After eight (8) years as a Rhode Island lawyer dedicated to divorce and family law and another thirteen years in law here in Rhode Island, there is one situation that I have seen consistently and it almost always results in an unhappy husband paying alimony to his spouse. The scenario goes pretty much like this one.
John and Melissa get married and have a child. Melissa stays home to take care of the child because daycare expenses would be too costly and Melissa doesn't want her child raised by someone else. Melissa promises that when the child gets into school full time that she will get a job or return to work to help with the family income. The day comes when the child is in full time school and Melissa refuses to go back to work. She wants to be able to bring the child to school, participate in school events during the day and pick the child up after school. This situation often ends with a very upset husband and may eventually lead to the husband filing for divorce.
John files for divorce and Melissa who has not been working for years seeks alimony and child support as the primary caregiver for the child. John is upset. John can't understand it. He pulled the financial weight for his family for years and now when he wants to get out of the relationship he might be expected to pay for several more years.
Why?
Just because Melissa stayed home with their child and refused to return to work as she had agreed to help out their little family?
The answer is a resounding "NO".
It is not because Melissa broke her promise.
Practically speaking it is because John allowed her to stay home without contributing to the household income.
Many families are economical. Attorneys understand that. Yes, I understand that. However, everyone should take into consideration that more than one out of every two marriages end in divorce.
When you have that kind of figure working against you then you have to consider the consequences if your marriage happens to be one of those that don't make it.
So what is the answer? Families need two incomes even if it means the majority of one income goes to daycare for a while. Women can earn as much as men these days and the old ways of the mother just staying home with the child are disappearing. Frankly, they should be.
The answer to John's predicament and for many other men is to get the mother out and working for your financial future as soon as possible after the child is born. It is not a right of a mother to stay home with the child any more than it is a right of the father not to pull his weight with diaper changing and late night feedings.
In the end, if John, or you, or your neighbor Tim, is one of those two marriages that isn't going to make it for 50 years or so and you end up in Rhode Island Divorce Court, then if you let the mother stay at home with the child then prepare to pay alimony for a few years. At that juncture you have no one to blame. You should be informed. We balance the pros and cons on house buying. We also do it on whether we take a job or not. Why shouldn't we expect to do it with a marriage? After all, isn't it one of the biggest decisions in our lives?!
Authored by:
Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
PEARSALL LAW ASSOCIATES
571 Pontiac Avenue
Cranston, RI 02910
Phone: (401) 354-2369
Attorney Pearsall's practice is focused almost exclusively in the areas of Divorce and Family law.
NOTE: The postings on this website are NOT legal advice, DO NOT create an attorney/client relationship and are NOT a substitute for a detailed consultation with an attorney experienced in the state where you have your legal issue. This site is based on Rhode Island and is presented for the convenience of the internet public.
* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law and has no procedure for recognition of specialty in any area of law.
Seems to me as if this view prioritizes money over the well-being of the individuals in the family. Let's say that the loving mother is compelled by her materialistic spouse to reenter the workforce before she is ready. Does that mean she has a right to expect that her male partner will do fully 50% of the unpaid labor at home? And what about the real needs of the children? Are they an acceptable sacrifice, simply because divorce is a future possibility?
Pamela,
Your point of view is well taken. That is generally what the mothers in court argue. Your argument is a bit skewed though. You indicate she is a loving mother. Surprisingly there are many loving fathers out there who would like to trade in their jobs and be the caretakers of their children. Why have you presumed that the husband spouse is "materialistic"? I think that's a leap that isn't taken in the article.
It is a rare case today that a family can survive on a single income. In truth only 5% of all american families retire with enough money to support both spouses comfortably in their own home or apartment and have money for their final arrangements so their spouse or other surviving family members don't have to deal with funeral bills, etc.
The Social Security System in the United States is predicted to collapse financially by 2012.
Having both a husband and wife generating an income has become a necessity. This isn't materialism. This is purely being practical.
You mention a woman being forced to reenter the workforce before she is ready. The courts don't afford men such a luxury when it comes to paying child support. Please consider this. Should a mother really have the right to pick and choose when she returns to the workforce? It seems as though you are saying it is a man's job to go out and work and singlehandedly make enough money to support the family and save for retirement and a woman's job to care for the family.
I have no problem agreeing with you that if a woman/mother goes out and gets a full-time job that she should expect her husband to help with half of the housework and raising of the children.
Regarding the 'real' needs of the children. I am uncertain what you mean. The children need a father just as much as they need a mother. Children are resilient and they will adapt as the parents adapt if the parents work together.
I don't believe there is any sacrifice to the children if both parents are working. It sounds as though you believe that when a mother works outside the home then the children suffer as a result. I don't believe this is the case. I have seen numerous fathers who make better mothers than the mothers do, yet these fathers still have to go out and work.
I certainly respect that you have the right to your opinion. We all do. Yet it seems as though you are exacting a double standard here with mothers being a higher priority in the family unit than fathers. That is a proposition that I cannot agree with. Life contains sacrifices, trade offs and adaptation based upon the goals of the family unit. A woman or mother working outside the home is more a necessity today to meet reasonable future financial needs of families. I did not suggest it simply because there is a possibility of a divorce. Yet since 6 out of 10 marriages now end in divorce, it is a good secondary reason for making sure the woman/mother remains skilled and prepared for the workforce in the event of divorce or even the death of the other spouse (God forbid).
When children reach full-time school age there usually is nothing preventing the mother from returning to work on a 1/2 or 3/4 time basis. Families aren't all about children. They are about the survival of the spouses after the children have grown and moved on to their own lives. All aspects of the life and family process should be taken into consideration.
Is it possible that a mother who could return to work when children reach full-time school age is actually doing her spouse and children a disservice by not returning to work?