# Do you think divorce laws are anti-male in your part of the world?



## brownmale (Apr 20, 2015)

Not sure if this is the right place to place this query, but anyway, here goes:

Do you think divorce laws are anti-male in your part of the world? If so, why do you think so?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

* IMHO, divorce laws have definitely been, both historically and traditionally stacked toward the female marriage partner, foremostly because of the long-held, and the not necessarily true axiom that the females were better suited to be the "natural born nurturers" for any resulting children who were borne of any particular marital union or conjugal relationship!

That and the long-held but often faulty assumptions that the male marriage partner was deemed to be the natural born wage-earner for any given marital Union.

However, in most jurisdictions, that logic has drastically changed or at least is being moreso judicially challenged than in years past!*


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Depends on which part of the divorce, I think. If you mean child custody determinations, most judges will award a mother custody of a younger child under the belief that a young child should always be with their mother. Abusive and neglectful parents come in all sexes, so the presumption applied by many courts can be anti-male.

If you mean the financial aspects of divorce, then I don't agree they are anti-male at all.


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

No given my feild of study and seeing the effects of divorce on men women and children during and after, I'd have to say that children suffer the most, then women. Not always -there are exceptions some men get a raw deal too. 

And given the stats that women will still have majority care of children, and even if they don't will often still for the bill for the children when custody is 50/50, I often see women struggling. 

Divorce isn't pleasant for anyone really.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Low income men with children are definitely unfairly treated almost everywhere. (Poor people are discriminated against by the "justice" system everywhere, generally.)


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

In my neck of the woods (Portland/Vancouver metro area) it is still slanted towards the woman in general. That said, a LOT depends on the quality of the attorney. When my wife fled her abusing husband he got a top notch, aggressive divorce specialist. She got some dorky general attorney who did a little of everything. Her attorney got manhandled.


----------



## WasDecimated (Mar 23, 2011)

Where I live...Michigan USA, divorce laws favor the lower income earning spouse, male or female. 

Post marital assents are split 50/50 even though the low or no income spouse contributed very little financially. Also, many times, premarital assets are co-mingled after the marriage, (Example: premarital home sold and down payment used to buy marital home) and those are also divided 50/50 even though the down payment money originated from property owned by one person before the marriage. 

The same goes for pensions and retirement/investments. The low or no income spouse contributes very little if anything, but receives 50%. 

Last but not certainly not least...Alimony. I pay 1/3 of the difference between our incomes, that's the formula here. Since her income was next to nothing...it works out to be 1/3 of my income for 1/3 of the time we were married (15/3=5 years). 

The courts here try to divide custody 50/50 but the child support is formula is still based on the income difference so I still pay quite a bit of $ even though I have the kids every other week...1/2 half the time.

I learned this all the hard way...Marry someone of equal earning potential or income. My XWW didn't want to go to college and also wouldn't work full-time. After our kids were in school full time, she sat on her ass and did very little around the house. When she wasn't being lazy, she was out shopping, having lunches with her girl friends, and screwing an old high school boyfriend. 

In this part of the world, No fault divorce definitely benefits the low-income, low motivation, lazy cheaters.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Yes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Happilymarried25 (Mar 19, 2014)

Decimated said:


> Where I live...Michigan USA, divorce laws favor the lower income earning spouse, male or female.
> 
> Post marital assents are split 50/50 even though the low or no income spouse contributed very little financially. Also, many times, premarital assets are co-mingled after the marriage, (Example: premarital home sold and down payment used to buy marital home) and those are also divided 50/50 even though the down payment money originated from property owned by one person before the marriage.
> 
> ...


You wanted a divorce so you have to pay to get out. On a good note once you are done paying alimony and child support all of your money is yours which seems to be what you are most concerned about in life. The divorced men here are going to say that the divorce laws are unfair to men, but if a women didn't earn an income or much of one because she stayed home taking care of YOUR children and YOUR house, laundry can cooking then she is entitled to alimony and child support. You would have had to pay someone thousands of dollars to do that job if you didn't have a wife to do it free.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Happilymarried25 said:


> You wanted a divorce so you have to pay to get out. On a good note once you are done paying alimony and child support all of your money is yours which seems to be what you are most concerned about in life. The divorced men here are going to say that the divorce laws are unfair to men, but if a women didn't earn an income or much of one because she stayed home taking care of YOUR children and YOUR house, laundry can cooking then she is entitled to alimony and child support. You would have had to pay someone thousands of dollars to do that job if you didn't have a wife to do it free.


LOL. You seem to have read Decimated's reply much differently than I did.


----------



## pidge70 (Jan 17, 2011)

In Southern Illinois divorce laws are great for men. My EXH didn't have to pay a dime. I paid for the divorce. He also got out of child support. Then again, he didn't have a job....still doesn't. Not that it matters anymore as our girls are 26 and 22 now. In the divorce decree it stated: The issue of child support is reserved until such time the lazy ass gains employment. Of course that is not verbatim....


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I think decimated has a good point, and would point out that to the extent laws are slanted toward women it's because a lot of the time women were the lower income spouse. Very often the no income spouse as it was expecred that women stay home and opportunities outside the home were limited for them. 

The reason they continue to be unfair is because economically men and women are still not really equal. 

It is changing though and we must continue to work to get rid of this notion that it is exclusively the man's job to provide. When that happens things will become as fair as they can get. Things can't always be fair when kids are involved. 

But if you do make the decision to have a stay at home spouse then you're going to be on the hook to support them. Consider that when agreeing to such an areangement.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> I think decimated has a good point, and would point out that to the extent laws are slanted toward women it's because a lot of the time women were the lower income spouse. Very often the no income spouse as it was expecred that women stay home and opportunities outside the home were limited for them.
> 
> The reason they continue to be unfair is because economically men and women are still not really equal.
> 
> ...


----------



## ScrambledEggs (Jan 14, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> lifeistooshort said:
> 
> 
> > I think decimated has a good point, and would point out that to the extent laws are slanted toward women it's because a lot of the time women were the lower income spouse. Very often the no income spouse as it was expecred that women stay home and opportunities outside the home were limited for them.
> ...


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

ScrambledEggs said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> > My state the balance of alimony is based on wages of either partner and support is often granted to men who make less. Though men that are perceived as under-achievers do tend to get less consideration versus women in a more traditional role. But since the amount and duration is left entirely up the judges discretion, going to court is akin to Russian Roulette. The law tells the Judge what to consider, but gives no formula--it all comes down to the Judges bias of these factors. You might win the jackpot or you might find yourself losing big which is kind of insane.
> ...


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> ScrambledEggs said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that every state has this thing about the judge's discretion. While they usually do not have a published formula, the 40/50 formula is usually the starting point. I understand why some of it is left up to a judge's discretion, but like you said this makes the decisions all over the place.
> ...


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

Divorce laws depend on the state. 

Some states will rake men over the coals, others will let them off free. 

It also comes down to the lawyers. 
A young lawyer that just passed the BAR will get eaten alive by an experienced divorce attorney that has 30 years experience. 


Now, if we can hold those two HUGE variables constant, divorce laws FIRST favor the lower wage earner. The lower wage earner will GENERALLY be awarded alimony, and a larger share of the marital assets than the wage earner. Whether this is right is wrong is determined on a case-by-base basis. 

Divorce courts SECONDLY favor women. Because mothers GENERALLY get the kids, and that comes with child support. Some men might want to be the primary parent, but have to fight it out in court. Usually, mothers get the kids, not the fathers. Are the exceptions? Yes. But exceptions are not the general rule. 


It's not easy to say divorce laws are unfair to one sex or the other, because of the great differences in the laws between the states. 

For example, I believe Texas doesn't have any alimony laws, or if they do, they are very weak (according to my business law course I took a few years ago). In Kansas, spousal support only last generally for a 1/3 of the marriage. So if the marriage lasted 30 years, spousal support would last 10 years. In California, if you stay married for 10 years, then that grants life-time alimony, until the receiving spouse remarries. 

The divorce laws are a mess.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

The title of this thread should be renamed to "Quote tags gone wild!".


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

thatbpguy said:


> in oregon there is a "20 year rule". The wife, after 20 years of marriage, can request 100% of the assets. In my case, she got the 100%. Now, with respect, all my 401k went to her debt (all medical) while we were separated. She just got the proceeds from the sale of the house, the 3 year old car (i got the 22 year old car), all our antique furniture and the money we had in the bank. A clean sweep for her. I also had to pay $250/mo for 3 years spousal support.


Holy f*ck!


----------



## ScrambledEggs (Jan 14, 2014)

thatbpguy said:


> In Oregon there is a "20 year rule". The wife, after 20 years of marriage, can request 100% of the assets. In my case, she got the 100%. Now, with respect, all my 401K went to her debt (all medical) while we were separated. She just got the proceeds from the sale of the house, the 3 year old car (I got the 22 year old car), all our antique furniture and the money we had in the bank. A clean sweep for her. I also had to pay $250/mo for 3 years spousal support.


What? Something must have gone terribly wrong in your case. Oregon splits property by "equitable division" how is one party getting everything equitable?


----------



## WasDecimated (Mar 23, 2011)

> You wanted a divorce so you have to pay to get out. On a good note once you are done paying alimony and child support all of your money is yours which seems to be what you are most concerned about in life. The divorced men here are going to say that the divorce laws are unfair to men, but if a women didn't earn an income or much of one because she stayed home taking care of YOUR children and YOUR house, laundry can cooking then she is entitled to alimony and child support. You would have had to pay someone thousands of dollars to do that job if you didn't have a wife to do it free.


*Happilymarried25,*
Maybe you should read my post again. Could it be that you are focusing your anger and bitterness into your response...and aiming it at me?

Thanks for your support. I guess I’ll cross you off my Christmas card list!

Oh by the way, I said that the divorce laws favor the low wage earner...man or woman.

XWW always had the option to go to college, work full time, or seek a better paying job. Instead, she chose to pretend she was on The House Wives of Beverly Hills. Then she chose to spend her days, when I was working to pay the bills, screwing her boyfriend!

I didn't want a divorce, I didn't have a choice. I didn't want my XWW to cheat on me for nearly two years and lie repeatedly about it to me and our children. I didn't want to be emotionally destroyed and my family ripped apart. You seem to have no compassion for folks that have been lied to and cheated on. Why, because i'm a man so I must be bad?

About staying home with Our children. The option was hers…her choice. That was only for 6 years. Oh, BTW, one of Our children wasn't even mine. It was hers from a previous relationship in which she received no child support. And yes, I raised him like he was my own child. He considers me his father and calls me dad.

Understand this Happilymarried25, I always did most of the laundry, washed dishes, cleaned the house, grocery shopped, cut the lawn, fixed anything that needed repair around the house as well as go to work everyday to earn all the money and paid all the bills. My XWW never even ironed shirt for me! My XWW didn't do **** around the house! She did manage to open several credit cards in my name that I did not know about, and rack up balances that I got stuck with in the Divorce. She owned approximately 200 pairs of shoes…guess whose money paid for those? I bought her new cars every year too.

She worked part time…about 18 hours a week. She refused to work more to help out or even pay a bill. Her money was her money…and my money was her money…get it now...Ya, welcome to my world!

You think my XWW was the slave??? I was the slave! She was the selfish princess. You shouldn't be defending people like her because they give women, like you, a bad name. She wasn't like this when we were first married. This is the person she morphed into over the years.

Marriage is about Love. Infidelity is about Selfishness. Divorce is about Money…because that was all I had left, she destroyed the rest!


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> I learned this all the hard way...Marry someone of equal earning potential or income. My XWW didn't want to go to college and also wouldn't work full-time. After our kids were in school full time, she sat on her ass and did very little around the house. When she wasn't being lazy, she was out shopping, having lunches with her girl friends, and screwing an old high school boyfriend.
> 
> In this part of the world, No fault divorce definitely benefits the low-income, low motivation, lazy cheaters.


People who get married need to take responsibility for what happens when one spouse doesn't work and sponges off of the other in the event of a marital breakdown. Its not gender specific although traditionally it happens more than men have dependent wives than the other way around.

Alimony laws ARE thankfully changing. Soon people who don't work during marriage will have a greatly reduced window of support to get themselves earning an income after divorce. Alimony laws are changing to be strictly termed and more limited. And that's that way it should be. There is really no reason for a grown person to not have the ability to join the job market and support themselves. Education and obtaining skills is both spouse's obligation...especially when they have children. But although it can't happen soon enough, those laws aren't fully rolled out in every state.

So before people get married, they need to educate themselves on the alimony laws in their state. Personally, I would NEVER marry someone who doesn't work and has no financial independence. If you do, you assume the risk of getting a divorce and paying that person because they were too lazy to work during the marriage. That is what you're signing up for. If you're ok with that, that's fine...but if not, you need to figure out the laws and what you might be in for if you support a grown adult financial dependent during a marriage...especially a long marriage. You're not just signing up to support them during the marriage...you're signing up to support them* after *the marriage too. And that's even if they cheat on you with the starting line up of a football team. It doesn't matter who's fault it is in many states.

In fact, I would go further to suggest that you should never marry anyone who doesn't share the same financial values than you. I'm on my 2nd marriage and I made sure that I knew everything financially about my partner before I made any serious emotional commitment with him. I saw his credit report, his financial portfolio and he went over his budgets with me. It was especially important because we have 5 children between us and I wanted to make sure I knew how he allocated money to them. I went through my financials in detail with him so he knows how I save and spend money. I'm a saver and a strict money planner and I wanted to marry the same type. I wanted to make sure that our assets were somewhat equal to protect myself from a potential asset split during divorce. They're not, he's got a lot more money than I do, so I also offered to sign a pre-nup which he vehemently refused. Although I would never touch his assets after divorce (its his money, not mine), he knows the risk.

My point is that the marrying partners have a responsibility to hold the person their marrying accountable for supporting themselves and not sponging off of them in marriage unless you're fine with supporting them long after a divorce. You also have a responsibility to know who you partner is financially and what they're values are. You can't complain if you marry someone who thinks of your money as theirs and has no problem trying to take everything you've earned when your marriage falls apart. If you don't get educated on the laws and who your partner is...don't complain about having to support a lump who won't bother to work even after you divorce them...that's what you signed up for.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> The divorced men here are going to say that the divorce laws are unfair to men, but if a women didn't earn an income or much of one because she stayed home taking care of YOUR children and YOUR house, laundry can cooking then she is entitled to alimony and child support. You would have had to pay someone thousands of dollars to do that job if you didn't have a wife to do it free.


I completely disagree with this and I'm female.

The children belong to both spouses and both have a responsibility to support and care for them...particularly in the event of a marital breakdown.

This post is a prime example of why you need to know the financial values of the person you're marrying. If you marry someone with this mentality, you're assuming a huge risk in the event of a marital breakdown.

If you have marriage eligible young people in your friends or family circle, make sure you encourage them to learn the divorce laws BEFORE they get married.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

EnigmaGirl said:


> People who get married need to take responsibility for what happens when one spouse doesn't work and sponges off of the other in the event of a marital breakdown. Its not gender specific although traditionally it happens more than men have dependent wives than the other way around.
> 
> Alimony laws ARE thankfully changing. Soon people who don't work during marriage will have a greatly reduced window of support to get themselves earning an income after divorce. Alimony laws are changing to be strictly termed and more limited. And that's that way it should be. There is really no reason for a grown person to not have the ability to join the job market and support themselves. Education and obtaining skills is both spouse's obligation...especially when they have children. But although it can't happen soon enough, those laws aren't fully rolled out in every state.
> 
> ...


Alimony laws are changing at a snails pace and unfortunately most states don't even have a firm law or definition on alimony. Its up to a judge who has a great deal of freedom to rule however they please. 

When I got married in my state it was common practice that alimony only came into play after 15 years of marriage but it wasn't a law, now that number is down to 10 because of a generous legal system. Had we moved to a different state, say Indiana during our marriage the most I would be on the hook for is 3 years. It varies so much from state to state. 

When I got married pre-marital and inherited items were clear and easy. The attorney world has perverted this over the last 10+ years under that ever popular "co-mingling" term so its now near impossible to not divide everything.

Its far too easy to say you should have known the laws and you should know your partner. No one knows what there partner will be like in say 10-20 years and you have no idea how the vague laws in your state will be interpreted years from now. 

The only winner in divorce is the lawyers at the end.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> When I got married pre-marital and inherited items were clear and easy. The attorney world has perverted this over the last 10+ years under that ever popular "co-mingling" term so its now near impossible to not divide everything.
> 
> Its far too easy to say you should have known the laws and you should know your partner. No one knows what there partner will be like in say 10-20 years and you have no idea how the vague laws in your state will be interpreted years from now.


Then at least understand that if you tolerate a financially dependent spouse, no matter what state you're in, you're putting yourself at some level of serious financial peril in the event of a marital breakdown.


----------



## sapientia (Nov 24, 2012)

thatbpguy said:


> In my neck of the woods (Portland/Vancouver metro area) it is still slanted towards the woman in general. That said, a LOT depends on the quality of the attorney. When my wife fled her abusing husband he got a top notch, aggressive divorce specialist. She got some dorky general attorney who did a little of everything. Her attorney got manhandled.


That's interesting. I wonder, however, did your ex get a *fair* settlement, or did you "win"?

More generally (I can't remember if you have children, thatguy)
Men, or women, winning at the expense of their children's happiness and well-being is the worst outcome. And the one that eventually comes back to haunt everyone decades down the road. Children from bad splits never really forgive their parents, from what I've seen.

Personally, I was very mindful of my son's good opinion years down the road. So was my ex, though sometimes we each had to remind the other of this as our guiding principal.


----------



## sapientia (Nov 24, 2012)

EnigmaGirl said:


> I wanted to make sure that our assets were somewhat equal to protect myself from a potential asset split during divorce. They're not, he's got a lot more money than I do, so I also offered to sign a pre-nup which he vehemently refused. Although I would never touch his assets after divorce (its his money, not mine), he knows the risk.


This is why we have a trust set up for my son. Anyone he marries will have a share of community property and equity they build together, but anything out of the trust is treated like a bank loan (e.g. to purchase a home). Reality is, people make poor decisions for the sake of love that come back to bite them later. Especially when they are young or lonely.

I'm sure you intend well, but a fair outcome shouldn't be dependent on your goodwill--it should be based on fairness. "Knowing the risk" (that you might take 1/2 -- unless you decide not to?) is flat out poor judgement for anyone that comes into a marriage where there is a large discrepancy in assets.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

EnigmaGirl said:


> Then at least understand that if you tolerate a financially dependent spouse, no matter what state you're in, you're putting yourself at some level of serious financial peril in the event of a marital breakdown.


I understand that by just getting married the risk of financial peril potentially existed based on the whims or issues of another.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

In the UK women almost always get custody of children. Men going through the Family Courts are advised by their lawyers not to say 'I love my children' as this is viewed with suspicion by Family Court judges. 

Home - Royal Economic Society
_mothers are still the custodial parent in 85% of cases, despite changes in the law in the US and the UK and the rise in the number of privately agreed custodial arrangements.
_
There is no doubt that men are discriminated against when it comes to child custody.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

In NC things seem to be heading toward more equally balanced/progressive settlements. 

It is still an at-fault state and cheating will effect equitable distribution. 

I know one woman who was a SAHM with a wealthy husband but because she worked (was a trained ballerina) before marriage, she got 5 years of alimony to get back to work. So even though he was wealthy and her job pre-marriage didn't pay a lot, she was given a reasonable amount of time to get back into the working world. She used that time to get a BS in Nursing. The girls were 7 and 9 when they divorced. I think that's pretty fair for both. She retained custody because he was a German citizen and he traveled a lot on business with primary residence in US.

As a female I obviously hear more about the men who aren't paying their support or paying for braces or keeping up their end of visitation. These women are primary caregivers - one wasn't married to the father and he only wanted visitation, the other was an alcoholic and would have wanted 50/50 but it wasn't in the best interest of the child. But in typical homes of two people growing apart, there is a lot of 50/50 visitation and women keep working as do the men.

It starts at 50/50 unless there is a valid reason for the child(ren) to spend more time with one or the other.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> This is why we have a trust set up for my son. Anyone he marries will have a share of community property and equity they build together, but anything out of the trust is treated like a bank loan (e.g. to purchase a home). Reality is, people make poor decisions for the sake of love that come back to bite them later. Especially when they are young or lonely.
> 
> I'm sure you intend well, but a fair outcome shouldn't be dependent on your goodwill--it should be based on fairness. "Knowing the risk" (that you might take 1/2 -- unless you decide not to?) is flat out poor judgement for anyone that comes into a marriage where there is a large discrepancy in assets.


The problem for setting up that situation for your son where I live would be that certain assets are always subject to equalization. It doesn't matter where the money came from. The marital home, for instance. Once any trust funds or inheritance was used to purchase a home, its subject to a split in the event of a marital breakdown. The same for co-mingling of funds to buy household assets. In fact, most states have very specific laws about property. Investment property might not be subject but once the house is considered the marital home...you can't make rules about the split. Its very important too that if he goes that route, he keeps very detailed documentation because he'll be fighting the whole time about inclusions and exclusions based on how something was used.

As for my own situation, you won't get any argument from me that divorce laws need to change. My husband's financial assets were acquired before he met me so the idea that I'm eligible for the split in equity gain if we divorced is blasphemous. That's why I offered to sign a pre-nup. He was vehemently against it, however, which was his choice. He considers his money, our money. Its actually one of the few things in our relationship that we have a differing opinion on.


----------



## sapientia (Nov 24, 2012)

EnigmaGirl said:


> The problem for setting up that situation for your son where I live would be that certain assets are always subject to equalization. It doesn't matter where the money came from. The marital home, for instance. Once any trust funds or inheritance was used to purchase a home, its subject to a split in the event of a marital breakdown.


I don't know the laws where you are, but this^ is incorrect here. In fact, it's the reason why our lawyer advised us to set up in the first place.

So long as funds are *borrowed* from a trust as a loan that is repaid (like a bank mortgage) then what you describe does not happen. Now, of course, any *equity* that is built into the martial home as the Trust loan is repaid, is of course communal property and should be divided.

In other words, my son will never have a house purchased outright for him from the Trust. Similarly if he borrows funds to build a business -- the Trust is a creditor and as such will get first call on any assets should the business fail. Any split in assets that occurs from selling the business will only be after the creditors get paid.

Any of you with a reasonable amount of assets should consider setting up a Trust before you get married. That's what your H should have done EG.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> Any of you with a reasonable amount of assets should consider setting up a Trust before you get married. That's what your H should have done EG.


There's no doubt that the laws are different in every state...so you have to be careful when you get married.

Although I didn't sign a pre-nup, we took some precautions actually. We reassigned funds to all of our children that are in their names and are protected in the event of a marital breakdown.

Also where we live, the principle of assets that are in existence before the first valuation date (marriage date) aren't subject to split...only the equity gain (or loss) of those assets during the marriage. And we both had plenty of pre-marital assets to retire with prior to marriage. We're both pretty financially set.

In addition, we both met during the process of divorce and so we're both very well aware of how each operates in this event. In my opinion, if you ever want to truly know someone watch how they act during a divorce. He was more than fair and respectful to his ex and they still get along pretty well today as a result. 

During my divorce, I expected only my own money that I earned working...not my ex's money that he earned. We split all joint assets. That's what I asked for and that's what I got. I'm not the type that would ever take money that I didn't earn. In fact, although I could have raked my ex over the coals financially...I'm the one that took the loss in investment accounts that, in my opinion, was caused by my own stupidity to trust him with the money. it was a good lesson learned for me and worth every penny to lose. My new husband saw every detail of my divorce proceedings and settlement..so he's well aware of my values in this regard and vice versa.


----------



## sapientia (Nov 24, 2012)

EnigmaGirl said:


> Although I didn't sign a pre-nup, we took some precautions actually. We reassigned funds to all of our children that are in their names and are protected in the event of a marital breakdown.


This is a good start. You mention your H is a HNW individual, however, so a Trust will provide your children an added measure of security to protect *them* from a marriage breakdown, where pre-marital assets get co-mingled and things get murky (and then usually divided in favour of the lower-income party).

It also depends the age of your children. Once they are mature adults (we set this at 30), you have to trust them enough to manage their own lives with good judgement. However, we believe that having the Trust in place will provide a structure that will help offset unintended 'young and dumb' mistakes from being made.

Anyway, I'm not a wills and estates lawyer, so no %age in my flogging the Trust idea, but you might want to look into more. They aren't really that costly to execute and administer, especially if you or your H is qualified.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

Thank you...very good advice and I will look into it.

Actually our kids have multiple accounts because we have two that aren't done post secondary educations yet.

Funny enough, we've have 5 kids between us from teenager to almost 30 yrs...and we're finding that age has nothing to do with financial responsibility. One of our older ones...although a very smart person...is one of our most financially illogical. Its a good rule of thumb but some people never really figure out money regardless of age.

In my own case, although I was always a great saver, I was definitely a late-bloomer in figuring out how to make money using money. During my last marriage, I had zero skill at investing and couldn't be bothered to try to understand it. Luckily I got divorced and it forced me to learn from my stupid mistake.


----------



## ThePheonix (Jan 3, 2013)

In the U.S., attitude, beliefs, and culture are based on economics. In a divorce, it stings as bad for a person worth $750 million giving up any part of their assets as it does for person worth $7500. Over the years, I've seen numerous men earning well over $100k in front of the judge for failing to pay child support.
How many folks you know that have stayed in ultri-crappy relationships rather than give up any part of their financial resources?


----------

