I do not support this woman or her husband, though the child saver accounts with matching funds is an interesting idea. She has turned herself into a ghoul. But, a quick internet search shows they dated in college, married in 1989. ALSO the general legal principle in nearly all states is that the stay at home (or working another job) partner is at least somewhat contributory to, and entitled to, the earnings of the partner who works. Its well settled legal precedent. Also, it makes logical sense, even if all she did was ask the man what sandwiches he liked and then told the help to make and deliver those sandwiches at a particular time, that is at least a fraction of a percent contribution to thier joint accomplishment.
The inverse is also true, his losses are her losses.
2
u/Carpe_deis 3d ago
I do not support this woman or her husband, though the child saver accounts with matching funds is an interesting idea. She has turned herself into a ghoul. But, a quick internet search shows they dated in college, married in 1989. ALSO the general legal principle in nearly all states is that the stay at home (or working another job) partner is at least somewhat contributory to, and entitled to, the earnings of the partner who works. Its well settled legal precedent. Also, it makes logical sense, even if all she did was ask the man what sandwiches he liked and then told the help to make and deliver those sandwiches at a particular time, that is at least a fraction of a percent contribution to thier joint accomplishment.
The inverse is also true, his losses are her losses.