I was demonstrating that this statement of yours "Terri and Kaine and Terri was working on and off throughout her stint as the supposed primary caretaker...." is not correct, in that Kaine was the primary caretaker. There is no supposed Terri was the primary caretaker here. Kaine was.
But that addresses only the immediate time after Kyron first moved in with his father. I don't know how their relationship worked and how they determined where Kyron would be during the day. He seemed well loved and cared for.
Debs, I agree with you and am springboarding off your post.
My recollection of what I've read before is that Kyron went to live with Kaine when his bio mom became so ill that she wound up in Canada having medical treatments. At that point, Kaine and Terri weren't living together, so Kaine was the one who put Kyron into day care.
I don't recall exactly when they moved in together. But considering that DY originally got a restraining order against Kaine, and she also had custody of Kyron, suddenly having Kyron need full-time care was something added to the relationship between Terri & Kaine. If so, she deserves credit for stepping up and becoming the full-time (not weekend visiting) "mom" style caregiver.
It also appears as though she worked to complete two degrees, and worked at various jobs at various times. And when she wasn't working, she was, according to various accounts, volunteering and active with Kyron's classroom and school.
As for her being a SAHM, we don't know if that's what she and Kaine chose, do we? With Kyron and then a new baby, maybe that was his choice, or hers, or theirs.
It seems like TH got to take care of Kaine's child, Kaine's house (earlier accounts say that he put only his name on the house), provide cleaning, cooking, errand, and child volunteering services 24/7, occasionally got to drive his truck, and as of right now, he indeed has everything. We don't even know if the Mustang was paid for, if it was in her name, etc--but I do recall thatwWhen she left the former marital home (under duress) there was a photo of the Mustang left in the yard.
I'm an old school feminist, one of those who broke barriers and helped change things so that now younger women routinely decide if they want to be lawyers or astronauts or SAHMs or--whatever. I came up in the time when classified ads said "jobs for men" and "jobs for women". I fought for my professionals status, and achived many "firsts"--as did many of my friends.
But I have never had disdain for SAHMs. What I've always believed is that both women and men should have choices in their lives not dictated by, nor compensation level dictated by, their gender. If she's a high-powered attorney and he stays at home with the kids/house and occasionally paints or whatever, and it works for them, that's fine by me.
I think that being a SAHP (stay at home parent) has got to be one of the toughest jobs around. You don't get promotions, you don't get a nice new office, you don't get awards and plaques, you can't quit, and you can't walk out of the "office" to have a complete vacation--not if you take the kids. And even if you don't, someone has to get them ready for whoever is taking care of them.
Punishing a SAHM financially because she (or whoops, parent/he) wasn't working outside the home somehow just isn't fair to me. I think that SAHP work has real value--and I also came up in the time when there were far too many "displaced homemakers" (the euphemism then) who fulfilled their part of a marital bargain only to be replaced by a younger model later. And their husbands had the money, the assets, and oh yes--she had no real job skills. In fact, at one point I taught a classroom of displaced homemakers--basic computer skills. At one point in FL divorce/community property laws underwent a major change because so many military men moved their families to FL, replaced wifey, and kept their retirement, the pension, the everything, and the woman who'd lived the military life and provided the home support had no skills and no assets.
I'm a career woman, by choice. But that doesn't mean that I disrespected or saw no financial value in what other women did when they were SAHMs and, in my circles, also active community volunteers (which also has great value, and I'm one too).
I just hate hearing support for an idea that was, IMHO, wrong and disrespectful even in the 50's--that the SAHM isn't contributing in a manner that deserves financial consideration. A SAHM should not have to be, totally financially vulnerable should the marriage go sour.
From all accounts, Kyron appeared well cared for. Even DY said that TH provided his needs. Until we know for sure whether or not TH did something to that child, it's not fair, IMHO, to decide that she should be punished financially by having no claim on any marital assets.
Of course, if she's guilty and winds up in prison, then that resolves any issues over marital assets.
JMO, Moo, Moo, all that.
I agree that arriving in your place having had personal savings and the past opportunity to work, then living in a fairly good income household where you were able to contribute without an outside job, of course she could be expected to still have some personal savings.
