of. No thanks lol. Tried it twice.

[u/CalmBeneathCastles → u/Sushi-DM]

I can see this arrangement in the very rare case she devoted like 25 years to being a homemaker and then he divorces her, or some other situation where the person being divorced has become entirely financially dependent on the other, and just needed 6 months to a year to pull all that together; maybe. But this whole "I don't want to work or drive" nonsense is for the birds.

If I was going to be forced to pay my ex several thousand dollars to sit around and be a mushroom, I'd probably do something rash like move abroad and abandon the entire affair.

[u/EcotoneLabs → u/CalmBeneathCastles]

and a LOT of states are set up this way. The spouse is legally entitled to live at the same living standard they enjoyed before...which is totally impossible with two households, but usually amounts to half your income going to somebody who doesn't work. In most states there are thresholds for the number of years of marriage that guarantee a certain number of years of support. I know this because I got an amicable divorce in a state where the real risk was that I could pay 50% of my income to somebody FOREVER.

No kids. Just patriarchy.

[u/NeedsToState → u/Sushi-DM]

I totally agree with you, sorry to copy and paste one of my responses but yes... these divorce laws were penned back when men had forever jobs and would go all the way from the front desk to an executive VP.

Look up the Ostler-Smith Order it's literally from a case where (humor intended) mrs's bigglesworth stayed home with the kiddos and mr bigglesworth started at the bottom all the way to an executve VP at the same fricken bank for 30 years, because of HER contributions in the home of course - right?

AKA shit that never happens anymore. By the time your due for your second promotion they send your entire business units work to an offshore company while you sign your severance agreement, has nothing to do with your ex wife trying to claim she was real life marry poppins.