If you are a father the family court will screw you

[Starcraftmazter]

If marriage is going to remain as a societal norm, maybe pre-nuptial agreements should be mandatory.

Prenups should be built into marriage agreements no question, and any sane guy should demand his partner sign one; however this is a separate issue.

The problem with our feminist nanny state is that the family court can and does overturn them. This is 100% guaranteed to happen if children are involved - but even if they aren't, there's still a good chance it will be.

What we need is some sort of a higher-tier prenup agreement where both parties agree that at no point in time in the future lives, regardless of what happens, they are not entitled to single dollar from each other.

 

[jersey10]

Prenups should be built into marriage agreements no question, and any sane guy should demand his partner sign one; however this is a separate issue.

The problem with our feminist nanny state is that the family court can and does overturn them. This is 100% guaranteed to happen if children are involved - but even if they aren't, there's still a good chance it will be.

What we need is some sort of a higher-tier prenup agreement where both parties agree that at no point in time in the future lives, regardless of what happens, they are not entitled to single dollar from each other.

This is what i was referring to - a pre-nuptial agreement that cannot be overturned and states if we divorce... this happens with the children, this happens with the money, this happens with the house, this happens with the investments, so everything is sorted out beforehand. There are too many unknowingly immoral people out there to not enforce this as standard.

And yes, i agree we live in a feminist nanny state which is a disgrace.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

This is what i was referring to - a pre-nuptial agreement that cannot be overturned and states if we divorce... this happens with the children, this happens with the money, this happens with the house, this happens with the investments, so everything is sorted out beforehand. There are too many unknowingly immoral people out there to not enforce this as standard.

That sounds like a solid idea, and I cannot imagine why it doesn't occur.

When two people get married or even after marriage when they decide to have children, it makes perfect sense for them to agree to a legally binding document that states that in the event of a divorce, custody will be 50% joint. Same with assets.

That way, regardless of how emotional and illogical one party becomes, the outcome will be fair for both.

 

[McLovin]

This is what i was referring to - a pre-nuptial agreement that cannot be overturned and states if we divorce... this happens with the children, this happens with the money, this happens with the house, this happens with the investments, so everything is sorted out beforehand. There are too many unknowingly immoral people out there to not enforce this as standard.

And yes, i agree we live in a feminist nanny state which is a disgrace.

A court has the power to disregard a pre-nup and in some respects a trust. Further to that, a pre-nup cannot say who gets custody of children.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

To avoid conflict which adversely affects the kids the only option the non custodial parent has (usually the father) is to bow to the system, pay the child support, see his kids every second weekend and hope that he has a better relationship with his kids when they are old enough to decide for themselves. For the majority of fathers this is very hard to take and can lead to suicide in the extreme cases.

In the majority of divorces the kids never win and therefore nor do the parents.

I hear what you are saying dutchie.

Under the present system it has been " systematised " and a certain code of behaviour wins.

It will change but not for a few years,

Meanwhile as always, the kids get ****ed up.

gg

 

[jersey10]

That sounds like a solid idea, and I cannot imagine why it doesn't occur.

When two people get married or even after marriage when they decide to have children, it makes perfect sense for them to agree to a legally binding document that states that in the event of a divorce, custody will be 50% joint. Same with assets.

That way, regardless of how emotional and illogical one party becomes, the outcome will be fair for both.

I don't think it would often be reasonable to agree that 50% joint custody and 50% split of assets would be the best agreement.

A court has the power to disregard a pre-nup and in some respects a trust. Further to that, a pre-nup cannot say who gets custody of children.

Why can a court disregard a pre-nup? and why can a pre-nup not include agreements on how the children are best dealt with in the case of a divorce?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Why can a court disregard a pre-nup?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I think we all know the answer to that question.

You are a sad little dratsab.

Quite sick.

gg

 

[McLovin]

Why can a court disregard a pre-nup? and why can a pre-nup not include agreements on how the children are best dealt with in the case of a divorce?

Them's the laws.

 

[Julia]

Let's remember that plenty of separating couples manage to make their own arrangements, amicably enough, in the best interests of the children and themselves, without any involvement of the courts at all. I know of several and they are working well with flexibility on both sides.

Maybe just abolish the institution of marriage and that would eliminate the hysteria about homosexual marriage for a start. Given the divorce rate, marriage hardly seems to be a valid institution. It doesn't confer on the participants a necessarily positive relationship or guarantee security for the children. Hard to see the point of it, imo.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Maybe just abolish the institution of marriage and that would eliminate the hysteria about homosexual marriage for a start. Given the divorce rate, marriage hardly seems to be a valid institution. It doesn't confer on the participants a necessarily positive relationship or guarantee security for the children. Hard to see the point of it, imo.

Now there's something I can agree with

 

[johenmo]

Maybe just abolish the institution of marriage and that would eliminate the hysteria about homosexual marriage for a start. Given the divorce rate, marriage hardly seems to be a valid institution. It doesn't confer on the participants a necessarily positive relationship or guarantee security for the children. Hard to see the point of it, imo.

Abolishing it should have little effect if children were involved if it is really "all about the kids". The current system lets men leave a woman with kids & ongoing support/maintenance is hard to receive. I know this from seeing my nieces who have had children whilst not married & are being supported by the taxpayer. ALL the men except one are not paying or not paying much at all. Bad choices for many of them, but also includes a couple of long marriages.

It almost pushes one the other way - to say no marriage, no kids (impossible I know, so don't go crazy on this!!!) in order to create some accountability for men who are looking for women but don't care if they impregnate them. and we know that the pill is not 100% reliable - upon which many rely.

The crude divorce rate is highish but if you remove the "repeat offender" data then the divorce rate foro first time marriages is better than if first appears (was a comment on Insight on TV a couple of years back so I can't validate this without searching atm). The quote from the ABS is reflective of what I mean, even though it isn't specifically about divorce. So it could be interpreted that ppl who get divorced shouldn't marry again. But many first marriages have kids & people stay together for the kids so that would also artificially inflate the length of the first-time marriages.

From abs - only comment I can find in a short search:
"Of the divorces made absolute in 1994, those made between couples who had both been in their first marriage had had a median marriage length until separation of nine years. Couples who had both been divorced previously had had a shorter median length of marriage until separation of five years."

If one won't accept that the nature of a relationship or marriage will change over the decades then one will be disappointed. And IMO doomed to fail.
Julia - in another thread we agreed on how people are becoming more precious. This attitude is bound to carry over into relationships & have some effect.

 

[jersey10]

Maybe just abolish the institution of marriage and that would eliminate the hysteria about homosexual marriage for a start. Given the divorce rate, marriage hardly seems to be a valid institution. It doesn't confer on the participants a necessarily positive relationship or guarantee security for the children. Hard to see the point of it, imo.

Isn't it illogical and immoral to sign a form saying you will stay with someone forever?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Abolishing it should have little effect if children were involved if it is really "all about the kids". The current system lets men leave a woman with kids & ongoing support/maintenance is hard to receive. I know this from seeing my nieces who have had children whilst not married & are being supported by the taxpayer. ALL the men except one are not paying or not paying much at all. Bad choices for many of them, but also includes a couple of long marriages.

Please do tell me what legal tactics they are using, I was under the impression that if you didn't pay, you would be jailed or something to that extent. This seems very useful to know.

Can one simply opt to not pay?

It almost pushes one the other way - to say no marriage, no kids (impossible I know, so don't go crazy on this!!!) in order to create some accountability for men who are looking for women but don't care if they impregnate them. and we know that the pill is not 100% reliable - upon which many rely.

Accountability for men? Please. How about equal rights for men and an end to the hypocrisy?

The government has no right to tell private individuals how to spend their money.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Let's remember that plenty of separating couples manage to make their own arrangements, amicably enough, in the best interests of the children and themselves, without any involvement of the courts at all. I know of several and they are working well with flexibility on both sides.

Maybe just abolish the institution of marriage and that would eliminate the hysteria about homosexual marriage for a start. Given the divorce rate, marriage hardly seems to be a valid institution. It doesn't confer on the participants a necessarily positive relationship or guarantee security for the children. Hard to see the point of it, imo.

+1

gg

 

[Julia]

Abolishing it should have little effect if children were involved if it is really "all about the kids".

That's quite true, johenmo. I should have been clear about what I meant.

I didn't mean to suggest that just eliminating the formal ritual of marriage would make any difference to the custody issues or general wellbeing of the children.
Rather I was just trying to broaden the debate with wondering why it's actually important to some people to 'get married'.

The legal act hardly confers a guarantee of a successful relationship. It's messy and expensive to dissolve.
So wouldn't it just be better to do away with the institution altogether?
The big bonus would be that we would be spared the recent fuss about homosexual marriage.

Julia - in another thread we agreed on how people are becoming more precious. This attitude is bound to carry over into relationships & have some effect.

Agreed. Plus perhaps our culture is more and more recognising individualism rather than couples and families.
(With the notable exception, of course, of Ms Gillard's "working families".

 

[johenmo]

That's quite true, johenmo. I should have been clear about what I meant.

I didn't mean to suggest that just eliminating the formal ritual of marriage would make any difference to the custody issues or general wellbeing of the children.
Rather I was just trying to broaden the debate with wondering why it's actually important to some people to 'get married'.

I have heard people say they are willing to have kids but shy away from being married. I consider getting out of a marriage to be less messy than a relationship of any sort that has children. So I see marriage as an 'entry-level+ commitment. If being married is considered a life-long commitment & that is too much for a person then kids shouldn't even enter the picture. I guess it's a declaration. I can't see the logic that says "I can't commit marriage but will commit to kids".

The legal act hardly confers a guarantee of a successful relationship. It's messy and expensive to dissolve.
So wouldn't it just be better to do away with the institution altogether?
The big bonus would be that we would be spared the recent fuss about homosexual marriage.

For simplicity's sake, consider marriage/legal unions to be the same. If these didn't exist then a relationship that has kids would still have the same messy situation for most people - those who do it amicably aren't relevant to the topic in most ways. So a non-legally binding relationship that spawns kids will leave someone free to wiggle out from their responsibility to the kids. This is why I think it shouldn't be done away with - maybe I'm not expressing myself well here.

I made a comment in an earlier post about nieces who have had children from various length relationships - the taxpayer is supporting them and the children, the fathers have varying levels of work & are way behind in support (some are, to all extents & purposes, contributing nothing) & some have moved on and don't seem to be able to be found. Marriage wouldn't mean a thing in these cases but it would help the women who don't manage to get from the man some support.

Back to the father being wronged - What is wrong is the man having to pay support or the ex as well as the kids, and being pushed into a financial situation where he has a worse standard of living than the ex & the kids. I knew a guy who still had to pay her support as part of maintenance even though she had met & was living with another guy - who had more money than my mate & his ex put together. It used to be the other way round and the pendulum has swung too far.

We would be spared from the same-sex marriage fiasco!

Agreed. Plus perhaps our culture is more and more recognising individualism rather than couples and families.
(With the notable exception, of course, of Ms Gillard's "working families".

I'd say it rewards & promotes selfishness rather than community. And , married or not, couples don't seem to realise that each half has to give up some things & adapt to being with someone else. A sexual relationship is, to me, almost an oxymoron....

 

[johenmo]

Please do tell me what legal tactics they are using, I was under the impression that if you didn't pay, you would be jailed or something to that extent. This seems very useful to know.

Can one simply opt to not pay?

One guy had all his assets in the family trust so technically he had nothing - the farm & car were all owned by the trust. They even had a health-care card because his income was so low. That was a few years ago, maybe the law has changed as well.

Others are in various levels of work & are so far behind that the amount paid is next to nothing. A couple seem to have gone missing. If you do it right it seems you can get away with it. Your tax dollars go towards providing them with a house & dollars.... Thought you should know how the Govt is spending you dollars..

If both partners had kept their hormones in-check a little more they wouldn't be in such a mess.

Accountability for men? Please. How about equal rights for men and an end to the hypocrisy?

The government has no right to tell private individuals how to spend their money.

Individuals have no right to shirk the consequences of their actions, and leave others to pay for it - in more ways than just financially.

I believe in equal rights for all, not just men. The system is flawed and favours women atm, whereas years ago women & kids were tossed out of the house & if they didn't have relatives they starved. And when one parent gains at the expense of another in a disproportionate way, they kids will invariably suffer. And the kids suffering is the worst outcome.

 

[Tink]

Let's remember that plenty of separating couples manage to make their own arrangements, amicably enough, in the best interests of the children and themselves, without any involvement of the courts at all. I know of several and they are working well with flexibility on both sides.

Maybe just abolish the institution of marriage and that would eliminate the hysteria about homosexual marriage for a start. Given the divorce rate, marriage hardly seems to be a valid institution. It doesn't confer on the participants a necessarily positive relationship or guarantee security for the children. Hard to see the point of it, imo.

A touchy subject.

Agree with the first part of your post Julia.
I think there is quite alot that have been mature enough to settle out of court and are still there for their children.
I know of one couple that their dog goes with the children also.
The children are well adjusted and still see and spend time with both parents often.

I dont agree with the second part of your post as it sounds so pessimistic.
There are plenty of marraiges that have worked out and are still going, thats a blow to the ones that have made it work.
I agree with Johenmo, that having children should be marraige first, that will never happen though, sadly.
I still think its important for the children.

My opinion.

 

[jersey10]

Rather I was just trying to broaden the debate with wondering why it's actually important to some people to 'get married'.

It's important for a lot of people, particularly females i think, because of the social construct of that is what you are supposed to do. Some younger females i have come across are that immoral and slaves to cliche and stereotype that they need to find a new boyfriend before they split up with their current boyfriend (who they don't want to be with) - pathetic.