Fear of Relationships over worry about losing everything

@Terry_w how much net wealth / assets do these people hold? are we talking tens of millions or just couple thousand grand?
what age groups do they fall into?
just curious

 

For every decision there would be one party that feels it is fair and another feel that it is unfair (maybe both feel unfair sometimes).

Not sure how corruption relates to this topic?

 

Which people?

 

What if the dad wants to stay with the kids? Does that make a difference?

 

It's really easy for people to say they care about the kids, but do they show a pattern of actually caring for the children? Take leave to look after them, pick them up from school, cook for them, helped out at school, sporting events? See the difference?

To the best of my understanding (and I haven't worked in family law for a long time), there is a presumption of joint responsibility for kids (joint input in decision making on schools etc.) - but this does not necessarily amount to joint care.

There are no hard or fast rules. But the more evidence you have that you can show that you have actually looked after the kids (in a practical way) the better your case might be.

I knew a guy who wanted joint care - he got it - and then left the kids with his mother the whole time while he went out. Pathetic. If you aren't prepared to look after your children (don't care if you are male or female) don't have them and don't fight the other partner for custody.

 

@Cbrgirl all the dads I know do care about their kids in the ways you mentioned and more. Providing that's the case why mothers generally considered to have more rights to have kids after divorce?

 

Not really. All dads do this.

 

Makes a difference

This is a separate issue to property settlements. This is known as parenting arrangements.
Mothers are not considered to have more rights to 'have' kids after a divorce. Have a read of the family law act and see. Just search for 'parenting' at FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

 

I wonder if this made the insurance company an "interested party" to the division of assets when they found out...

 

It's an awful topic to think about.

I bought the PPoR before marriage, 3 IP in my name before i started buying with her (right before marriage). I pay for all mortgage, household bills and deposit for all properties (even the ones in her name).

I'm gonna lose more than 50% if we separate???

Luckily our relationship is still strong so I don't have to worry about this now.

 

So as an example, if there is a signed prenup that declares that party A bringing assets into a marriage will have full ownership of the assets on separation regardless of CG or any percieved or actual contribution to the asset from the household pay (given party's A pay will be going to support the assets) and Party B will have no legal rights to contest that agreement, that it is binding in most cases?

When anyone here talks about the merits and demerits of asset protection and how psychlogicially you are not entering into a partnership or marriage with the right mindset it confuses me. Both things have nothing to do with each other as far as I'm concerned as no one I know knowingly enters into a marriage or partnership thinking it will fail. However is is stupid not to mitigate against any unfortunate breakdown if it does occur which can be for a variety of reasons. People who end up breaking up likely never imagine it ever happening to them, who does? It can happen to anyone so when it has, what then? It would be foolish to not only be heart broken but also have to build yourself back up financially. If one can at all help it, they should.

Someone rightly compared it to insurance, I don't plan to burn my home down when I get it, but say it does burn down due to negligence or some other issue. Should I not have had insurance cz that risk mitigation upfront somehow means that I'm eventually planning to burn my house down?

 

That's very harsh

 

A BFA is a contract between two parties so it will depend on the terms and the contract and how it is implemented.

 

Ereryones relationship is different. In the beginning it is ok to think like that but once it gets serious (talking marriage) I feel you need to let go of this "what's mine is mine" way of thinking. Marriage or a long term relationship is about two people becoming one family. To get to that stage, if you want to maintain it there is no going back.

If I knew of someone who was protecting prior assets from a partner five years into marriage I would think that is something of a cold relationship. Just my opinion.

 

Half of people who marry disagree with you and get a divorce.

 

When partners are in a marriage or defacto and together there is no mine or yours as you are one unit. When it breaks down, an agreement made at a time when both were in a healthier and happier mind frame is to me a lot better than giving that power to anyone else. At that time, what ever you have protected and agreed to is yours and whatever they protected and agreed to is theirs. There no "ours" then.

I guess what I am failing to get is why that future planning given that it is an unfortunate fact of life for many people, similar to a house burning down analogy is considered taboo or having the wrong mindset. Absolutely no one enters a relationship with divorce on their mind, like I don't take my car out planning a crash, but I'm insured for it. Why is this "insurance" considered wrong?

 

Because of the 'love and trust' factor. Tell a car you don't believe it or trust it and it won't care. A human being, on the other hand...

(I am surprised that you had to ask.)

 

Yeah, love, Gypsy pal. The magic and the mystery lol.