So that leaves this as an attack weapon …unfortunately.
I’m sorry you felt attacked with how I responded to the child support question. I reread my post to see what I had written that had led to that impression, but wasn’t able to pinpoint it. That was certainly not my intent, I just wanted to clarify some legal aspects and provide some facts so folks did not get confused.
And now she wants a lifetime guarantee of those benefits even if they break.
Actually, if you reread my post, she does not want that. While it’s startling to give nothing even if they have kids and she quits her job, all she asked for was health insurance for a few years in that event. She wanted zero if they divorced without kids (which I admit I did not explicitly state, so that might not have been obvious to you).
If it is a family business, she should not feel entitled. We have to get rid of the “Girl, get yours” mentality. If it were a guy, he would not be trying to mooch off a woman’s business and trying to get guarantees if he breaks up with her.
Right now, he’s mooching off her to start other businesses, which is ridiculous in my opinion (though you’re right, he could be setting himself up for failure by accepting support in building these, though obviously not the family established one). Then again, I don’t like moochers in general, so a moocher who is capable of not mooching but chooses not to is all the more worse. And I wouldn’t call it an entitlement to the business either. If it were a great job instead, same facts still applied, I’d still think that the pre-nup as written was not fair to both parties ex ante. It’s just that folks rarely have people sign a prenup for a spendthrift with a great job who encourages his/her partner to quit a job to stay at home so the situation doesn’t come up.
She may desire to take a break for a few years but she souldn’t abandon her skills completely IMO. If she does, she does so at her own risk.
This is the crux of our disagreement, so we’ll have to agree to disagree. I believe that if they both agree, the risk should be shared. If they BOTH want kids, and they both AGREE that she ought to quit her job to take care of the kids, thus sacrificing her potential future career for them, then yes I do think it reasonable that s/he pay for spousal support for a limited time to allow her/him to get a job to support herself/himself, whether or not the support comes from a family business or a standard job. I also believe this should apply to men and women equally.
Now if I were her, I’d just refuse to quit my job and avoid the problem entirely. But that’s not how they’ve talked about the future. They’re both from a fairly religious backgrounds with traditional ideas of how to raise the family – that is, with mom at home. Where both parties agree in advance how to raise the kids, I don’t see why one side should penalize the other for a decision made by both. (Think of it this way, if this scenario does play out, it will be you the taxpayer who is paying for her health care. That’s actually the policy reason behind the law.)
As far as this personal situation goes, given their religious background, I believe they are looking at ~4 kids, not the American 2. So you’re talking about ~13 years to get them all into kindergarten (5 years to kindergarten, 2-3 between each kid). +5 is hard to get back into the workforce, approach 15 and you’ve lost major career development and have decayed skills. So it’s not just a “break for a few years.”