Alternative Formulas for Distributing Parental Incomes at Divorce

Abstract

The current study applied five formulas for distributing parental incomes at divorce to 414 court case records in Minnesota and evaluated which formulas and actual court orders provided sufficient incomes for male and female-headed households. The study further explored influences of pre-divorce gross income levels, household/genders, and lengths of marriage on the post-divorce income-to-needs ratios (ITN) produced by the five formulas and actual court orders, using MANOVA. Results were interpreted using distributive justice principles of equity, needs, and contributions. Males have higher ITN with each alternative, except the income-sharing formula. The actual court orders and the income-sharing formula produce the largest discrepancy between male and female ITN and the highest percentage of females living below poverty level guidelines. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006divorce, income distributions, spousal support.,

Women’s financial well‐being: A systematic literature review and directions for future research

“…Women in stepfamilies (couples with children from a previous relationship) face singularities in relation to their financial well‐being resulting from setbacks of the first marriage and the subsequent divorce (Daniels et al., 2006; Ulker, 2009). Financial planning in stepfamilies is much more complex than in traditional families, as it addresses issues such as alimony and support for children, division of property and assets, and divergent styles of budget management (Bartfeld, 2000; Bröckel & Andreß, 2015).…”

Reinvisioning Coparent Curriculum: Meeting the Needs of a Changing Population

“…This theory of change was based on the idea that the curriculum targeted three separate but overlapping areas to create positive change for families: parental self-care, the parent–child relationship, and the coparenting relationship. These three new aspects of the theory of change became our three curriculum sections, which stemmed from divorce literature on parenting and coparenting as well as family research on parental self-care (e.g., Amato, 2001; DeBord et al, 2002; Newland, 2015) and family management (e.g., Bubolz, 2001; Daniels et al, 2006). A review of the open-ended comments from participants in the in-person program supported the identified theory of change (see Figure 2) by reflecting participants’ experiences of which pieces of the curriculum had the most impact and were the most useful (see Table 1).…”