Who Am I?

I had assumed I would keep my married name after the divorce was final simply because it would be less complicated to have the same last name as my children, though I actually hadn't really given it much thought.

Until yesterday afternoon.

After we were done yesterday, my attorney let me know he still had some questions to ask (even though I'd testified for almost 3 hours already). They were the basic required questions to establish that I had filed with the court to dissolve the marriage, that there were irreconcilable differences, and if I was requesting that the court restore me to my former name. That got the wheels turning last night.

I thought about the pros and cons, considered the simplicity of sameness, and the issue of explaining a change to the kids. I realized that many children have different names than their mother, whether by divorce or design. After all, some women never take their new husband's name upon marriage in the first place.

Then I thought of how it would feel to be a Beck again.

So when my attorney asked me the question on the stand this morning I said that yes, I was requesting the court restore me to my former name. From that point on my attorney referred to me as "Dr. Beck" and it felt fabulous.

I made the right decision for me.

Bedtime Stories

I remember when reading bedtime stories involved me reading to them.

The Game of That's Mine, This is Yours

I had one of those marriages in which there was no "yours" and "mine"... there was only "ours." That goes for stuff, the house, savings and debt. In my case that was a big mistake. I suppose in many instances that kind of arrangement works perfectly. Perhaps it worked in the bygone days of a single-income household in which the earner has the spender on a budgeted allowance. However, when one works and just trusts the other to spend appropriately, a certain level of integrity must be present in the spender.
I am now spending hours trying to recreate the past... finding statements to bank accounts, 401ks, IRAs, and credit cards for the past umpteen years. Apparently it doesn't matter who spent what and if the other knew it was being spent; a credit card is "community debt" which the non-spender must pay half of. Apparently it doesn't matter who had the income; a 401k is a "community asset" which the non-earner is entitled to half of.
Doesn't really seem fair, does it?