Hacker News Reader

Comment by notch656a | Hacker News Reader

Anyone who has a spouse or children should also consider that in the very unlucky event the worst happens and a divorce or child support or alimony order is ordered while working for a FAANG, the judge may consider your FAANG income as your 'imputed income' in the future so taking a lower-stress job may not incur recomputing of your support orders. That is, your choice may look something like "grind at FAANGs forever" or wither in jail and/or always on the edge of bankruptcy. That's enough to scare the shit out of me from working at this double+ salary high-stress jobs.

This is not legal advice, IANAL.

View on HN

Not a lawyer, but married to a divorcee.

This scenario doesn't work as you expect if you get your first high-paying job and are served with divorce papers a week later. You have to be making that much money for something like 1-2 years for it to be considered any sort of baseline.

IMO, salespeople are hit hardest by this due to economic boom/bust cycles. You live an extravagant life when times are good, then get divorced during a recession and end up absolutely ruined because your earning potential (and imputed income) are tied to factors beyond your immediate control.

Bankruptcy does not relieve you of child support obligations. Unsure about alimony, but I doubt it.

If you have to get a lower-paying job after maintaining a higher-paying one, you can file for a modification, but you can only do this once every 3 years or so. It works both ways too-- your ex can file for a modification of child/spousal support (every 3 years) if they anticipate raises or promotions on your part.

If you get a new job they can re calculate spousal support. That's been the rule for decades, and MRA FUD notwithstanding courts will not force a spouse to maintain a job they hate to maintain the ex spouses standard of living... Unless there's evidence that you are taking the new job for the purpose of lowering your spousal (or child) support obligations, in which case they will impute income. (But note that appellate courts have been more willing to strike down imputed income orders than they traditionally were).

A post divorce party increase generally does not result in higher spousal support unless it might restore an earlier level of spousal support, but either way it would increase child support.

I mean if you have this kind of concerns, isn't it better to get a prenup? Doesn't it solve the problem?

Or just not getting married... in my part of the world getting married is the exception rather than the norm.

Where is that?

In most parts of the world, married or not married, will give your partner the same rights and responsibilities.

Which part of the world? Even without civil partnership?

Does it mean that there's a legal battle to define whether a certain person can be considered a partner?

It's called a de facto union. Example:

"Unmarried Couples ...This page is about partners in a stable relationship who are not married or registered with any authority..." - https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/family/couple/de-facto...

Generally speaking pre-nuptial agreements in California mainly cover assets and income sources that a spouse had before the marriage. They wouldn't impact how a family law judge calculates imputed income for alimony or child support due to taking a higher paying job during the marriage. There are some additional complexities there so talk to an attorney if this is a concern for you. A post-nuptial agreement can also be an option.

Life changes. People can often grow in their careers, and also grow apart. And even if you work in FAANG, self-respecting spouses will demur or reevaluate the relationship if you go asking for a prenup. This kind of thing is almost unheard of for people who work for wages and do not have an agent, legal team or other type of representation already.

Prenup should be the default, any other agreement is fundamentally adversarial IMO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com