It is very unlikely that a court would order "literal" lifetime support, however, other than in exceptional cases.
I think that sort of covers the matter, don't you?
Bear in mind, too, that the courts can compel either (or both) spouses to be independently evaluated by a court-appointed vocational counselor. If, for example, a Vo-Co found that I could be more gainfully employed elsewhere, with negligible impact upon the children, then the court could order me to switch jobs with a concurrent reduction (or elimination) in alimony.
However, I am told by a retired family law judge (48 years' divorce experience) that he has never once seen a court order someone in my line of work to find new employment because we provide a societal benefit, and the ultimate intent of divorce law is to insulate society from the effects of marital dissolution (i.e., by providing for spousal support so that LBS's don't go on welfare).
The other challenge for a Vo-Co is that there aren't a lot of places where I can do what I do, and the court would order alimony before it ordered me to leave the children and move out-of-area for the sake of WAW's finances. The Afghanistan job, for example, would eliminate alimony entirely -- it pays nearly WAW's salary -- but really -- is the judge going to sit up there and say, "The Court finds that Smiley's Person must leave his children -- who will be cared for by a nanny or au pair since Mrs. SP works -- and go 9,000 miles to a place where he stands a very good chance of being killed in order to protect Mrs. SP's finances"?
Yyyyyyeeeeah -- not so much.
Frankly, I would have gone for the "until age-18" approach in any event -- the gods know I don't want that much connection to WAW. But she went to the mattresses before I could finish running the numbers, so f*ck her -- I'll let MY $450 USD/hour lawyer go ahead and ejjicater.
Dig it. Darkly Darkly's got a horse in this race, too. And this guy says the horse can do.
