PostNups?

[soonfree!!]

Arabian, I agree that the costs you mentioned can be considerable. I believe I have asked the question before.....what do people think a fair wage would actually be? Shouldn't whatever that amount is be the SAHP contribution to the family, while the working parents contribution would be their employment income and other household chores.

[smileandwalkaway]

I am an example of a recipient of $1/mth SS indefinitely. Something I never considered but my lawyer explained his reasoning and was adamant that I have this. It is easier to change SS amounts than to re-open a claim. My SS order is to remain because I have special needs kid. The future of this child is unknown. It is a real possibility that one day I may need to stop working outside of the home again to care for his needs. He was my full time job up until 6yrs old with the various appointments, interventions, networking and research.

[arabian]

smileandwalkaway - smart lawyer. The "$1.00" clause used to be quite commonplace at one time. Years ago, before personal computers and the sophisticated electronics we have today, it was a fairly standard catch-all phrase in a divorce settlement. Probably back in the days when SS was referred to as "alimony" and when assets were easier to hide. Traditional marriages were the norm and often the woman had no idea of her husband's finances at time of divorce.

[FWB]

Interesting discussion so far with regards to this article....

A quick peruse through the article shows that men take a loss in the quality of living because they have to pay rent and spousal support, etc. Women may have a slightly statistical disadvantage, but men take a hit too.

***I read it as both sides lose.***

This is equally good advice for stay at home dads. If more men gave up their careers to look after their kids, then the default position of this article wouldn't have been about "moms", it would have been about "parents".

Since we still live in a society where women are expected and assumed to be the one to give up their lives to raise kids, and proportionally very few men do so, you get an article that is mainly concerned about the plight of women.

Sure, sometimes one party or the other would "win", but, generally, both lost......Of course, there's obvious selection bias there: people amicably divorcing don't always need lawyers. But the simple maths of setting up a second living space is often enough to screw things up completely, especially coupled with the fact that there's often money trouble to begin with...not to mention legal counsel fees, time off from work for court appearances, etc.

I brought this up with my sister (a Barrister in the UK with kids, married to another Barrister) when she called me last week. She pointed out that something like this already exists masqueraded as "Community Property" when you study law...an interesting and tedious subject to say the least.

In short.....Neither spouse gets imaginary wages for money they "might" have been able to earn if the other spouse hadn't been staying home with the kids, or in my case deployed to Afghanistan or on some exercise. In most provinces, you ALREADY get 50% of whatever assets were earned during marriage. And if you sacrificed and stayed home with the kids so your husband /wife could earn his/her university degree and get a higher-earning job, then guess what? You're ALSO entitled to some of that money.

It seems to me, that the author of the article got shafted in a divorce due to not understanding the divorce laws or else signing a Prenup that didn't do what their lawyer said it did???

As mentioned here on ODF by a lot of people in the past when related discussions have come up, it's simple really....Before you marry anybody, arrange situations where some given mutual endeavor will require discussion as to who should do what and why. Find out just how vehemently they will argue for the last shred of "I get the better end of the deal, or no deal!". Because that is who you will be marrying and it wont change.

This model would be of benefit for stay at homes who really were on a high dollar career track, but then it begs the question of why the loser spouse doesn't stay home in that case.

Finally....Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong, mutually beneficial partnership. Even the Bible says "The two shall become one flesh", i.e. you cease being a "me" and become a "we". If either party sees marriage as some sort of competition to be won, you're doing it wrong.

***A tip for the teenagers (and teenage-minded adults) out there: despite what you may hear on the radio and TV, love is not "all you need". Marriage takes hard work and compromise to be successful, not some vague warm-fuzzy feeling. If you're not ready to put in the effort, you're not ready to make the commitment. And likewise, you're not ready to have kids, so keep it in your pants.

[arabian]

... In most provinces, you ALREADY get 50% of whatever assets were earned during marriage....

This is if there are assets left to split. In my case my ex disposed of, by way of defaulting on mortgage and hiding company assets, prior to the divorce. His personal bankruptcy protected him. When you declare bankrupcy you can no longer be a director in an incorporated company. I was stuck being the sole director by default. A director may be held liable for the corporation's debts due to 'director's liability.'

So in a matter of months I went from having a comfortable lifestyle to no lifestyle to speak of. I had to instead deal with a complex matter of winding up the company (which has taken years). I am not compensated for my time to do this while my ex simply set up shop through his family and g/f. To add insult to injury, I have been dragged to court repeatedly for the past 3 yrs.

Had I known years ago what I know now I would have NEVER gone into business with my husband. I was very careful to get legal advice when I first got married but laws changed over the past 30 yrs. I had no reason to seek advice from a family lawyer, rather just corporate lawyers. I wonder how many corporate lawyers advise their clients of the risks? I wonder how many corporate lawyers have any idea? My corporate lawyer argued for over a year that my family lawyer was wrong etc. In the end the family lawyer was, indeed correct. Divorce Act trumps corporate.

As I have said in many of my previous posts on here, I only seek what is fair and just and what has been awarded to me in court and upheld by 8 different judges on those occasions when my ex challenged our divorce order.

[Pursuinghappiness]

Sigh...Oink the spam braggart is back with a new ID...FWB. Luckily it won't be for long.

I'm putting FWB on ignore so I don't have to tolerate a bunch of idiotic irrelevant, giant-pictured-fiiled, name-dropping, misogynistic crap on the threads.

Its too bad you can't ignore an IP address on this site.

[dad2bandm]

Sigh...Oink the spam braggart is back with a new ID...FWB. Luckily it won't be for long...

I just came back on this site, after the holidays, so am catching up on threads. I thought the same.

[dad2bandm]

Apparently, my observation is a little dated. I see FWB confirmed this already. Apologies, yet again.

[Pursuinghappiness]

Apparently, my observation is a little dated. I see FWB confirmed this already. Apologies, yet again.

lol. No need to apologize. I'd imagine lots of people are just getting back into the swing of things after the holidays and weather issues.

Luckily the ignore button still works great.