Yes, CAR, I have and DO hear this “unilateral decision” story or the “Unbeknownst to me, she reported to work after her maternity leave was up and then quit within a few hours/days/weeks and hasn’t worked since,” story often.
I believe there ARE a lot of communication problems in marriages, especially those with kids in the picture. A LOT of higher-earning parents absolutely cannot afford to support a family with kids by themselves (at least in the manner the household has been used to) and only agreed to have children if the the other parent continued to bring in their customary income after the children were born. They didn’t sign up for their spouse turning the tables on them in secret but this actually happens a lot.
I DID state that the payor spouse is to blame as well for allowing the problem to go on, thus being part of the cause of the problem in the event of divorce. “Support liability” is a HUGE OBSTACLE and many times the ONLY OBSTACLE to filing for divorce for many higher-earning spouses. That’s why we see more women filing for divorce than men and why we see so many “gray” divorce filings and filings shortly after the last kid graduates from HS. I feel it is a travesty that so many parents live in misery for a decade or more due to monthly CS payments typically ordered in CA being tied to child custody timeshare percentages ordered (which I feel is so wrong in so many ways). At its worst, it invites protracted child custody litigation.
Perhaps the families you are familiar with in this regard have one parent with substantial wages or other income in their own right, large enough to support a family with multiple kids. But that is not reflective of parents as a whole, especially those raising kids in coastal CA counties.
My prior post has no bearing on whether I “respect” or don’t respect SAHP’s. I honestly don’t have a position on it or a personal problem with it. It was just to bring up that in CA, BOTH parents are expected to support their children in the event of a divorce (or in the case of never-married parents). There is no provision in the law for recompense (in the form of back wages) for the prior services of a SAHP ordered because it is assumed that their own support was paid by the payor-party all during the time their household and child-caring services were rendered.
If the SAHP is eligible for spousal support, this may be ordered if they are not paid a lump sum in lieu out of community property. However, in the garden-variety divorce of the “non-rich,” it is unlikely that this lump sum or monthly payment is anywhere near enough to support the previously dependent spouse either short term or long term and it isn’t meant to be. It’s meant to help them get on their feet with the short-term goal of self-sufficiency.
My post wasn’t aimed at you or any Pigg in particular. It was just to illustrate the way the “system” operates, which none of us can do anything about. I apologize if you took it personally.
