Fear of Relationships over worry about losing everything

Thinking about the risk of driving isn’t going to fundamentally change the way you drive, except maybe that you’re going to be a bit more cautious and therefore the risk of an accident is reduced.

Not so in a relationship. By moving to protect your own interests you stop thinking as a couple and start thinking as a party in a deal. There’s a fundamental shift from “we” to “me-you” and you go separate ways in your subconscious mind even before doing it in reality.

Not a psychologist myself but wouldn’t this undermine the relationship and increase the risk of a break-up?

Having said that I accept that many relationships that start as genuine and inclusive end up broken anyway.

Just raising something to think about, not offering any solution.

 

what you accumulated during marriage is not necessarilly split 50-50 ( although most things would be reasonably to assume 50-50 split). Its quite complex from my understanding and everything can be on the table..ie what you briought into it can be used to satisfy condition or made part of agreements eg part of superannuation.

 

I truly understand what you are referring to

considering a plan b or an exit plan or whatever you want to call it, is very unromantic,

however, if you have the potential to risk what you have built up over 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 , 40 years for example, its a big loss if its severely affected

I consider it risk management, if all I was going to lose was $5000 and a few grey hairs then id just go for what felt right at the time

the reality is that 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 marriages ends, so you have a high chance of things going pear shaped.

if my parents left me a ridiculously high family fortune, that had been passed down and worked on for generations, id certainly be very careful at putting any of it at risk

however fortunately, my paretns will probably only leave me a ridiculously high family debt!

 

From my many chats with lawyers over the years ( im no lawyer and wouldnt have a clue if the laws have changed recently), and a few divroced exes, but the common understanding they have is that. Generally it is only applicable to assets accumulated during the marriage, however if a guy brings in a $30k IP that he bought before marriage, and 30 years later and 4 kids, the ip is worth $1m. due to the length of time and multiple kids it gets pooled together

also, accumulation isnt simply what you buy, any capital gains of a asset purchased prior is considered accumulation during the union. so the parent that stays at home (male or female) is considered part of the accumulation because they cook/clean/prepare the house etc

obviously the above applies to non multi millionaire couples, and your "average" aussie

as for custody the general default is 21% to the main breadwinner, and 79% ie 1 weekend and 1 weekday per fortnight unless both agree,

edit: add to reply to hanisons comment, the cause of hte marital breakdown doesnt matter from a legal pespective unlike the USA, doesnt matter if the guy cheats, or the girl cheats or both cheat or does a tiger woods

essentially, the childs welfare is the number one concern, so the judge wont kick the kids and mum out while dad can stay there alone or with his pet dog
and hence the USA prenup isnt worth the piece of paper its written on. However there is a FBA FInancial binding agreement, which I have no idea how effective or reliable they are

maybe terry can clarify the above points, as i got my law degree from the back of a corn flakes pack

 

I touched on this subject in another thread recently and admittedly its the only situation I have had first hand experience with so I don't have any other instances to compare with.

Situation goes.

male and female mid 30's, married circa 10 years, 2 kids under 10.
Male - full time employment main earner, Female casual employment
Assets - Joint PPOR and male with super in excess of 200k

Female was found to have been playing up on multiple occasions, with multiple persons, over entire 10 year marriage. ( By females own admission )

Male ( somehow ?! ) wanted to continue relationship ( possibly for sake of children ) however female saw an opportunity for an out and a divorce was imminent.

Outcome = Male out of pocket approx 50k in lawyer fees ( he fought back and forth in excess of 12 months), Male lost PPOR in entirety to female, Male lost 50% of superannuation fund. Male pays child support, Male has visitation rights of every second weekend.

Now this may be an isolated case. However I will confess it certainly made me realise how unjust the justice system could possibly be.

The male was a broken man for a number of years.

For the record. He's since bounced back. But it was disturbing to see the guy as a shell of his former self throughout that duration.

 

the 50k would come out of the total asset pool so essentially they both paid $25k each,
I dont think 100% of the PPOR would go to the mother in this case, maybe she got to stay in it while she has a 50-70% share of it,

also unfortunately, super is considered an accumulated asset, but yeah in practice it sounds unfair

yeah ive seen a few men go from high powered careers often pushed by their wife to do so, only to get cheated on, and in a split second, he has been forced to move out into a dingy 1 bdr unit, pay child support while only being able to see his kids every fortnight, while being at the beck and call of the ex wife..

the system truly sux

 

@TMNT

Funnily enough. Male does actually now live in a 1 bedroom unit.

 

Good news is she probably moved her new boyfriend into the house he paid for

the pair of them , living the life of riley
and the new boyfriend spending more time with his son than he gets ......... and there is not a dam thing he can do about it !

 

I hate the woman bashing that goes on in threads like this.

 

Is this stat really true? I hear it all the time but I hardly know anyone that has been divorced young or old. Out of all the married couples I know it's probably more like 1 in 20.

 

No, didn't you know that 73.6% of all statistics are made up?

 

Your stats are a bit off it was 86.47%...

Some Facts - Where most Australians are Financially......

 

Here is the ABS for people interested in stats.

3310.0 - Marriages and Divorces, Australia, 2014

TLDR extracts;

Marriage -
In 2014, there were 121,197 marriages registered in Australia

The crude marriage rate also increased from 5.1 to 5.2 marriages per 1,000 estimated resident population

The median age of males and females at marriage was 31.5 and 29.6 years respectively in 2014

Divorce -
In 2014, there were 46,498 divorces granted in Australia

The crude divorce rate for the number of divorces per 1,000 estimated resident population was 2.0 in 2014, a decrease from 2.1 divorces per 1,000 estimated resident population reported for 2013

The median age of males and females at divorce was 45.2 and 42.5 years respectively in 2014

The median duration from marriage to divorce in 2014 was 12.0 years

Make your own stats from this..

 

I'd happily leave 75% of out assets to the wife and kids. I've been the major breadwinner, but the value she's brought has been 100 fold with the 2 gorgeous kids we have.

Come to think of it, we would probably split it 25% each, and 25% to each kid put into a trust.

 

No, it doesn't

 

Incorrect. Assets owned before the relationship can certainly be "touched" depending on the circumstances. For example a long relationship with children etc they most certainly can added to the pool to be split. A couple together only a few years though will generally have what they bought in excluded. It's really up to the judge's discretion and no set answer as every case is different.

 

instead of saying female / male we should refer to it as spouse 1 and spouse 2 or breadwinner and low income earner. so no one is offended.

 

I think in a long term relationship that would the case of the judge deciding that one partner made a non financial contribution eg to the maintenance and upkeep of a house, looking after children (so saving on childcare) etc. So this may then impact on the asset split and may or may not effect assets aquired prior to the marriage.

 

However the usual problem is the female generally takes more time off employment to raise kids and tends to lose some income, super etc when having a baby. She may also lose the chance to get a promotion, start working in a parttime job that is well beneath her ability that she may have had pre babies (you cant always get high status jobs working parttime)

 

Actually its not always up to a judge. Ive recently divorced and we (somewhat) amicably agreed on an asset split ourselves. Our joint assets have been sold and proceeds split 50/50. Our assets we obtained in our own names while married were not shared we each retained anything we bought to the marriage. It is.only when.people cant agree it gets messy.