When Divorce Means Re-entering the Job Market

The scenario you provided is the same as my life might well become.

You raise a very interesting subject. I believe that everybody should try to take care of themselves and make their own way through the world. Your article assumes that the stay-at-home ex-spouse wants to do just that. I find myself in a situation where my ex assumes that she's "entitled" to continue to stay at home and I have to support her because she "spent 20 years raising the kids and lost economic opportunities". With the kids gone now, she has done very little to upgrade her skills or to seek employment. I realize that the economy sucks and it's tough out there but even a food-services job is something to get out of bed for. And our legal system seems to agree with this mindset. With what I'm paying in alimony, there is absolutely no incentive for her to find a job and I go deeper into debt trying to maintain two households. And I suspect that I'm not the only one in this position. How does one handle this?

Buddy

Buddy:

Your story could have been written by me, w/ a couple of add-ons. When our kids got to high school my dependent spouse ("DS") started own business, spent many many many hours on it, used family resources (heat, gas, car, phone, etc), used me as a sounding board for all DS business problems. But the income was more like hobby money, or minimum wage.

As time went on, all the benefits the courts love to assume a DS brings to a marriage, began to disappear in my home.(e.g. clean, comfortable house -> messy house, meals -> no/late/meals, strange sleeping hours, many hours at the gym trying to look age 16 again, etc.) Court never gives a supporting spouse ("SS") what SS once had, and the court does not discount the DS's alimony for the actual loss the SS suffers in "lost services" or lost family home environment that occurred in the remaining years of the marriage. It is easier to count as much money as possible in the SS pocket, and take it as a matter of law (not equity) and place it into the DS pocket. Oh, and guess who stopped working just before seeking a lawyer? You got it, my DS!!! Now DS wants a new career and wants even more $$$ so DS won't have to work at all for the next 4 years.

So the author, Ms. Israel, writes "Dependence on a spouse has its downside, as you have learned by making the commitment to your marriage, which is now ended." Ms Israel - your sentence ALSO APPLIES to some SS out here. An SS can not only be committed to the marriage, but also has a dependence on the DS too - that is right, dependent on DS making/maintaining the home for the family and the SS not on selfishly advancing SS career, resume, etc., but to get out of bed every day to $$$upport the family unit!!! The court will not compensate or value the loss to the SS when determining alimony, especially where the DS walks and DS has no legal grounds (violence, adultery in some states, etc) for walking. But the court will put a value on what the DS presumably gave to the marriage, even if the DS walks without justification - an injustice in my opinion. And the injustice originates in the evolution and implementation of "no-fault" divorce.

So what should you do Buddy? I am only in the beginning of this and my D story is on the same road as yours. Here are a few thoughts:

1) Accept the fact that the court will screw you. Now make sure you negotiate the best alimony agreement you can; have it cast in concrete so the DS can't come back at you when you win the lottery;

2) AFTER the concrete alimony agreement is in place, work like hell, rebuild yourself financially, - even if you take on a second job. It will take your mind off the alimony injustice and in time, it won't matter anymore.

3) Pray your DS falls in love quickly and gets married so the alimony payment stops. (OK, I admit, this one might not be so easy to achieve... ;-)

4) If you happen to re-marry, get a pre-nuptial agreement AND marry a spouse who already has a full-time career with pension, etc, so you won't take as big a financial hit if you have to go through the D grinder again.

5) Pray. Pray. and Pray some more. Even pray for your X.

Hope this helps.

An Anonymous Soon2B SS

Your wife will be a very blessed woman to have you out of her life.

You seem a most greedy, selfish excuse of a man.

Why did your wife even try to start her own business? I suspect it was because of you belittling her as a stay-at-home spouse. The reason I suspect this is how petty you are to include her use of "family resources". I mean wouldn't she have been "allowed" to use the heat,car,gas,phone,etc. even if she had not been trying to become financially independent.

I may be wrong but it looks to me, simply by that guy's writing style, that his "ds" was just that for him. Kept him fed, raised his children, cooked his dinner, cleaned his house, hopefully maintainted his sexual performance record... I am being judgmental.

Says he hopes his ex finds another man fast to take care of her. Poor little thing.

If I break free I'm not going to be looking for a man. I'm going to be looking to resume human status.

So Lisa, in your mind, just what is the stay at home's role if not keeping the homestead?

What if keeping the home was how it worked in that marriage for years and then the dependent spouse just gave it up? No big deal right? B/c the SS is awful, mean, selfish, greedy he should not have this marital expectation and depend on his wife. What if he worked years and just stopped working b/c he did not feel like it anymore and there was no income? You would be okay with that too and she would have no right to complain? The writer never complained or mentioned sex as one of the dependent spouse's chores.

Maybe he did not explain it clearly enough, but SS seems to be pointing out that the law puts a $ value on the stay-homer's giving up a career to stay at home, keep house, raise children, while having little or no personal income stream over the years. The law does not put a value on the loss of those stay at home "services" that SS received as a benefit of the marriage. SS income, a benefit DS continues to get by law even if DS decides to walk, but her loss of home services SS can't get compensated or credited for, especially if DS walks. Seems to be pointing out that if "no fault" divorce was truly "no fault", there also should be consideration of the loss of the value of those services too. SS also told Buddy to accept this reality despite the imbalance ("accept the fact that the court will screw you.").

Finally, SS seemed to make a joke when SS told Buddy to pray that Buddy's wife gets married so the alimony stops. That's why he ended it with the ;-). SS never said he hoped that his own wife gets re-married. Lighten up a little or a least read more carefully.

If it's all on a ledger that's one thing. Then the SAHM/DS should be expected to account for everything and it's all a business. From that point of view I respect your points.

From my point of view, we are giving our hearts, our substance, and what we are made of. We are not just surface wipers. Both sides, the SS and the DS are giving that in a sort of emotional/etheric way.

From my point of view the value of what I place in the hands of my spouse is far beyond monetary estimation. So if I decide to stop "providing the home services" the SS can go out and hire a house cleaner. But when I have been told to stop having my crazy little schemes, stop the mindless chatter, forget about dreams you had that didn't amount to anything that brought home a check, that is a hard rejection of me and you might as well replace me with a maid and a prostitute.

No, I am not giving a logical, linear argument and I think that is the nature of the conflict here. If your reasoning is completely on the lines of what makes sense and is logical, and you banish all of the holistic and emotional aspects, this is what you get.

That's why there's marriage, and that's why things need to be addressed all around and you can't just boot out the aspects of the DS that you don't like without getting rid of the whole.

The home services are things that don't accrue. The mess comes back. The trash always needs taken out again. Sex happens and then it's over. The kids grow up and leave. The value of the service evaporates once its over, seems to me.

Other than that, I completely agree with what you're saying. It's very logical and it is an injustice that must be hard to tolerate.

Anyway, who I am is a wife that had a bad midlife crisis and stayed around, because it wasn't the SS's fault, though I tried to blame him. Right now I'm fighting off a bad case of wanting to walk even if it's not his fault. I know that I make my life, and I'm struggling with it. I want to be able to stand up and speak my point of view. Linear logic makes me a prisoner, or so it seems right now, and I've got a belly full of it.

Thanks for writing a great article on a very relevant subject.

Your point is right - marriage is not a linear relationship, not strictly a business deal, easily quantifiable into dollars and cents. There is emotion and non-linear aspects. But the linearity is found to a greater degree in the divorce process b/c that is about all that is left. The court cannot partition the emotional aspects of the marriage - it is impossible.

Q: Guess how many of the following divorce process items involve $ between the spouses: (1) separation support, (2) distribute assets & debts, (3) alimony, (4) child custody (when applicable), (5) attorney fees. A: All of them.

That's the reality, and in the end, as their cases are processed, Buddy and Mr SS need to minimize what they pay their exiting spouses just like their walk-outs are going to try to maximize their $ take out. No fault = no grounds required to justify divorce - therefore, no moral judgment. Paychecks don't accrue either, once the money is spent - and they are not guaranteed to be there - someone has to get out of bed and work.

Your last paragraph was interesting. You said " I am a wife [who] had a bad midlife crisis and stayed around, because it wasn't the SS's fault, though I tried to blame him. Right now I'm fighting off a bad case of wanting to walk even if it's not his fault."

You say you had MLC but it is over, and you still want to walk now. It makes me want to ask whether you used MLC to cover over a more fundamental problem that is unresolved and actually existed the whole time you thought you were going through MLC? There is too much similarity between your MLC phase and your current phase [crisis but you stay around b/c it is not-his-fault but you still want to walk away]. Your third paragraph seems to give some hints at a problem "when I have been told to stop having my crazy little schemes, stop the mindless chatter, forget about dreams you had that didn't amount to anything that brought home a check". Sounds like buried resentment here on your part and no or ineffective communication back to your husband when he says these things. Do you think about walking away b/c deep down you might see it eventually as the only way to solve your problem rather than solve through other means (counseling, communication,etc)? Am I seeing this wrongly for you?

Thanks for the counterpoint.

Yes, it really is an onion. The depression got worked out. I came to appreciate my husband for not adding to the fight. He stayed strong and let me flail. He was sometimes like a shelter when I wanted to get away from myself. He was my reason to learn how bad I am at feeling love (family of origin matter) and he's a devout husband. I chose him because I could tell he's good stuff.

This latest thing about him not wanting to hear my inconsequential thoughts? That is recent. I know that I have grown over-sensitive because it's just been me and my kids, not a workplace full of personalities. I know I need to hear the truth and not just what I want to hear. that is the better angel of my nature speaking. And I'm chickenshit.

So, I know the thing we have to do is get down to the heart of things and really talk. That's really what I want to do and I don't get that from him. All I get is "I'm the breadwinner and I have to take care of the finances, so don't bother me."

So I think this is the midlife reassessment, not the crisis. I think a real bare-all talk would be great. but I'm afraid of getting cut down again. I seem to have a kind of secondary power over him and don't know if he resents that or not.

So, I take what you say about the divorce process being linear and unemotional (hopefully) and I just don't know if that's where this will go, or if I can grow enough to try something new and better for us to last. But as far as keeping the house, I feel guilty like if I were Susy Homemaker he'd be happier but I just can't stand the drag sometimes without being looked at as a unique person.

The divorce ("D") process for most people is really emotional. The baggage, resentment, hurt, anger built up in the marriage and boiled over at its end is carried right into the courtroom. One/both sides think they'll prove that they were wronged by the other in the past and the court will make some grand pronouncement how bad the other person is and award the winner some $ as punishment to the other side. The courtroom is not intended to be a therapist couch nor a boxing ring to settle old scores. A smart judge knows how to control this. But for some key situations (adultery, domestic violence,...child custody), the past wrongs are fairly irrelevant in "no fault" and focus is on dividing the estate, deciding who pays whom support (if any) and work out a visitation or custody schedule. Pretty dry and linear if you ask me. But linear and dry, D for most is not very easy and should be only as last resort.

Your situation appears to have a lot of angles to it. Following one can send you off in another direction until you meet the next angle. For example, his not listening . . . a "recent thing" does not listen to your "inconsequential things" (your words) and you are "oversensitive". Lots of stuff here.

You have devalued your own expressed thoughts to him as inconsequential. Let's assume this is true. Then if you know they are inconsequential and you know he does not like to discuss inconsequential things, then why do you say them and put yourself in a position to be rejected? (PS - Not every discussion has to be consequential either, otherwise there would be no "small talk".) Or are your thoughts really relevant or interesting things but only one of you views them as inconsequential? Have you set yourself up for his rejection (wrong time or place to talk about it? you know he is not interested in it from your past conversations?he is tired and hungry and his mind is not receptive?) - your response is to withdraw, soothe yourself with the belief that you needed to "hear the truth" anyway, but then you are afraid to bring things up again for fear of getting cut down. And around and around you go to where D becomes a future option to break the spin cycle.

I've very big challenges in front of me. But I find I make good progress despite the difficulty of my D situation when I get out of emotional state and start attacking certain issues logically. (PS - my spouse wants out, I have no choice, don't agree with her reasons, blah blah blah) Of course emotions keep us very human; they are very important to our lives, survival and well being. Can you imagine what a strange world it be if one expressed their undying love for another using only logical argument? Or a person balanced her checkbook (or argue what her alimony should be) using only emotions? A real Twilight ZOne. Are you mis-using logic when you should use emotion and passion with your husband, and are you mis-using emotion when you should use logic with him? Does any of this apply to your situation? Just asking out loud, but look within yourself and without beating yourself up don't give up and don't blame yourself so easily.