No Unemployment for Stay at Home Parents...

Mandy, I don't think this is about a woman relying on a man. It is about a man carrying out the commitment he made to his family when the decision was made for the wife to stay at home.

I'm with you all the way on this one. It is extremely hard for some SAHPs to reenter the work force in a way that would adequately provide for the newly-single parent and the kids. One of the mothers I nannied with was freelancing (sat on boards, grant writing, doing reports for nonprofits-- all good work) for about ten years; getting back into full time work (even with her PhD) was hell and took her about 4-5 years until she had 'come up to' what she was making before.

Yep-- unfortunately, there's an attitude that we can all make if only we pull up on those bootstraps hard enough. :(

NO.

You are not alone.

And some ex's are below pond scum.

**sigh**

I wish I had better news for you...BUT

I CAN relate.

Dead beat dad...just gave son a car...just signed the title to my 18 yo.

He has been 'late' (or non payment) for years in child support.

**double...NO TRIPLE sigh**

I send hugs.

Best Luck!
michele/cat

Right. Because while the working outside of the home parent is doing REAL work, stay at home parents are eating bon bons and watching soaps. It's a vacation, not a contribution.

And, stay at home parents certainly don't enable their spouses careers. I mean, there's never a SAHM who quits her/his job so that wife/husband can go to school full time, work, get that super fancy career.

And meanwhile, if the SAHM wasn't providing the services of childcare, tutor, chauffeur, maid, personal assistant/organizer, and escort, the WAHM could get all that for free somewhere else? It's certainly not saving their family a pretty penny.

Grrr.

Add this to my list of complaints I have about The System. Hugs to you mama. I'm with you 100%.

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree.

Staying home is a choice, and a choice that does not include paying into the unemployment system. Working parents sacrifice time away from their kids & are entitled to those benefits because they earned it.

In a perfect world, stay at home parents would keep their work skills/education up to par so that if they ever had to work again, they would only have themselves to rely on for a paycheck. I find it odd that anyone going through a divorce would still expect to be cared for as if they were a SAHP, honestly.

In most cases divorce is a choice, and not always a necessity, so I don't think the taxpayers should have to support that.

I have chosen to work - I will NEVER put myself in the position of being unable to support myself and my son. If there was a take home lesson for everyone in the feminist movement it was ALWAYS BE ABLE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF. And its corollary - TEACH YOUR DAUGHTERS THE SAME.

I would think that you could enter into a legally binding document with your spouse outlining a financial plan that would apply should the marriage fail. Sort of like a prenuptial agreement. I believe the intent of community property states is for ALL property accrued by the couple during the marriage (his income if he works and she stays home) to be split equally if there is a divorce.

My mother always told me NEVER to rely on a man to support me. I have lived with that idea. I am highly educated and can support myself and my children. I understand that sometimes spousal support is necessary to give the former SAHM time to get back on her feet. However, I wonder what the duration should be....

Your idea doesn't make sense to me because to make it a viable option a spouse would have to pay into unemployment just as an employer would. If you want to treat a stay at home spouse as an employee it must be taken to the logical conclusion. Just as with employers the rate would be based on the likelihood of being laid off (divorce). You cannot receive benefits you haven't paid into.

I have been divorced for five and a half years, I can assure you even then spousal support was the exception. I got support for four years because one, I could prove he wouldn't let me go back to work or work on my degree, two he is rich, and three I offered a cap in the time, just enough to get my degree.

Thing is you are asking why a marital choice should become a taxpayer responsibility. What exactly would tapping into unemployment be? Unemployment is paid by taxpayers and employers. Could you just imagine how screwed up things would get if employers not only had to calculate the likelihood they will lay their employees off but also whether they may divorce? Wouldn't that make strange considerations when hiring. Oh, Bob's wife just got a boob job, meh, maybe we should hire Jim, he is single. Not sure if that marriage is going to last.....

I can tell ya one of the dumbest things I have seen. 500 a week for daycare paid by the working spouse so the other can work a job that pays 250 a week. Somewhere someone needs to slap someone at the court and put in there that if the children are going to go into daycare the stay at home should be offered that job first! After all they have been doing it for how long? Now that I could get behind.

The child support formula here is based on income. If I didn't work I would have been bringing in almost as much as I did with spousal support. I think the problem you are looking at is low earners. If the working spouse is only making 30,000 a year, even taking half isn't enough.

Some people just don't make enough to support two households. Sure there are tools that get good lawyers but more times that not it is a total income issue.

I think that spousal support, if available at all, should be limited to a short period of time (up to a year or two at most) while the non-working ex-spouse gets back up into the workforce. While I do think that non-custodial parents should continue to support their children financially, ex-spouses shouldn't have to financially support the other one forever and one spouse shouldn't get to enjoy the financial benefits of marriage after the marriage ends. Every able bodied single adult should have to work to support him- or herself and his or her children.

The only exceptions to this to me are cases of vast income disparity where there is no child support - say a couple has been married for 30 years, the kids are grown, the wife stayed at home the entire time and the husband is a corporate executive or doctor or something and he achieved that level of income only because his wife was home to take care of everything else. In a case like that, she shouldn't have to scrape by on minimum wage while he lives like a king. Of course situations like that can be handled with an equitable division of assets instead of a monthly check. And if one spouse were disabled or something that would be another exception.

I don't plan my life in defense mode, but it would be a cold day in hell before I relied on a man for my main source of income. Women have to do a much better job of protecting their career interests in the event that they become single.

The judge told my sister a SAHM of 2 to get a job. Oh your Honor, my little one is 5 months old and nursing. Wean her was the response from the great and wonderful judge. All this so loser would not have to pay. You are 100% right to be disgusted. I am.

It's kinda sad that so many moms feel the need to rely on men. That's just how I feel sorry if that offends anyone. If my husband were to divorce me thank god I have a choice of 2 careers I could rely on instead of him. I am a SAHM for the time being because I choose to be, but I will go back to school to further one of my career paths to ensure I will be able to provide for myself and children in the future if anything happens. So to answer the question no i don't think there should be spousal support. Child support yes.
Added; why should he have to support someone he's not married to so she can sit at home with her kids? Sorry but that's not fair for him to pay child support and support an ex...SAHM or not take charge of your life! Having kids is no excuse not to take classes. Take online courses.

I think some people are completely missing your point, which is the disappearance of spousal support (alimony).

And I'm sure there are many SAHMs that are closer to your situation than they'd like to admit. And I'm sorry you're going thru this R.. :(

A few thoughts:

If a woman lacks the work skills to support herself & kids, with child support then it forces them onto public assistance. Most women in that boat have low earning power, rendering child care NOT doable. Mothers WILL do what needs to be done in that situation. Even the ones that spew hatred here for assistance would RUN to the welfare office if their kids were hungry.

A woman in that situation might be persuaded easily to leap directly to the next meal ticket she can find and remarry for the sake of her kids.

Until corporate America values women (mothers!) and leaps into this century with EQUAL wages (remember my question about that where so many women said they were not WORTH equal pay because of their parental obligations???!!!), on site affordable child are, etc. then wen will continue to be under the thumbs of the very men that betray them and forced to situations they never thought they'd see as viable.

I also think women need to support other women, like child care swap for work hours and various other circumstances if they are to suceed at all.

Oh...and don't support politicians who might like to reign over women so they remain chattel!

I agree with you 100%

added: some say that the woman need to get their acts together and not be dependent on their man in the first place. some say you should see the end of your marriage coming. The fact is, most people do not see the end coming, you find out one day that the man you thought was happy is screwing the neighbor down the block. and if we have to live our lives and run our families in a manner to be sure we are ready for that divorce that may come, it is our kids that will miss out in the end. I would not trade the years I have had at home with my kids for the "security" of a plan b in case my marriage fails. I will never look back on my death bed and wish "if only I had worked more and spent less time with my children." It may be less the norm now for one parent to stay home, but there needs to still be legal protection of that parent in case of a split!

My opinion on this may be one that does not get much support...but how about the idea that divorce is rampant in this counrty and its ridiculous. The divorce rate is 50% (maybe higher) and why?? Divorce is devastating on the children, the adults, finances etc. I honestly feel that people should think longer and harder about who they marry, and try everything before resorting to divorce. I understand that sometimes divorce is necessary in some cases, but 50%?? You have to admit that is crazy high. And then there are people who have been divorced two or three times. What happened to 'till death do us part'? Sorry, just my 2 cents. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

i have no head for politics. too complicated....however....

to me a stay at home parent is a luxury. it's also a gamble because you're taking yourself out of the workforce and you know going in that if you ever had to go back (due to death, divorce, whatever), you're almost unmarketable. it's kind of a risk you take right? it's a luxury in this day and age. but you take the risk that if something should happen, and you had to go back to work, it would be very difficult. i think a responsible adult should be aware of that going in.

i guess that's easy for me to say because i was raised in a blue collar family and have worked for everything i've ever gotten...but that's my take.

i think we agree on a basic level lol. but i do think that ideally (ha-?) it would be a case-by-case thing where the settlement would take that into consideration. it's baffling how nasty and hateful people get when divorce is on the line...considering this was someone they once vowed to love and honor. not to mention the direct and obvious harm they are deliberately doing to their own children....

*talkstotrees, i'm not (and i don't think anyone is) trying to belittle the sahm. R. is speaking from a strictly financial perspective. it has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the sahm or the job she does. it has to do with the bottom line, which, i'm sorry to say, is what most things come down to. bemoaning the fairness of it doesn't change the reality. becoming a sahm is a luxury and a gamble. fact.

Ditto

How are you doin' R.?
You have our cyber hugs....

You are right!

I had not heard anything about it, I am surprised by that... one would think that since most spousal support goes to women, women's rights groups would be all over this....

I didn't know this was new. I was divorced in '93 and there was no spousal support in that state (TX) Wouldnt have mattered anyway he just stopped working.

It's obvious from many responses here that times have changed, SAHMs aren't appreciated like we used to be. Somehow the most important job in the world, raising children, has become low-class.
We have no worth unless we have a "marketable skill". Demands on our time are greater than ever, because we are now expected to be everything at once, and the employed see us as a drain on society, without regard to what we provide, for FREE I might add.

I have a job, but I still consider myself a SAHM, because my job takes up so little of my time. I have the ability to be called at a moment's notice to their schools, don't have to take sick days, and my husband never worries that the children are well taken care of in every way. I am prouder of my work with my kids than I am of my "specialty skills", though I only get kudos publicly for my culinary expertise. It's a screwed up world.

That's effed. I don't know what to say. I don't know the ins and outs of the law but I know someone here in NY who's divorcing his wife of 30 years - she was the SAHM raising their 4 kids and 3 dogs and 2 cats etc. He ran a business. He is having to sell the biz to pay her half of the value of the biz due to their divorce - she gets half of everything - it is her right. And YES it is fair. She did her part of raising the family full time 24/7. That was their agreement. Do you really think with 8% unemployment, a 55 yo woman with work experience going back to the 1970's and 80's is going to be able to get a job? Not likely. So this protects her.

Women need to do all they can to protect themselves and we mamapedians should be a support of advice to those who need it!

Yup. It scares me for sure! It's crazy, because a SAHP does soo much work, and has so many skills... but they just aren't marketable. Especially when you consider that this person now has a heap more bills to be responsible for as well... During the years a couple are married, one spouse might work on a career track while the other puts in just as much work at home... but in the event of a divorce, only one parent has something to show for it, and the other is left swinging in the wind.

That's a main reason why I am working on a degree now. I don't really want a career, I absolutely LOVE being a SAHM... BUT if something happens, (heaven forbid, but death, divorce, or disability are possibilities I can't ignore...) I want to have something to fall back on. So I am getting a degree that will allow me to make more than minimum wage, but not require the amount of dedication an actual career would take... Just in case.

Okay, now I understand your message. Yes, I think the working parent should give spousal support. When my brother got divorced he had to pay ex wife 2 years of spousal support for a 4 year marriage. I believe it was about 5-10% of his income per year

R. I think a lot of people will have opinions on this, but unless you have lived it, it's kind of invalid, you know?

I haven't ever been there, and my Mom always taught me never to depend on another person. That meant getting an education before getting married (which I didn't), waiting until I had a good career going to have kids (which I didn't) so I would have something to fall back on, and instilling the same independence in my daughters (which I do). That way, if/when I ever do get to stay at home, I won't be forced into a situation such as that if things go tragically wrong.

We are responsible for our own choices. If my husband divorces me, he is no longer obligated to care for me, and vice versa. I don't disagree with that as a rule, but that's because I am happily married and have the upmost trust in my husband to provide for me and our children. So, I don't get an opinion. Because even if I had one, it would likely be vastly different if I ever had to walk in your shoes.

R. hang in there, life will change for you-- because you're a smart lady, not because you need anyone else to pick you up. :)

I don't live my life in fear. I am actually offended that someone would say that being a SAHM is a luxury. It's a sacrifice, yes, to give up ones financial independence to raise a family but to call it a luxury? I see nothing luxurious about it. And I am by no means complaining. I've been a SAHM for 12 years and still counting. I love what I am able to do for my 4 children, blessed to have a man who has a job that pays well enough to support our family of 6, and I am grateful that God has given us all that we have. For our family, we make many sacrifices (don't have high end vehicles, no family vacations to far away lands, don't have fancy expensive gadgets) but we are happy. I know that if my husband were to die, he has insurance from his employer to help. I really don't think about myself as being "unmarketable." Maybe I didn't totally understand your question...but some of the responses didn't sit well with me either.

Well, I hadn't worked in 10 years. I was awarded a huge spousal support amount. My ex refused to pay it. And, it's not handled the same way child support is. They don't really penalize you for not paying spousal support.

What I learned early, early on was that I couldn't count on my ex for anything. I had two kids, one which was under 2 years old when I filed for divorce. I couldn't count on him to do the right thing, ever. I had to take care of myself and my kids.

Is it fair? No. Not at all. But, focusing on that doesn't get the bills paid. I had to go to work. It's not easy, but I did it. And, strangely enough, I never applied to social services until I broke my leg and was on disability and they helped with my medical expenses.
I was the financial supporter for my kids. I had to step up and do it. There was no Plan B.

I haven't heard of states not awarding spousal support, but in California, the rule of thumb is support for half the length of the marriage. There are women who have been ordered to pay support because they were the breadwinners.

Divorce is ugly, ugly business. It's a shame that there are cases where both parents can't work together. Trust me, I was in one of those instances.
I just had to convince myself that I was self sufficient before I had children and a marriage and I could be self sufficient after marriage and children.

In the end, the only person you can count on is yourself.

You are a very intelligent person. You just need to believe that and move forward in a positive direction, whatever that means to you.

If you can't count on your ex, you aren't alone.
Look into grants for school, look into help with child care. Look into training programs that can help you get a job.

You have what you have to work with. Make a plan and like I said, move forward with thinking in terms of progress for yourself and your son.

My divorce was the most liberating thing I ever did and I was stubborn. My ex said I could never make it without him. He was so wrong.

Hang in there, R.!