Sia's estranged husband wants $250K per month in spousal support

[Emvee 8,552]

Spousal support should be a minimum sum to survive, not the amount necessary to sustain a lifestyle you were “used to.” 

[Bronco 14,095]

1 hour ago, RenegAde said:

I dont think spousal support itself is outdated because a lot of women still live that reality (in more societies than others) but i think the legal considerations for awarding spousal support are anachronistic. Thats why a lot of people take advantage of it in todays world. 

Its 100% a balance issue. Its outdated in the sense that it's no longer the case that women need a husband to open bank accounts etc.

But you are 100% right to point out that some relationships are still sole earner households etc. And that people on significantly lower incomes can be financially disadvantaged by seperation.

[Murakami27 5,914]

Half a mil a month while many are living paycheque to paycheque is just insane. Maybe it’s time to adjust your living standards. Who the hell needs an IT guy on payroll?

Edited October 11 by Murakami27

[Economy 50,834]

5 hours ago, PartySick said:

If you're an adult and not disabled then you're responsible for providing for yourself  

Yes and no. I think theres a case to be made that if u were in a relationship with a wealthy individual and you did not work and maybe you contributed to relationship in other ways, you never got to build up a career or resume and you may struggle to sort out your finances so im not entirely against the concept in all cases especially if the terms of your settlement did not get you a 50% share of assets and your gonna struggle on your own.

 

But again, this is in specific situations and there should be a cap on the amount you get and a time limit on it. It should not be for the rest of your life living a life of luxury doing nothing at your exes expense. Should be an appropriate amunt for a period of time to assist with your life transition and thats it.

 

5 hours ago, PartySick said:

 

Child support should be based on percentage of income if it isn't already. That's more about the idea that you don't get to create a child then hoard your resources from that child and the parent that has custody just 'cause you're rich or whatever.

I sort of agree but with a caveat...

 

When were talking about very wealthy individuals, a small percentage of money can still be an enpurmous amount of money the other parent cannot possibly use all for their child in a productive mannor. In real life lets be honest, much of it ends up being used on themselves not the kids because were talking so much money.

 

Enough money for a confortable life? Sure! Enough money so the other parent doesnt have to work? I can even accept that because that too has value for the child. It means the single parent taking care of them can do that as their full time job and be a more present parent

 

But their comes a point where a confortable life is already provided and 2nd parent already doesnt have to work, and even more money than that is gonna end up going towards thr ex living a lavish life style not really anything related to the child

 

There should be thresholds (for example any amount over $10K a month) has to be deposited in a trust for the child that they can access when they turn 18 and not to the parent holding custody

 

If 2% of your income is $1M a year at that point most of that isnt going to your kid. Its to make your ex rich and set up for the rest of your life without having to to go to work and i dont support that

 

Obviously these are extreme hollywood or CEO rich billionaire examples that make up a small percentage if cases, but thats what i was referring to.

[Economy 50,834]

5 hours ago, PartySick said:

If you're an adult and not disabled then you're responsible for providing for yourself  

Yes and no. I think theres a case to be made that if u were in a relationship with a wealthy individual and you did not work and maybe you contributed to relationship in other ways, you never got to build up a career or resume and you may struggle to sort out your finances so im not entirely against the concept in all cases especially if the terms of your settlement did not get you a 50% share of assets and your gonna struggle on your own.

 

But again, this is in specific situations and there should be a cap on the amount you get and a time limit on it. It should not be for the rest of your life living a life of luxury doing nothing at your exes expense. Should be an appropriate amunt for a period of time to assist with your life transition and thats it.

 

5 hours ago, PartySick said:

 

Child support should be based on percentage of income if it isn't already. That's more about the idea that you don't get to create a child then hoard your resources from that child and the parent that has custody just 'cause you're rich or whatever.

I sort of agree but with a caveat...

 

When were talking about very wealthy individuals, a small percentage of money can still be an enpurmous amount of money the other parent cannot possibly use all for their child in a productive mannor. In real life lets be honest, much of it ends up being used on themselves not the kids because were talking so much money.

 

Enough money for a confortable life? Sure! Enough money so the other parent doesnt have to work? I can even accept that because that too has value for the child. It means the single parent taking care of them can do that as their full time job and be a more present parent

 

But their comes a point where a confortable life is already provided and 2nd parent already doesnt have to work, and even more money than that is gonna end up going towards thr ex living a lavish life style not really anything related to the child

 

There should be thresholds (for example any amount over $10K a month) has to be deposited in a trust for the child that they can access when they turn 18 and not to the parent holding custody

 

If 2% of your income is $1M a year at that point most of that isnt going to your kid. Its to make your ex rich and set up for the rest of your life without having to to go to work and i dont support that

 

Obviously these are extreme hollywood or CEO rich billionaire examples that make up a small percentage if cases, but thats what i was referring to.

[Lord Mayhem 1,867]

8 hours ago, Juanjo said:

That detail caught my eye, and left me thinking, why TF would they need their person live-in IT person? 😭

Probably to prevent any leaks from all the demos she keeps in a refrigerated data center in her basement 

[ChvVolk 2,428]

If they were married for 10 years, I believe in LA or California in general, i think he would've been given half of everything. Its a law. But 2 years? Boybye

[Roughhouse Dandy 12,162]

Big scrub energy. Stop leaching and put the fries in the bag, bum. 

[Bambino 24,321]

What do you mean estranged?? Are they divorced or separated or what?  

[Gohan 16,548]

23 hours ago, Bronco said:

Ngl

Idk why but I always thought she was a lesbian

I thought she were american 

[RAMROD 111,536]

5 hours ago, Bambino said:

What do you mean estranged?? Are they divorced or separated or what?  

Yes. She married this second husband in December 2002 and divorced in March 2025. Her first marriage was from 2014 to 2016