Could marrying a career woman help you escape alimony?
<p>Is it generally accepted that if a woman has access to a profession that she can support herself with that you could use this fact to escape alimony? I believe this to be so but is it in fact true. I see by some accounts you have the option to do a 'request for a vocational evaluation'. Does this mean if she can support herself she is expected to do so?</p>

<p>&quot;Access to a profession&quot;? It sounds like you're asking about someone who has educational credentials or past work experience but who is not currently working in a profession. Nowadays, in the USA, alimony awards are rare. And when it IS awarded, it is usually temporary (like a year or a few years) in order to help with the transition. If one spouse is not currently working and has not worked for several years in their previous profession, then they will most likely be rated at the capability of earning minimum wage.</p>
<p>Each state is different. Best to enquire directly with a local divorce attorney for your specific case.</p>

<p>Alimony is in principle not paid from man to woman (and nowadays things would be more complicated than that anyway), but from the wealthier to the less wealthy person. Both wealth and income would be taken into account.</p>
<p>If you are a multi-millionaire then just because your ex-wife can support herself, that will not stop alimony. If you are both multi-millionaires, neither will have to pay. If you are a pauper and she makes enough money to support you both, she'll have to pay. (All except that you never know what happens in court).</p>

<p>The laws are different in different countries, and in the US are different from state to state.</p>
<p>I was divorced in Ohio in 1997. In that place at that time, they had a formula for determining child support. (Child support, not alimony, but I'm getting there.) The formula was complicated but basically it said that they calculated an amount of support the child needed, and then the amount the custodial parent received was based on the other parent's share of their combined income. Like if they said the child needs, whatever, say $5,000 per year, and the husband makes $100,000 a year and wife makes $50,000 and the wife is the custodial parent, then the husband's share of the combined income is 2/3 and so he has to pay 2/3 of that $5,000 or $3,333.</p>
<p>At that time alimony was being phased out in Ohio so most divorce cases didn't involve alimony. When they did, the amount was entirely at the discretion of the judge. There was a list of factors the judge was supposed to consider, which included relative income of the two parties, but there was no formula or hard rules. Just, &quot;The judge should consider the following factors ...&quot;</p>
<p>On the other hand, I read at the time that in Texas the rule was that the non-custodial parent had to give the custodial parent a percentage of his income based on how many children they had. How much money the other person made was irrelevant. Personally I thought that was a better rule. A person couldn't get a &quot;better deal&quot; by deliberately quitting her job or otherwise sabotaging herself. What he had to pay was solely dependent on his income, what he did, and not on anything she did. But that's just my opinion.</p>
<p>So I think the short answer to your question is the ever-popular: It depends. It depends on the laws where you live. It often depends on the judge.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, I once read the suggestion that if you're planning to divorce your spouse, you should move to a place where the divorce laws most favor you, and live there long enough to qualify as a legal resident for divorce purposes before filing.</p>
<p>By the way #2: Choosing a spouse on the basis of who will result in you having the most favorable divorce settlement when you break up is probably not a productive idea. Certainly not very romantic.</p>

family-law divorce