[Dan in Pasadena]

I can't explain the rationale behind this specific case but I can tell you from personal experience that in California a marriage over ten years long is subject to different rules. It is considered a "marriage of long duration". Potentially, the person in the superior financial position COULD be made to pay spousal support for the REST OF HIS (or her, yeah...right!) LIFE! Yup, incredible! If the marriage is shorter than ten years, then half the term of the marriage is usually the rule. Now, I guess it may be able to be negotiated away with a large settlement (I'll ask my newly minted lawyer daughter) but that MAY be the reason for the large cash payout.

As for child support? The children have to be supported in a manner consistent with the manner they would have been supported in had their parents stayed together. At least that is my understanding of it.

I was married 20 years. Divorced about 9 years ago and have been in a live in relationship for many of those last years. We are not married and will not get married. Fortunately, neither of us wants it. Without children, I personally see no reason for it. Before anyone posts it, that old chestnut about "commitment". That's a crock. How much commitment do you think I THOUGHT I had, married to a woman for 20 years, two kids, a life time of memories, etc, etc? Marriage guarantees you NOTHING except attorney fees if it ever goes bad.

EDIT: P.S. to Milt. My ex, childhood sweetheart, "love of my life", was remarried in less than one year after our divorce was final. To someone she knew through work. The math doesn't seem all that hard to me. Yeah, still kinda smarts. I'll never forget that lesson. Its burned into my azz like a brand.