Financial Support to OW

[jennie-jennie]

I will not speak for Fooled Once or anyone else on this board, but I do not believe the comments were directed toward you. You have stated that you do not ask for, nor expect your sweetheart to take care of you. I believe your pride would disallow that.

 

How about post 173 and 165?

 

Nothing was misunderstood.

GEL

 

And exactly where in these two posts does it say that I ask for and/or expect my MM to take care of me?

 

Because I am from a different culture than you. We do things differently here.

 

I haven't worked since I was 27. That is half a lifetime ago.

I have been in two common-law marriages, but never married.

 

If MM considers me family, I am family.

 

Any financial support is appropriate. Just like the MM cares and provides for his family, he cares and provides for his OW. That is the way it is between two lovers. When you are close enough, those monetary boundaries cease to exist. You share the money just like you share the love.

 

Pride in this context shows distance between the lovers in my opinion.

 

I have sufficient income to care for both myself and my children. I have two parents who back me and my children up with the little extra in life and ensure us of a somewhat better standard of living than we would have had otherwise. Thus I have no need to ask nor expect my MM to take care of me. But when he does exactly that of his own accord, it makes me happy and I accept it as a token of the love he has for me.

[lolapalooza]

Friends do that kind of thing for each other. I, similarly, gave a friend the deposit she needed on a place to stay when she left her (abusive) H. When she was able to pay it back, I told her to pass that on to someone else who needed it, instead - the same way I passed the car on, in turn. Friends do that all the time. Why should it be different if an OW accepts help from a MM? Surely, before all else, they're friends?

Were you sleeping with your friend behind their spouse's back?

[jennie-jennie]

Agreed. He should want to and do that after the divorce.

 

The reality for my MM is that he considers himself to have two wives and nine children. He cares for us all. Just like he would do after the divorce. He wouldn't stop caring for his ex-wife and his own children just because of the divorce you know.

[OWoman]

Were you sleeping with your friend behind their spouse's back?

 

I fail to see the relevance of that question, but no. He's a platonic friend. And there was no spouse.

[White Dove]

The reality for my MM is that he considers himself to have two wives and nine children. He cares for us all. Just like he would do after the divorce. He wouldn't stop caring for his ex-wife and his own children just because of the divorce you know.

 

He should care for the OW after the divorce. After divorce he should care for the exW and children. Why? Because they had a long history together and they were married. You, on the other hand, were not married to MM to begin with.

[OWoman]

After divorce he should care for the exW and children. Why? Because they had a long history together and they were married.

 

Beyond the financial obligations ordered by the courts, I don't see that any spouse has any obligation to care for their former spouse after D. That's the point of the D - to END the M, not to prolong it in some other format.

 

If there are residual good memories, that's all good and well - but there should be no EXPECTATION that either former spouse SHOULD care for the other just because they had once been M... That's just absurd!

[White Dove]

Beyond the financial obligations ordered by the courts, I don't see that any spouse has any obligation to care for their former spouse after D. That's the point of the D - to END the M, not to prolong it in some other format.

 

If there are residual good memories, that's all good and well - but there should be no EXPECTATION that either former spouse SHOULD care for the other just because they had once been M... That's just absurd!

 

Yes, I meant financial obligations ordered by courts etc. Since OW seems so smart, I didn't think I needed to lay it all out.

[jennie-jennie]

He should care for the OW after the divorce. After divorce he should care for the exW and children. Why? Because they had a long history together and they were married. You, on the other hand, were not married to MM to begin with.

 

No, but I am his primary love relationship right now, not only after a divorce, and as such he should care for me.

[anne1707]

And exactly where in these two posts does it say that I ask for and/or expect my MM to take care of me?

 

I have sufficient income to care for both myself and my children. I have two parents who back me and my children up with the little extra in life and ensure us of a somewhat better standard of living than we would have had otherwise. Thus I have no need to ask nor expect my MM to take care of me. But when he does exactly that of his own accord, it makes me happy and I accept it as a token of the love he has for me.

 

No, but I am his primary love relationship right now, not only after a divorce, and as such he should care for me.

 

 

Jennie

 

This appears to me like you are contradicting yourself

[White Dove]

No, but I am his primary love relationship right now, not only after a divorce, and as such he should care for me.

 

Oh of course he is, jennie-jennie

[lolapalooza]

I fail to see the relevance of that question, but no. He's a platonic friend. And there was no spouse.

Of couse you wouldn't see the relevance, since you have no problem taking assets that half of which belong to another person who doesn't even know you're receiving them.

 

The reality for my MM is that he considers himself to have two wives and nine children. He cares for us all. Just like he would do after the divorce. He wouldn't stop caring for his ex-wife and his own children just because of the divorce you know.

Oh this is funny! Too bad one wife doesn't know about the "other"!

[OWoman]

Yes, I meant financial obligations ordered by courts etc. Since OW seems so smart, I didn't think I needed to lay it all out.

 

The post did not state, "Should the courts consider financial settlements to be appropriate", it stated that "After divorce he should care for the exW and children", as some kind of absolute. Of course BOTH parents are financially responsible for their offspring after a D; but only in particular circumstances do former spouses have any financial responsibility to each other. So there was no way of knowing that you meant court-ordered settlements, since that is only a small subset of cases, unlike the "should" your statement implied. Especially as the reasoning you gave for it was "because they were M and they had a long history together" rather than, "because it was ordered by the court." Big difference.

[OWoman]

Of couse you wouldn't see the relevance, since you have no problem taking assets that half of which belong to another person who doesn't even know you're receiving them.

 

You happen to be completely wrong on that. I've never taken any assets "of which half belong to another person..." Nice try, though - better luck next time

 

And I still don't see the relevance. If a friend chooses to help a friend, that's what friends do. At least, where I come from.

[califnan]

I think the court would say that a 20 or so year marriage would allow for spousal support..

[anne1707]

The courts may rule for support if there are children involved and one parent is not working (or maybe working part-time only) so that they can raise the children.

 

However if no children or the children are no longer classed as dependents with a SAHM (or SAHF) then no support for the former spouse is perfectly fair and reasonable.

[lolapalooza]

You happen to be completely wrong on that. I've never taken any assets "of which half belong to another person..." Nice try, though - better luck next time

 

And I still don't see the relevance. If a friend chooses to help a friend, that's what friends do. At least, where I come from.

if you've ever accepted anything from a MM, you have accepted something that half belongs to someone else. Someone else that probably wouldn't agree with you having it.

This has already been discussed at length on this thread, so no need to rehash it.

Nice way to try to spin it to your advantage though. Brownie point for you.

[califnan]

The courts may rule for support if there are children involved and one parent is not working (or maybe working part-time only) so that they can raise the children.

 

However if no children or the children are no longer classed as dependents with a SAHM (or SAHF) then no support for the former spouse is perfectly fair and reasonable.

 

------------------

 

Then I can only speak for Calif..

 

Unless the W had a good paying career prior to the divorce - the Court will equalize by allowing her indefinite spousal support based on hers and husband's income.. (on marriage that was toward to 20 yrs) ..

[califnan]

if you've ever accepted anything from a MM, you have accepted something that half belongs to someone else. Someone else that probably wouldn't agree with you having it.

This has already been discussed at length on this thread, so no need to rehash it.

QUOTE]

 

 

And as I've mentioned before, if the BS doesn't know about the expenditures, it is still fraud..

[OWoman]

if you've ever accepted anything from a MM, you have accepted something that half belongs to someone else. Someone else that probably wouldn't agree with you having it.

This has already been discussed at length on this thread, so no need to rehash it.

 

There clearly is a need to rehash it, as you obviously missed what I'd already stated:

 

This may be the case in (parts of) the USA, but that's only (parts of) one country. Other countries have other laws, and it would depend on the laws of that country, the provisions under which the couple were married, and any other legal agreements (like antenuptial contracts, joint venture contracts, etc) which may have been in force.

 

In the specific case of my A, my H and his xWs finances were entirely separate. They had separated these during a prior separation, and although he had allowed her back and stopped D proceedings, he left their finances separate. She was a compulsive shopper and he did not want any legal liability for any of her costs or debts. They each earned, of the same order of magnitude, and each month they both paid an agreed amount into a joint account from which all shared expenses (relating to house and kids) were paid. Beyond that, each had their own account containing their own money, which was entirely their own business. She could buy herself what she wanted, and travel alone to exotic destinations, or drink it all if she wanted - it was hers to do with as she wished. And - mutatis mutandis - the same for his money.

 

When they Dd she tried to get her hands on his inheritance but her lawyers told her that bequests, inheritance, gifts and donations were excluded from any assets that the court would consider as "marital assets", so she had to back off. I don't know if she tried any "did you spend anything on OW?" stunts or not, but I'm sure her lawyer would have similarly advised her to save her breath.

 

The courts would not have entertained any such claims from her, given that their finances were separate BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT. My H did not attempt to reclaim any of the money she'd squandered during the M, since that was HERS to squander. And she would not have been able to claim back any of his, since that was his to spend as he chose.

 

My H and I are M by ANC. His assets are his, and mine are mine. How he spends his money is entirely his business, as it is mine how I spend mine. I wouldn't dream of demanding any portion of his income, his assets or anything else of his - and would feel affronted if there was any sense of entitlement on his side to anything of mine. The law supports us in this as adults.

[OWoman]

And as I've mentioned before, if the BS doesn't know about the expenditures, it is still fraud..

 

Perhaps in California. The rest of the world has other laws.

[White Flower]

Were you sleeping with your friend behind their spouse's back?

Wow, another example of people seeing what they want to see.

[seren]

Even when in a R in the dim and distant past before I was married, I cannot remember taking money from my boyfriend(S) as I earned my own money and being a product of the feminist era, thought it not so much as wrong, but just not sitting right with me. I accepted and bought gifts, paid for, shared payment and accepted meals out. I have also helped friends out with cash when they needed it.

 

That was fine then as it was my money, however, and speaking purely for myself, I earned considerably more than H and even if I didn't, the money brought into our marriage was ours, the bills ours, kids ours and any surplus was ours. We have never had yours and mine money, it has always been one giant pot (well modest pot). Any spare cash is for our future and for our kids.

 

The problem with WS spending the marital dosh on OM/OW is that if you have a situation like mine and there is the understanding that mine is his and vice versa it creates an uneven playing field and takes from me and mine. I suppose it all depends on what WS and BS have decided is the state of play regarding finances. The WS taking from that to spend on an unknown other is not only disrespectful to the BS and family, but also reneges on their decision.

 

If H or I wanted to help out another we would discuss it first. obviously this isn't going to happen in most affairs and so it is unlikely that BS or OW/OM will see things from the same viewpoint. Would any OM/OW be happy finding out that they had given money to WS for something for him, only to find out he had used it to pay for BS to have something nice, a romantic dinner or whatever?

[lolapalooza]

Wow, another example of people seeing what they want to see.

Would you care to explain this remark, or is this more of you taking up for your OW buddy?

 

The reason I came back here is because her blog and the now missing LS thread was posted on another forum that I read. I can't say I put much credence in someone that writes something like that. If you wish to take up for her, that is certainly your right. It's my right as well not to agree with her or anyone else that thinks taking assets from a MM is appropriate.

[White Flower]

Were you sleeping with your friend behind their spouse's back?

 

Wow, another example of people seeing what they want to see.

 

Would you care to explain this remark, or is this more of you taking up for your OW buddy?

You can read into this what you want to; you're already seeing what you want to see. You assume that OW sleeps with any and every MM and by doing so you don't seem to think that she is capable of having any friends without wanting to attack them sexually, or being capable of having single friends or even purple friends. You have chosen to see her the way you want to see her. I was commenting on your attack on any OW, not just OWoman. But you decide for yourself as it appears your mind is already made up. It doesn't really matter to me.

The reason I came back here is because her blog and the now missing LS thread was posted on another forum that I read. I can't say I put much credence in someone that writes something like that. If you wish to take up for her, that is certainly your right. It's my right as well not to agree with her or anyone else that thinks taking assets from a MM is appropriate.

OK, let's break this one down. You say a whole lot in 4 sentences so here we go...

 

The reason I came back here is because her blog and the now missing LS thread was posted on another forum that I read.

Are you saying you are only posting on this thread to personally attack OWoman? Interesting. Because I thought we were discussing financial support to OW.

I can't say I put much credence in someone that writes something like that.

I don't know much about the blog or who wrote it for sure but I was one of the first who responded that I could never think of the BW in that way. I also know that things don't always appear as they seem. It is amazing to me how some people always think they know what they are seeing. It's the internet folks, not The Washington Post where authors and their work are verifiable. But we're off topic now aren't we?

If you wish to take up for her, that is certainly your right. It's my right as well not to agree with her or anyone else that thinks taking assets from a MM is appropriate.

I will 'take up' or defend many on LS and probably even you. I try to see things from all perspectives in order to learn more and have a bigger understanding of things. Try me, or look at my nearly 3 years of posting here. I especially enjoy defending those who seem to be misunderstood due to their lack of communicating skills no matter what side of the fence (or pond:laugh:) they're on. Not that OWoman is lacking in any communication skills. I think what is lacking is a respect for her intelligence. Further, I think people who attack her, or anyone as smart as her, are merely jealous or intimidated by her obviously high IQ. But I am not saying this about you personally.

 

About her taking assets from MM; she has already discussed at great length that her fMM turned H and his exW had a financial agreement to keep certain assets separate. This allowed for him to spend HIS money on whoever he wanted including his mother, children, father, postman, and OWoman. I think she's explained herself, not that she owes anyone an explanation.

 

Had you posted this, I would have stood up for you as well. Please remember that.

Edited June 19, 2010 by White Flower

[NoIDidn't]

 

However if no children or the children are no longer classed as dependents with a SAHM (or SAHF) then no support for the former spouse is perfectly fair and reasonable.

 

I disagree with this. If the spouse was a SAHP for the duration of the marriage and the leaving spouse leaves the minute the last child is 18, then it is entirely appropriate to give that spouse financial support in a divorce.

 

I think the spouse with the lower (or no) income should be compensated for giving up that capability in the M. If I get divorced and my H tries to shaft me with the "she used to make more than me when she was working logic", I would do whatever I needed to (legally) to make sure he was not able to get away with it.

 

APs deserve no financial support is my opinion. An an MP that chooses an unemployed OP better consider the social laws in the country they are from. If in Australia, they could end up on the hook to continue that support per a new domestic law for non-married couples. OWs there have been looking for ways to use this law to their benefit since it came about.

 

And this is not to or even about Jennie-Jennie, just the concept of an OP being unemployed for the whole time of the A. Of course, different gender rules for me, but I couldn't fathom an OP that was in no position to take care of me should I need them to. An OP that can barely take care of themselves is not a "step up" IMPO.

 

I just imagine a MM being able to get and take full control of an unemployed OW. Same with a MW. But an unemployed man just does not arouse my interest to begin with. He would have to be some kind of fine to look at for sure.