Scrap Alimony, Keep Kids First: A Skills-Before-“I Do” Manifesto

Thesis, plain and simple: If everyone knows ahead of time that living on (or being supplemented by) an ex’s paycheck is never an option, people will build careers they actually like—or at least can live on—before marriage. That protects both partners, weakens old-school power dynamics, and reflects economic reality: in modern America, one income rarely carries a household. Keep child support (it’s for kids). Retire alimony (it’s a Victorian relic). Bureau of Labor StatisticsPew Research CenterEncyclopedia Britannica

What absolutely stays: child support (because kids aren’t exes)

Child support is administered through the federal–state system under OCSS (Title IV-D) and set by state guidelines—most states use an income-shares model (both parents’ incomes), while a handful use a percentage-of-the-obligor model (non-custodial parent’s income). Either way, it’s about meeting the child’s needs, not subsidizing an ex-spouse. Keep it. Tighten it if needed. But don’t touch it. Administration for Children and Families+1NCSL

Why alimony should go (and why that helps everyone)

1) It ends the “dependence plan” and nudges everyone to skill up.
When there’s no prospect of post-marital subsidies, all genders have a clear incentive to build marketable skills before making long-term commitments. That’s good risk management in a country where dual-income families are the norm and typically have the strongest household finances. Bureau of Labor StatisticsPew Research Center

2) It undercuts patriarchal dependence rather than propping it up.
Alimony grew from an era when wives had few property or labor rights; in English ecclesiastical courts, it flowed from husband to wife because the law presumed her economic dependency. Treating that as default in 2025 keeps Victorian wiring in a modern breaker box. Duke Law Scholarship RepositoryEncyclopedia Britannica

3) States already show the path away from lifetime support.
Policy trend = make support temporary, targeted, or not at all:

• Florida (2023): abolished permanent alimony; limited rehabilitative to 5 years; capped durational alimony by marriage length and need. Florida Senate
• Massachusetts (2011): the Alimony Reform Act replaced open-ended awards with duration caps keyed to marriage length. Massachusetts LegislatureMass.gov
• New Jersey (2014): scrapped “permanent alimony” in favor of open-durational with guardrails and robust modification standards. New Jersey LegislatureJustia Law
• Texas: tightly limits spousal maintenance eligibility and duration, emphasizing bare-minimum need and specific qualifying hurdles. FindLaw CodesTexas Statutes
• California: courts aim for self-sufficiency within a “reasonable period”; judges frequently give Gavron warnings—a formal heads-up that support isn’t forever. FindLaw CodesArnold & Peterson, LLP

Bottom line: If so many states can curb or kill lifetime alimony without the sky falling, the national case for abolition is hardly radical.

“But what about the spouse who sacrificed a career?”

Great question. Three smarter tools than alimony-as-a-lifestyle:

1. Property division and one-time adjustments at divorce to account for concrete sacrifices (e.g., foregoing earnings during medical school). Many states already do this alongside equitable distribution. (And states like MA/NJ/FL now channel ongoing support into short windows.) Massachusetts LegislatureNew Jersey LegislatureFlorida Senate
2. Short, truly rehabilitative support only if needed, with automatic sunset dates and mandatory progress check-ins (what FL, MA, and CA frameworks are increasingly doing). Florida SenateMassachusetts LegislatureFindLaw Codes
3. Contracts, not entitlements: prenups/postnups if a couple wants a customized safety net. Make voluntary promises enforceable—ditch blanket rights that presume dependence. (That’s more honest and way less paternalistic.)

Why this is pro-equality, not “anti-someone”

• Both partners keep agency: no one marries expecting a lifetime stipend; everyone builds portable, marketable skills first.
• Women aren’t left destitute—they’re encouraged and expected to be fully in the workforce, with child support enforced and modern labor protections in place. (That’s how you reduce patriarchal leverage: remove the paycheck power imbalance before it starts.) Administration for Children and Families
• Households reflect reality: dual-earner structures predominate and correlate with the healthiest income profiles; policy should match that. Bureau of Labor StatisticsPew Research Center

The policy sketch to finish the job

1. End alimony as a default remedy in state statutes; preserve only narrowly tailored, short-term rehabilitative orders with hard caps and proof of progress. (See how Florida and Massachusetts rewired theirs.) Florida SenateMassachusetts Legislature
2. Hard-wire self-sufficiency into every order (the California §4320 spirit, nationwide), with routine Gavron-style warnings. FindLaw CodesArnold & Peterson, LLP
3. Keep child support strong and easy to enforce (Title IV-D), while acknowledging states differ on whether they use income-shares or obligor-percentage formulas. Administration for Children and Families+1NCSL

TL;DR

• Yes to child support. It’s for kids, and it’s guided by statewide formulas and federal oversight. Administration for Children and Families
• No to alimony. It’s a holdover from a time when the law assumed wives had no independent economic lives. Today it distorts incentives and props up dependency. Duke Law Scholarship RepositoryEncyclopedia Britannica
• Skills first for all genders. When everyone trains to stand on their own two feet, marriages get healthier, divorces get cleaner, and nobody’s future relies on an ex’s paycheck. Bureau of Labor StatisticsPew Research Center

(Not legal advice—states vary. If you’re in the thick of it, talk to a local family-law attorney.)