Fear of Relationships over worry about losing everything

Your not supposed to marry them, or bring them home, didn't anyone tell you that ??? lol

Well, people won't like this, but if there is to be true equality, this is how it should be, with the simple change that both parents of any children are jointly responsible for children.

You can't have it both ways, the above example only seems unfair if the female in this situation is assumed to have no opportunity.

 

Ha, you gotta love it when people refer to 'true equality' between the sexes...

True equality would be men being pregnant for 9 months, their body changing, giving birth, breast feeding and taking time off work (unpaid) to raise children

 

Not always is it the women staying at home. And what do you propose about men not being able to carry children naturally ? Indeed lot of women do not have children either. We could also say women are not well represented on the front line in war too, so what, things may never be that equal.

The point is also, seems stupid to even think we can all be 100% the same, but people bang on about it ad nausea every day. Don't shoot me.

And why should people not be treated equally in family law with property, are you saying women have no choice in the matter to have children ? People make choices, they must be responsible for them all, and did you see the part where both should be equally responsible to the children ?

This would be a move to being equal.

Do you think it is right that one could have another hidden relationship and that could result in a faithful woman and couples children lose out badly (or vice versa).

 

Men and woman are treated equally for property settlements under Australian law.

 

As it should be.

Sounds we are similar to Thai example minus social attitude ? And greater choice to make decisions ?

I had long thought family law was pretty well along the refined path, so never been concerned about it in as much as effecting day to day life at least.

The third person/affair aspect is a worry, when I think of the people who have placed the other partner and children at financial risk, this is not fair to the innocent parties.

 

Especially as the third party might even be the reason for the breakup...

 

Quite often is, I would think that would be quite unfair if one party had no idea or allowed that to happen & with most of these type of "home wreckers" they are well aware that there is a spouse.

 

And it still takes two to tango, so the cheating spouse has a lot to blame :-\

 

Spouse has no sex.

I know men and women who have taken part in this type of thing, all were aware there was a spouse, people are quick to assume one sex is automatically talking about the opposite sex.

PS I note you did not include sex and the two to tango is why there is no "blame" for the breakdown these days.

 

It's interesting how brain works ay

I still think it's a lot on the unfaithful spouse - the party who actually already had previous commitment. But that's personal opinion.

 

I agree.

But it is a bit academic if the system does not agree with us, maybe someone here knows why it is this way, or how exactly this would play out in the scheme of things.

It would make sense if the one having the external relationship lost some of their share.

 

Australia has a 'no fault' divorce system. So neither party can blame the other party for the reasons for a divorce (cheating on spouse, flirting, not liking in-laws...whatever). The family court doesn't care why you are getting divorced. All it takes is one party to initiate it. In some states in the USA, they still look for who 'caused' the breakdown (infidelity etc.), but Australia doesn't care. I don't think it's fair and I don't agree with this system as it probably causes lots of heartache for the one party who is the innocent party and if the other party has been a complete jerk they get away with it.

But some marital conduct (things that happened during the marriage) can affect the financial distribution of assets upon separation. If you have gambled away all your income and not provided for your family, this can be viewed as making a 'negative contribution' to the marriage and won't reflect well on the gambler. So would setting fire to an asset ha - you'd have to really despise your partner to do that

 

I think there is acutally a thread on here where one spouse burned down the house

 

Yeah but how do you decide who the innocent party is and who the complete jerk is? Or what degree of innocence or 'jerkiness' is required?

 

'you' are always the innocent one of course.

 

Ha or my clients are, according to them. To be honest, I'd probably have some fun at work with at-fault divorces. Literally my job would include making closing statements along the lines of "we submit that all the evidence shows that he/she is a complete jerk your honour".

 

society does not

 

youve got to see things objectively,

it takes 2 to tango,

if 1 partner cheats 20 times, and 1 partner twice, who is at fault?
if 1 partner physically abuses the other and then the other cheats, who is at fault?
if 1 partner says ive had enough, you are never at home, lets split up, who is at fault?

my point is, you cant fight/argue with yourself, the two parties are always at blame

 

Your point being - that judges side with women?

 

well according to you, the law states only what is and isnt included as per that extract you posted, and that everything else is subject to interpretation on whats fair, and judging by a lot more unfair than fair, its either corruption or bias. I feel that australia is on the lower scale of corruption , so the latter