How Long is a Husband Responsible for His Wife and Children -- Does This End When He Dies?

[seoulsearch]

Hey Everyone,

I know some might think this topic would be better suited for the Family Forum, but after seeing some discussion here in Singles about a preference for women as homemakers who should never work, I was wondering what our single community has to say about this subject.

I understand the viewpoint that women should be at home with the kids, etc. As I've said before, I was raised in a family that believed this as well and had a stay-at-home mother myself.

But I am also seeing that my mother would be completely helpless without my Dad (as he is without her in many ways as well.) If God calls my Dad home first, although my Dad has worked very hard to try to save up in order to provide for her even after his passing, it will be up to us to take care of her from day-to-day, as she has never been by herself.

My parents' full-time volunteer ministry is financial counseling, and they are seeing more and more women who were raised and kept in the mindset that a wife should be at home and fully dependent on her husband -- but now these women are single due to divorce or the death of their husband, leaving them destitute with no way of supporting themselves (especially if they are older) or their children or even grandchildren.

I have often told the story of a friend in college whose father had an affair with his secretary. He did not want a divorce. Rather, he told his wife that since he made all the money (six figures,) he was going to keep both her (his wife) so that she could continue to raise their 4 children, and would continue to do whatever he pleased, which included keeping his girlfriend as well.

Although this woman only had a high school education and had not worked since their children were born, she was not going to take any part of this and instead, left him to his own choice, got herself a job, and literally raised their 4 children on her own (I think he was a lawyer... but at any rate, he refused, and somehow was able to avoid paying her any child support.)

Now I'm certainly not trying to condemn men here -- women are certainly capable of doing just as much wrong.

But this example is just one of the many reasons why I myself never want to lose the ability to support myself and others if or when push comes to shove. Many of us know that elderly parents are having to raise young children their children and other families can't care for, and this isn't possible without a means of income.

So if a woman should stay at home, never hold a job, and never learn any of the skills necessary to find and keep a job:

* How long does a husband's responsibility reach when providing for his wife and children?

* Who should pay for a wife and children's expenses if her husband dies, or if they get a divorce? (I realize that many factors will come into play if there is a divorce, such as who left and why, but how can a woman expect to pay for her family if she's never had a job before?)

I am NOT saying that this should be an excuse for a woman to take her ex-husband to the cleaners. Rather, I am asking, if she's never been allowed to hold a job and doesn't know how to have one, how will she now take care of herself and her kids?

* Does God hold a husband responsible for his wife and/or children only for as long as he lives? Will God release him from that responsibility as soon as he dies, since the wedding vows state, "'til death do us part"? Is a husband obligated to save up to provide for his wife/children after he passes, or are they simply on their own, tough luck on them, after he dies?

I don't think I've ever seen this subject discussed openly in Singles so I'm looking forward to a respectful, meaningful conversation.

Thank you for your time and interest!

 

[Lynx]

If I were married...
If my wife stayed at home while I held down a job...
If I did NOT put something in place to at least help her during the transition, preferably take care of her long-term, should I die...

I would have to seriously ask myself if I really loved her.

Of course that's easy for me to say because I am not married, and even if I did marry at my age I would almost certainly never have children. But if I loved her enough to marry her, and if our arrangement involved her staying at home, I certainly hope I would love her enough and care enough about her well-being to put something in place if I were suddenly out of the picture.

 

[cinder]

What I've heard of 3rd or 4th hand:

Mom (or maybe dad tells this story) says that when they were younger and raising children, my dad had about 5 years worth of provision for her in life insurance and so she's have five years to find another man to help her raise the children and provide for them. I'm just as glad it was never needed but that was how they handled it.

One of my brother's exes had the misfortune to marry after breaking up with him only to lose her husband shortly thereafter and be left with a baby to raise on her own. Her husband somehow had enough that she was getting a decent income monthly, but that income allowed her to isolate herself which wasn't healthy for her or her child who was kind of isolating with her by default. So in that case and possibly in many more, too much provision can keep someone from moving on with life.

So yeah a responsible husband would have a contigency plan to make sure that if his family lost him, they wouldn't immediately lose everything else. A wise husband might also intentionally limit that amount so that his family would have to get on with their lives and not stay stuck in the loss of grief in such a way that they stop living life when he does.

As for divorce cases, I may well be speaking beyond my level of knowledge, but I think it should go something like the one who breaks the marriage ( files for divorce or behaves in a way that shows they think they don't have to keep their marriage vows) should be liable for some support for the family they left behind. But specific amounts really need to be calculated fairly on a case by case basis. As finding people who care about fairness becomes more difficult and dishonesty runs rampant; that seems nearly impossible to do. So I'll just chalk it up to one more advantage of being single.... if you never marry you'll never run the risk of getting divorced.

 

[Lanolin]

Forever until he disowns her or she dies. Thats what marriage is. A covenant.

Not to be entered into lightly. It is life-changing. Lots of people just dont get this. You also have to make a will for your children. Parents who dont do this neglect their responsibility or die intestate. The money if theres any left over goes to the govt.

 

[Lanolin]

If you have a house or estate and havent paid off the mortgage it will be foreclosed by the bank and they own it and can sell it.
But if you married you could declare bankruptcy or you will pass that debt on to your partner or children.

Many parents kick their children out once they turn 18 or they just leave, they are practically disowned and for all intents and purposes orphaned. If they leave to marry, they belong to the family they married into. (usually its women who take a mans name).

I dont think marriage is discussed at all in schools or even church. In church people just assume thats what everyone does. But lots of people dont marry.

 

[TheIndianGirl]

I think if the wife (or husband) is able to be financially independent, and there are no kids, then there is not a big obligation to provide after death. However, if some expenses are based on two incomes (say a mortgage which is based on two incomes), it would be nice to leave the living spouse some funds to cover the shared expenses.

If there are kids involved, yes I believe the spouse should definitely provide for the wife and kids until the kids are at least 18 so they can keep the home and have enough for necessities, and preferably also have the home paid off.

If the living spouse is not working, then I believe there is an obligation that the living spouse is provided enough funds for a house, and for an education so that she can start working and be self-sufficient. If the spouse wishes that the living spouse not work or remarry, then the spouse should provide fully until the living spouse's passing.

 

[Lanolin]

18 is not really old enough these days to be independent. Who at 18 can afford to run a household. Nobody unless they actually have inherited the home AND family business. They will need to be working for several years if they havent paid it off.

Even Jacob was meant to work 7 years to be in a position to marry Rachel, but was given Leah and he had to work 7 more. lol

 

[Dino246]

A few random thoughts on the subject...

A married person should leave their estate to their spouse, that the spouse would be cared for. Obviously, those with larger estates might be able to part out the assets and still care very well for the survivor.

A "supported" spouse who cheats, leading to divorce, should get nothing at all in the way of ongoing support. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

In the common scenario where "she" stays at home with kids, and the marriage ends in divorce, his financial responsibility for her should be limited to five years at most, which is more than enough time for her to get educated and into a career of her own, and of course, should be terminated if she remarries or cohabits.

Don't get me started on the matter of child-support payments.

 

[seoulsearch]

I'm actually quite surprised at the results of this thread.

Since there were so many responses/opinions given in the thread about whether or not men believed they could support a wife and family, I had thought that many, if not most, of those same posters would come and voice their further opinion about the subject here.

I understand that maybe the thought of being called home and leaving your spouse and family is too personal, but I was really hoping to see what the men who thoroughly believe/already have supported their families on their salary believe regarding this topic.

 

[Lynx]

I could drop advertisements for this thread in those threads.

 

[seoulsearch]

I could drop advertisements for this thread in those threads.

Lol... Thanks for the endorsements, but...

I figure the people who posted there had no problems finding that thread and speaking up -- so it's not any different for this thread.

I'm sure the lack of follow-up is by choice, and must be for a reason.

 

[RodB651]

* Who should pay for a wife and children's expenses if her husband dies, or if they get a divorce? (I realize that many factors will come into play if there is a divorce, such as who left and why, but how can a woman expect to pay for her family if she's never had a job before?)

If the husband dies, I'm hoping he set things up in a way where she has at least three to five years worth of living expenses saved.. Perhaps it comes from a life insurance policy and/or his retirement ever how that was set up.

If it's because of divorce... The courts are going to set this up however they see it. In my case, she wanted it and because she wasn't working, I got hit with spousal support and child support. I don't mind the child support at all. They will be taken care of.
The spousal support will end in about 4 1/2 years, so she has until then to come up with a game plan.
Personally, I've gotten over the bitterness of it. Life has moved on and will continue to do so. I await retirement or grandchildren whichever come first.

 

[Lanolin]

I guess ppl (or men) dont like to think that far ahead.
Maybe better asked in the family forum of husbands. Have they taken out an insurance policy and made their will?

my next door neighbour died in his 20s and left behind a wife and daughter only a year old. From what I know caregving is being done by his parents (grandparents) .

I have never heard of a husband never ALLOWING his wife to hold a job or earn any income. What is this, the dark ages? Proverbs 31 woman was busy busy busy. In many countries you take maternity leave and you are entitled to the full amount and at least 20 hours FREE childcare, plus you may get a widows benefit.

 

[Lanolin]

there are a few unskilled jobs you can do if youve never graduated high school

working in a chicken factory
cleaning
retail
security

or you can go back home and live with your parents to save expenses...whcih is what most people do. There are also job seeking courses that people can do and free upskilling training courses.

whether you can find a job and keep it though is up to you. If you are left with children going hungry you would do anything. Some women do ANYTHING to keep their children from starving, even prostituion.

Ruth gleaned the fields, but in her case, she hadnt had children with her first husband.

 

[Magenta]

In the common scenario where "she" stays at home with kids, and the marriage ends in divorce, his financial responsibility for her should be limited to five years at most, which is more than enough time for her to get educated and into a career of her own, and of course, should be terminated if she remarries or cohabits.

Don't get me started on the matter of child-support payments.

More than enough time to force her into a situation she neither desires nor lived in all their years together? What happened to the principle of her being kept in manner to which she has become accustomed? I suppose your scenario deals with cheating on the woman's part, which is why your response seems punitive toward her. What about a scenario where it is the husband who decides, after several children and decades of marriage, that he wants out? If the wife never worked full time, or rarely worked full time especially as her home duties increased, being busy raising children and looking after household matters, should she still be expected to enter the work force full time to support herself and her remaining minors if and when her husband decides to depart? I know a woman who found herself in that situation. Her ex-husband was making mega bucks and did not want to give her a cent in alimony, nor pay child support. He waited a while before filing for divorce and then dragged out the proceedings so long to ensure his older children would not be dependents by the time it was settled.

 

[Lanolin]

mostly it would have to do with children being dependent and needing care not the wife if she is widowed when she is young though when children are at school they dont need as much full time care and women can work part time.

the whole 'accustomed' to being kept is an entitlement issue.
What woman today wants to be 'kept' by a man, when she belongs to God?

if a woman is keeping house and that is her full time duty, if her hsuband leaves or dies shes leaves with the house and property, then yes she can do what she likes with the house..she can rent it out, sell it, turn it into a museum, school, whatever. Have a home business. She has a house and property! Shes not got NOTHING.

when my aunt got widowd she still could work in her hubands business bringing up her two boys that were teens at the time. She didnt remarry, and she stayed in the same house. She may have got widows benefit.

 

[Dino246]

More than enough time to force her into a situation she neither desires nor lived in all their years together?

"All their years together"... which is how many? Three? Five? Did they make it to the magic 7? Why would anyone be responsible for another adult twenty years after a seven-year relationship? And what if she initiated the divorce (without there being clear abuse or adultery)... who is "forcing" whom then? 80% of divorces are initiated by the wife. What then? He is forced into a situation he didn't choose, but typically the courts will rule for spousal support anyway.

What happened to the principle of her being kept in manner to which she has become accustomed?

With respect to you, I think that "principle" is c**p. How many times does a marriage end in divorce at her initiative, and he is left nearly destitute, having lost his home, often his vehicle, nearly always his children, and usually well more than half of his income? If she's vindictive, maybe he loses his job too. What about his standard of living? Why should she get to go on living in (relative) luxury, taking trips with the kids and using their "child support" to pay for her expensive tastes, when he is stuck in a small apartment, surviving on a small percentage of the money he earns, only "permitted" to spend a few hours a week at most with his children, and having little in the way of space or resources to do anything with them? No... the "standard of living" argument is no longer reasonable, if it ever was. At least we don't live in the US, where someone unable to pay court-ordered support is thrown in jail (am I the only one who thinks that is beyond stupid?).

I suppose your scenario deals with cheating on the woman's part, which is why your response seems punitive toward her. What about a scenario where it is the husband who decides, after several children and decades of marriage, that he wants out? If the wife never worked full time, or rarely worked full time especially as her home duties increased, being busy raising children and looking after household matters, should she still be expected to enter the work force full time to support herself and her remaining minors if and when her husband decides to depart? I know a woman who found herself in that situation. Her ex-husband was making mega bucks and did not want to give her a cent in alimony, nor pay child support.

He waited a while before filing for divorce and then dragged out the proceedings so long to ensure his older children would not be dependents by the time it was settled.

Yes, such cases do occur, and such men are called "deadbeats" for good reason. I have no issue with courts being firm in ruling for spousal support in such cases. The problem is that case law from those is brought to bear on situations that are very different.

Regardless of how a marriage ends, I still hold that a five-year limit on spousal support is reasonable. I could extend that to seven in a case like you describe, but for the rest of her life? Um, no, and I certainly don't think that support should go on any longer than the marriage did. Your case would likely end with a hefty child-support payment and a reasonable spousal-support payment (in Canada, at least). The fact that it was allowed to be dragged out prior to nominal payment being ordered is a fault of the court system.

 

[cinder]

And what if she initiated the divorce (without there being clear abuse or adultery)... who is "forcing" whom then? 80% of divorces are initiated by the wife. What then? He is forced into a situation he didn't choose, but typically the courts will rule for spousal support anyway.

That's a pretty high figure, but with everything else you have to say about divorce it does make one wonder...... what motivation would a man have for initiating a divorce? Sounds like he should expect to lose a sizeable percentage of his income and have restricted access to his kids..... I just can't see too many people being motivated to start something that would end like that.

 

[Magenta]

"All their years together"... which is how many? Three? Five? Did they make it to the magic 7?

They were together for twenty years, during which time the wife/mother worked mostly only part time/on call as was allowed by her responsibilities in the home looking after the growing family of four children and all that entails with special needs etc. One day out of the blue hubby decides he wants to leave and announces that "he never loved her" after feeling that way for who knows how long.

Regardless of how a marriage ends, I still hold that a five-year limit on spousal support is reasonable. I could extend that to seven in a case like you describe, but for the rest of her life? Um, no, and I certainly don't think that support should go on any longer than the marriage did. Your case would likely end with a hefty child-support payment and a reasonable spousal-support payment (in Canada, at least). The fact that it was allowed to be dragged out prior to nominal payment being ordered is a fault of the court system.

Yes, the guy in this case hired a lawyer who had a reputation for being... well, I am not allowed to say what her reputation was, as good manners forbids it. The woman/wife/mother by then was well into her forties (probably much closer to fifty, and possibly in her early fifties by then) and had a special needs child at home who was still a minor. She had never worked full time, so suddenly expecting her to at that age seems quite unreasonable. It's not like the guy could not afford alimony, either, but for some strange reason he did not want her to get a cent of his money. He was making about half a million a year by then and threatened to go work flipping burgers at Micky D's if need be to ensure his selfish immoral attitude could be fulfilled.

I am sorry you suffered so much through your own divorce... the breakdown of relationships can be very painful. I know this both from first hand experience and also from listening to others, such as the person in the scenario I have presented, as she is someone I have been very close to most of my life, and listened over the course of a number of years as her own painful situation played out. Thankfully that was years ago now and she has mostly put it all behind her. She is one of the most amazing women I have ever known and have a great deal of respect for how she handled herself through all of that even as much as it was both shocking and crazy-making for her at the time to discover the lengths her ex would go to try to stiff her.

 

[Dino246]

They were together for twenty years, during which time the wife/mother worked mostly only part time/on call as was allowed by her responsibilities in the home looking after the growing family of four children and all that entails with special needs etc. One day out of the blue hubby decides he wants to leave and announces that "he never loved her" after feeling that way for who knows how long.

Yes, the guy in this case hired a lawyer who had a reputation for being... well, I am not allowed to say what her reputation was, as good manners forbids it. The woman/wife/mother by then was well into her forties (probably much closer to fifty, and possibly in her early fifties by then) and had a special needs child at home who was still a minor. She had never worked full time, so suddenly expecting her to at that age seems quite unreasonable. It's not like the guy could not afford alimony, either, but for some strange reason he did not want her to get a cent of his money. He was making about half a million a year by then and threatened to go work flipping burgers at Micky D's if need be to ensure his selfish immoral attitude could be fulfilled.

I am sorry you suffered so much through your own divorce... the breakdown of relationships can be very painful. I know this both from first hand experience and also from listening to others, such as the person in the scenario I have presented, as she is someone I have been very close to most of my life, and listened over the course of a number of years as her own painful situation played out. Thankfully that was years ago now and she has mostly put it all behind her. She is one of the most amazing women I have ever known and have a great deal of respect for how she handled herself through all of that even as much as it was both shocking and crazy-making for her at the time to discover the lengths her ex would go to try to stiff her.

Thanks for sharing and not simply blasting me with disagreement and dislike.

The guy in that situation is a (redacted)... 'deadbeat' is far too nice for such as him. It's a very different scenario to those I had in mind.