Traditionally speaking, a marriage proposal is a romantic moment in life. A moment when the big question is asked and then the diamond ring slips onto the finger whilst the beautiful sunset encapsulates the jet d`eau behind the happy couple. However, would this fairy-tale image be shattered if the man or woman who says "will you marry me" actually says "will you marry me,...subject to declaration of assets/liabilities, tax audit, credit checks, further terms and conditions apply?" Feel free to laugh, but that seems to be the essence of prenuptial agreements which are apparently becoming increasingly popular.
The contract typically stipulates that the material assets that each individual brings to the marriage will remain the property of that individual, particularly in the event of divorce. Are such contracts the end of romance? Or are they additional proof of romance by showing that a couple are marrying for love and there are no hidden agendas or changes to financial status if the marriage ends? My view is tending slightly towards the latter. Of course the cold realities of life should not tarnish the institution of marriage, but if marriage is about love then what is wrong with a prenup???
Global Forums > General > The End of Romance???
Only members can see names and photos
The End of Romance???
Jul 18, 2007 @ 16:26
The text you are quoting:
Traditionally speaking, a marriage proposal is a romantic moment in life. A moment when the big question is asked and then the diamond ring slips onto the finger whilst the beautiful sunset encapsulates the jet d`eau behind the happy couple. However, would this fairy-tale image be shattered if the man or woman who says "will you marry me" actually says "will you marry me,...subject to declaration of assets/liabilities, tax audit, credit checks, further terms and conditions apply?" Feel free to laugh, but that seems to be the essence of prenuptial agreements which are apparently becoming increasingly popular.
The contract typically stipulates that the material assets that each individual brings to the marriage will remain the property of that individual, particularly in the event of divorce. Are such contracts the end of romance? Or are they additional proof of romance by showing that a couple are marrying for love and there are no hidden agendas or changes to financial status if the marriage ends? My view is tending slightly towards the latter. Of course the cold realities of life should not tarnish the institution of marriage, but if marriage is about love then what is wrong with a prenup???
philJul 18, 2007 @ 16:26
The contract typically stipulates that the material assets that each individual brings to the marriage will remain the property of that individual, particularly in the event of divorce. Are such contracts the end of romance? Or are they additional proof of romance by showing that a couple are marrying for love and there are no hidden agendas or changes to financial status if the marriage ends? My view is tending slightly towards the latter. Of course the cold realities of life should not tarnish the institution of marriage, but if marriage is about love then what is wrong with a prenup???
philJul 18, 2007 @ 16:26
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 1
Jul 18, 2007 @ 16:40
It's less romantic but less naive as well. I think it's a question of people taking their responsibilities as adults more seriously.
Maybe as divorce has become such a frequent occurence since about 30 or 40 years, the kids who grew up hearing the fighting about custody, money and assets just decided to preclude such problems.
Hopefully, making things clear from the beginning (don't marry me for my money, work for your own...)provides a healthier atmosphere for love to blossom. Men are not cows to be milked and women are not maids to serve the family until they aren't needed anymore. Both people should be responsible for the finances AND the comfort of a household. Both people should feel that the child-raising is for both parents to assume.
In parentheses, going out as a couple has changed as well and I'm glad to see it.
There is still progress to be made for the poor children whose parents divorce and argue about where the children should live, how much should be given to the parent raising them, how many hours the other parent gets to "visit" his child (if he feels like it...)
Maybe as divorce has become such a frequent occurence since about 30 or 40 years, the kids who grew up hearing the fighting about custody, money and assets just decided to preclude such problems.
Hopefully, making things clear from the beginning (don't marry me for my money, work for your own...)provides a healthier atmosphere for love to blossom. Men are not cows to be milked and women are not maids to serve the family until they aren't needed anymore. Both people should be responsible for the finances AND the comfort of a household. Both people should feel that the child-raising is for both parents to assume.
In parentheses, going out as a couple has changed as well and I'm glad to see it.
There is still progress to be made for the poor children whose parents divorce and argue about where the children should live, how much should be given to the parent raising them, how many hours the other parent gets to "visit" his child (if he feels like it...)
The text you are quoting:
It's less romantic but less naive as well. I think it's a question of people taking their responsibilities as adults more seriously.
Maybe as divorce has become such a frequent occurence since about 30 or 40 years, the kids who grew up hearing the fighting about custody, money and assets just decided to preclude such problems.
Hopefully, making things clear from the beginning (don't marry me for my money, work for your own...)provides a healthier atmosphere for love to blossom. Men are not cows to be milked and women are not maids to serve the family until they aren't needed anymore. Both people should be responsible for the finances AND the comfort of a household. Both people should feel that the child-raising is for both parents to assume.
In parentheses, going out as a couple has changed as well and I'm glad to see it.
There is still progress to be made for the poor children whose parents divorce and argue about where the children should live, how much should be given to the parent raising them, how many hours the other parent gets to "visit" his child (if he feels like it...)
MarmarK, Jul 18, 2007 @ 16:40
Maybe as divorce has become such a frequent occurence since about 30 or 40 years, the kids who grew up hearing the fighting about custody, money and assets just decided to preclude such problems.
Hopefully, making things clear from the beginning (don't marry me for my money, work for your own...)provides a healthier atmosphere for love to blossom. Men are not cows to be milked and women are not maids to serve the family until they aren't needed anymore. Both people should be responsible for the finances AND the comfort of a household. Both people should feel that the child-raising is for both parents to assume.
In parentheses, going out as a couple has changed as well and I'm glad to see it.
There is still progress to be made for the poor children whose parents divorce and argue about where the children should live, how much should be given to the parent raising them, how many hours the other parent gets to "visit" his child (if he feels like it...)
MarmarK, Jul 18, 2007 @ 16:40
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 2
Jul 18, 2007 @ 23:11
I think a pre nup is good, and a way to ensure the marriage is for love and not for money.
all marriages are made with love in mind, yet 50% of them end of divorce. so being ready for it, IF it happens, is a good thing.
all marriages are made with love in mind, yet 50% of them end of divorce. so being ready for it, IF it happens, is a good thing.
The text you are quoting:
I think a pre nup is good, and a way to ensure the marriage is for love and not for money.
all marriages are made with love in mind, yet 50% of them end of divorce. so being ready for it, IF it happens, is a good thing.
Nir Ofek, Jul 18, 2007 @ 23:11
all marriages are made with love in mind, yet 50% of them end of divorce. so being ready for it, IF it happens, is a good thing.
Nir Ofek, Jul 18, 2007 @ 23:11
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 3
Jul 19, 2007 @ 12:20
"You are allowed to fail your mariage, not your divorce", used to tell me my parents. And I would add "especially if you have kids". Prenups might be a way to "succeed" your divorce indeed.
The text you are quoting:
"You are allowed to fail your mariage, not your divorce", used to tell me my parents. And I would add "especially if you have kids". Prenups might be a way to "succeed" your divorce indeed.
Hobbes, Jul 19, 2007 @ 12:20
Hobbes, Jul 19, 2007 @ 12:20
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 4
Jul 19, 2007 @ 13:40
It is indeed. nt
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 5
Jul 19, 2007 @ 14:07
I'm all about protecting your assets, but who is really affected by this aggrement? Who bears the burden of the pre-nup that leaves one person wealthy while the other struggles to make ends meet? The children. Where is the post-nup for them when their parents split up? Child support? Try getting anything from someone who has enough money to hire the best lawyers a pre-nup can buy.
What is the world coming to when we have to contractually agree that IF and WHEN the marriage splits up the one we "love" ain't getting a dime? They don't write that in Fairy Tales, do they?
What is the world coming to when we have to contractually agree that IF and WHEN the marriage splits up the one we "love" ain't getting a dime? They don't write that in Fairy Tales, do they?
The text you are quoting:
I'm all about protecting your assets, but who is really affected by this aggrement? Who bears the burden of the pre-nup that leaves one person wealthy while the other struggles to make ends meet? The children. Where is the post-nup for them when their parents split up? Child support? Try getting anything from someone who has enough money to hire the best lawyers a pre-nup can buy.
What is the world coming to when we have to contractually agree that IF and WHEN the marriage splits up the one we "love" ain't getting a dime? They don't write that in Fairy Tales, do they?
nancy, Jul 19, 2007 @ 14:07
What is the world coming to when we have to contractually agree that IF and WHEN the marriage splits up the one we "love" ain't getting a dime? They don't write that in Fairy Tales, do they?
nancy, Jul 19, 2007 @ 14:07
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 6
Jul 19, 2007 @ 14:17
I am not a lawyer so might be totally wrong on this, but here's what I heard:
Child support is totally seperate and can't be covered by any pre nup. If there's a divorce with kids involved, the kids' support is grounded by law, and the actual sums to be paid are set by the courts. No pre nup can outrule this, by law.
Out of curiousity on the topic, can anyone confirm / deny if above is indeed the case?
Child support is totally seperate and can't be covered by any pre nup. If there's a divorce with kids involved, the kids' support is grounded by law, and the actual sums to be paid are set by the courts. No pre nup can outrule this, by law.
Out of curiousity on the topic, can anyone confirm / deny if above is indeed the case?
The text you are quoting:
I am not a lawyer so might be totally wrong on this, but here's what I heard:
Child support is totally seperate and can't be covered by any pre nup. If there's a divorce with kids involved, the kids' support is grounded by law, and the actual sums to be paid are set by the courts. No pre nup can outrule this, by law.
Out of curiousity on the topic, can anyone confirm / deny if above is indeed the case?
Nir Ofek, Jul 19, 2007 @ 14:17
Child support is totally seperate and can't be covered by any pre nup. If there's a divorce with kids involved, the kids' support is grounded by law, and the actual sums to be paid are set by the courts. No pre nup can outrule this, by law.
Out of curiousity on the topic, can anyone confirm / deny if above is indeed the case?
Nir Ofek, Jul 19, 2007 @ 14:17
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 7
Jul 19, 2007 @ 15:46
...because I think that pre-nups are only the BEGINNING of what should be covered before people get married.
Pre-nups are basically a wake-up call to what a mariage is NOT (a free ride) before you are declared man and wife. Pre-nup does not predict divorce just like exercising does not prevent an early death.
But I would like to sort-of agree with Nancy in saying that I ALSO think that when a child is brought into this world, two people are responsible for that child both materially and emotionally. Both parents should raise the child and both parents should pay for the child, whether they are married or divorced.
I don't think it's right that parents divorce their children (which is what they do). I don't agree with the primitive "check at the end of the month to pay for him / her to raise my kids" and "his week-end, my week-end".
So pre-nups for the separation of assets from beginning to end and ALSO make it illegal for one parent to back out of child-raising. How to reinforce this, I have no idea. But children have the right to be loved and cared for by both parents without an exchange of money between the two. And they should have a right to demand that their parents continue raising them together, even if they don't get along. This may sound far-fetched but isn't that just because they are children that we have taken the habit of dismissing them as persons? What if both parents decided that they would just hand the child over to the State and send a check at the end of the month for child support and visit at whim? What is the difference between both parents and one parent doing it?
Sorry the thread has digressed from the pre-nups but Pre-Nups are just the tip of the ice-berg when you want to talk about planning the rest of your life and starting a family.
Pre-nups are basically a wake-up call to what a mariage is NOT (a free ride) before you are declared man and wife. Pre-nup does not predict divorce just like exercising does not prevent an early death.
But I would like to sort-of agree with Nancy in saying that I ALSO think that when a child is brought into this world, two people are responsible for that child both materially and emotionally. Both parents should raise the child and both parents should pay for the child, whether they are married or divorced.
I don't think it's right that parents divorce their children (which is what they do). I don't agree with the primitive "check at the end of the month to pay for him / her to raise my kids" and "his week-end, my week-end".
So pre-nups for the separation of assets from beginning to end and ALSO make it illegal for one parent to back out of child-raising. How to reinforce this, I have no idea. But children have the right to be loved and cared for by both parents without an exchange of money between the two. And they should have a right to demand that their parents continue raising them together, even if they don't get along. This may sound far-fetched but isn't that just because they are children that we have taken the habit of dismissing them as persons? What if both parents decided that they would just hand the child over to the State and send a check at the end of the month for child support and visit at whim? What is the difference between both parents and one parent doing it?
Sorry the thread has digressed from the pre-nups but Pre-Nups are just the tip of the ice-berg when you want to talk about planning the rest of your life and starting a family.
The text you are quoting:
...because I think that pre-nups are only the BEGINNING of what should be covered before people get married.
Pre-nups are basically a wake-up call to what a mariage is NOT (a free ride) before you are declared man and wife. Pre-nup does not predict divorce just like exercising does not prevent an early death.
But I would like to sort-of agree with Nancy in saying that I ALSO think that when a child is brought into this world, two people are responsible for that child both materially and emotionally. Both parents should raise the child and both parents should pay for the child, whether they are married or divorced.
I don't think it's right that parents divorce their children (which is what they do). I don't agree with the primitive "check at the end of the month to pay for him / her to raise my kids" and "his week-end, my week-end".
So pre-nups for the separation of assets from beginning to end and ALSO make it illegal for one parent to back out of child-raising. How to reinforce this, I have no idea. But children have the right to be loved and cared for by both parents without an exchange of money between the two. And they should have a right to demand that their parents continue raising them together, even if they don't get along. This may sound far-fetched but isn't that just because they are children that we have taken the habit of dismissing them as persons? What if both parents decided that they would just hand the child over to the State and send a check at the end of the month for child support and visit at whim? What is the difference between both parents and one parent doing it?
Sorry the thread has digressed from the pre-nups but Pre-Nups are just the tip of the ice-berg when you want to talk about planning the rest of your life and starting a family.
MarmarK, Jul 19, 2007 @ 15:46
Pre-nups are basically a wake-up call to what a mariage is NOT (a free ride) before you are declared man and wife. Pre-nup does not predict divorce just like exercising does not prevent an early death.
But I would like to sort-of agree with Nancy in saying that I ALSO think that when a child is brought into this world, two people are responsible for that child both materially and emotionally. Both parents should raise the child and both parents should pay for the child, whether they are married or divorced.
I don't think it's right that parents divorce their children (which is what they do). I don't agree with the primitive "check at the end of the month to pay for him / her to raise my kids" and "his week-end, my week-end".
So pre-nups for the separation of assets from beginning to end and ALSO make it illegal for one parent to back out of child-raising. How to reinforce this, I have no idea. But children have the right to be loved and cared for by both parents without an exchange of money between the two. And they should have a right to demand that their parents continue raising them together, even if they don't get along. This may sound far-fetched but isn't that just because they are children that we have taken the habit of dismissing them as persons? What if both parents decided that they would just hand the child over to the State and send a check at the end of the month for child support and visit at whim? What is the difference between both parents and one parent doing it?
Sorry the thread has digressed from the pre-nups but Pre-Nups are just the tip of the ice-berg when you want to talk about planning the rest of your life and starting a family.
MarmarK, Jul 19, 2007 @ 15:46
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 8
Jul 19, 2007 @ 16:41
...that never felt a wound.
You're definitely full of romance you are!
You're definitely full of romance you are!
The text you are quoting:
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 9
Jul 19, 2007 @ 17:55
That is such a sad story! Children having to deal with the fact they "almost" had a family? Kids always have a family regardless of whether the parents are together or divorced. We all would love to live in a perfect world but we all know that that perfect world is really difficult to achieve. Divorce is not the end of the world for a child. A badly handled one, though, could be.
I think that history has shown us that children being brought in an unhappy marriage can only lead to disaster. If a husband and wife simply cannot get along anymore, then the children shouldnt have to bear the brunt of their parents cowardice. How many times have I heard that a couple stays together "for the sake of the children", only to find that their kids grow up dysfunctional? Better to have 2 happy parents separated than 2 unhappy parents together.
The real issue here is that people just need to be RESPONSIBLE. And being responsible doesn't equate to being unromantic. People shouldn't have kids unless they fully understand the responsibility of becoming/being a parent - married or unmarried. Likewise marriage. Pre-nup or no pre-nup the act of marriage is not just about love but also responsibility - to each other, to your lives and the lives of (potential) children. It's also simply what being an adult is all about.
How come we have health warnings on anything and everything these days, and regulation has become a part and part parcel of our everyday life, but two idiots can still freely get married and have children?????!!
I think that history has shown us that children being brought in an unhappy marriage can only lead to disaster. If a husband and wife simply cannot get along anymore, then the children shouldnt have to bear the brunt of their parents cowardice. How many times have I heard that a couple stays together "for the sake of the children", only to find that their kids grow up dysfunctional? Better to have 2 happy parents separated than 2 unhappy parents together.
The real issue here is that people just need to be RESPONSIBLE. And being responsible doesn't equate to being unromantic. People shouldn't have kids unless they fully understand the responsibility of becoming/being a parent - married or unmarried. Likewise marriage. Pre-nup or no pre-nup the act of marriage is not just about love but also responsibility - to each other, to your lives and the lives of (potential) children. It's also simply what being an adult is all about.
How come we have health warnings on anything and everything these days, and regulation has become a part and part parcel of our everyday life, but two idiots can still freely get married and have children?????!!
The text you are quoting:
That is such a sad story! Children having to deal with the fact they "almost" had a family? Kids always have a family regardless of whether the parents are together or divorced. We all would love to live in a perfect world but we all know that that perfect world is really difficult to achieve. Divorce is not the end of the world for a child. A badly handled one, though, could be.
I think that history has shown us that children being brought in an unhappy marriage can only lead to disaster. If a husband and wife simply cannot get along anymore, then the children shouldnt have to bear the brunt of their parents cowardice. How many times have I heard that a couple stays together "for the sake of the children", only to find that their kids grow up dysfunctional? Better to have 2 happy parents separated than 2 unhappy parents together.
The real issue here is that people just need to be RESPONSIBLE. And being responsible doesn't equate to being unromantic. People shouldn't have kids unless they fully understand the responsibility of becoming/being a parent - married or unmarried. Likewise marriage. Pre-nup or no pre-nup the act of marriage is not just about love but also responsibility - to each other, to your lives and the lives of (potential) children. It's also simply what being an adult is all about.
How come we have health warnings on anything and everything these days, and regulation has become a part and part parcel of our everyday life, but two idiots can still freely get married and have children?????!!
tweety, Jul 19, 2007 @ 17:55
I think that history has shown us that children being brought in an unhappy marriage can only lead to disaster. If a husband and wife simply cannot get along anymore, then the children shouldnt have to bear the brunt of their parents cowardice. How many times have I heard that a couple stays together "for the sake of the children", only to find that their kids grow up dysfunctional? Better to have 2 happy parents separated than 2 unhappy parents together.
The real issue here is that people just need to be RESPONSIBLE. And being responsible doesn't equate to being unromantic. People shouldn't have kids unless they fully understand the responsibility of becoming/being a parent - married or unmarried. Likewise marriage. Pre-nup or no pre-nup the act of marriage is not just about love but also responsibility - to each other, to your lives and the lives of (potential) children. It's also simply what being an adult is all about.
How come we have health warnings on anything and everything these days, and regulation has become a part and part parcel of our everyday life, but two idiots can still freely get married and have children?????!!
tweety, Jul 19, 2007 @ 17:55
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 10
Jul 20, 2007 @ 13:03
... and you cannot answer...
You are both not ready for marriage yet!
The reason for a prenup is clear: you both don't want money to be an issue among you both. There's no possible honest answer to that.
"So you think I'm marrying you for your money?"
"I don't but I'll start thinking it, if you refuse the prenup agreement!"
I personally think it's grand time that the separation of assets become the legal default condition for marriage, so we'll stop seeing these disgusting fights around money and this even more disgusting "rich-husband hunt"!
You would still have hot wallet hunters chasing rich men for their wealth, but agreements would be clear since the beginning. The gifts a man want to offer his wife will be hers, whatever happens. What they have built/bought together will be split, but if a marriage doesn't work, nobody will be rewarded for that!
N.B.
I made the case on husband-chasers only because it happens more often that a woman marries a richer man for money, but the case applies exactly the same in the other direction!
You are both not ready for marriage yet!
The reason for a prenup is clear: you both don't want money to be an issue among you both. There's no possible honest answer to that.
"So you think I'm marrying you for your money?"
"I don't but I'll start thinking it, if you refuse the prenup agreement!"
I personally think it's grand time that the separation of assets become the legal default condition for marriage, so we'll stop seeing these disgusting fights around money and this even more disgusting "rich-husband hunt"!
You would still have hot wallet hunters chasing rich men for their wealth, but agreements would be clear since the beginning. The gifts a man want to offer his wife will be hers, whatever happens. What they have built/bought together will be split, but if a marriage doesn't work, nobody will be rewarded for that!
N.B.
I made the case on husband-chasers only because it happens more often that a woman marries a richer man for money, but the case applies exactly the same in the other direction!
The text you are quoting:
... and you cannot answer...
You are both not ready for marriage yet!
The reason for a prenup is clear: you both don't want money to be an issue among you both. There's no possible honest answer to that.
"So you think I'm marrying you for your money?"
"I don't but I'll start thinking it, if you refuse the prenup agreement!"
I personally think it's grand time that the separation of assets become the legal default condition for marriage, so we'll stop seeing these disgusting fights around money and this even more disgusting "rich-husband hunt"!
You would still have hot wallet hunters chasing rich men for their wealth, but agreements would be clear since the beginning. The gifts a man want to offer his wife will be hers, whatever happens. What they have built/bought together will be split, but if a marriage doesn't work, nobody will be rewarded for that!
N.B.
I made the case on husband-chasers only because it happens more often that a woman marries a richer man for money, but the case applies exactly the same in the other direction!
Stef__Granny, Jul 20, 2007 @ 13:03
You are both not ready for marriage yet!
The reason for a prenup is clear: you both don't want money to be an issue among you both. There's no possible honest answer to that.
"So you think I'm marrying you for your money?"
"I don't but I'll start thinking it, if you refuse the prenup agreement!"
I personally think it's grand time that the separation of assets become the legal default condition for marriage, so we'll stop seeing these disgusting fights around money and this even more disgusting "rich-husband hunt"!
You would still have hot wallet hunters chasing rich men for their wealth, but agreements would be clear since the beginning. The gifts a man want to offer his wife will be hers, whatever happens. What they have built/bought together will be split, but if a marriage doesn't work, nobody will be rewarded for that!
N.B.
I made the case on husband-chasers only because it happens more often that a woman marries a richer man for money, but the case applies exactly the same in the other direction!
Stef__Granny, Jul 20, 2007 @ 13:03
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 11
Jul 20, 2007 @ 13:07
Children are protected anyway and remain both parents' children anyway (even if you are not married, but the children are recognised by both parents).
(I'm not a lawyer either).
(I'm not a lawyer either).
The text you are quoting:
Children are protected anyway and remain both parents' children anyway (even if you are not married, but the children are recognised by both parents).
(I'm not a lawyer either).
Stef__Granny, Jul 20, 2007 @ 13:07
(I'm not a lawyer either).
Stef__Granny, Jul 20, 2007 @ 13:07
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 12
Jul 20, 2007 @ 14:35
summed up exactly what I wanted to say! Thanks MarMark.
The text you are quoting:
summed up exactly what I wanted to say! Thanks MarMark.
nancy, Jul 20, 2007 @ 14:35
nancy, Jul 20, 2007 @ 14:35
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 13
Jul 20, 2007 @ 14:43
Sorry to disagree StefGranny but I come from a divorced family and my father took almost everything when he left. There was no pre-nup involved but as far as my mother was concerned she earned that money as much as my father did, yet she didn't get a dime. My mother struggled to make ends meet for a very long time and my father NEVER paid child support on time (and didn't pay enough in my opinion). Meanwhile, he drives around in his corvette with his new mistress and my mome and my 4 other brothers and sisters lived on food stamps in the US. Children are not always taken care of and I can attest to that 1st hand.
I still turned out OK but that is because I have the support of some amazing siblings.
Sorry to get so personal but wanted to make a point...
I still turned out OK but that is because I have the support of some amazing siblings.
Sorry to get so personal but wanted to make a point...
The text you are quoting:
Sorry to disagree StefGranny but I come from a divorced family and my father took almost everything when he left. There was no pre-nup involved but as far as my mother was concerned she earned that money as much as my father did, yet she didn't get a dime. My mother struggled to make ends meet for a very long time and my father NEVER paid child support on time (and didn't pay enough in my opinion). Meanwhile, he drives around in his corvette with his new mistress and my mome and my 4 other brothers and sisters lived on food stamps in the US. Children are not always taken care of and I can attest to that 1st hand.
I still turned out OK but that is because I have the support of some amazing siblings.
Sorry to get so personal but wanted to make a point...
nancy, Jul 20, 2007 @ 14:43
I still turned out OK but that is because I have the support of some amazing siblings.
Sorry to get so personal but wanted to make a point...
nancy, Jul 20, 2007 @ 14:43
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 14
Jul 24, 2007 @ 13:46
I beg to differ, but the SCARPA is not swift. Undelude, Dude
The text you are quoting:
I beg to differ, but the SCARPA is not swift. Undelude, Dude
MarmarK, Jul 24, 2007 @ 13:46
MarmarK, Jul 24, 2007 @ 13:46
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 15
Jul 24, 2007 @ 17:19
I dont' really know the situation in the USA but I'm not astonished to see that once again it's the lawyers who make the law when it concerns private people (as it's the corporations who make the laws when it concerns big big money. One ends up understanding why so little people actually go to vote!).
In Europe the regulations regarding the kids are generally more clear and in many countries the law applies to divorce, whatever agreement you may have signed.
I'm really sorry you made that experience.
In Europe the regulations regarding the kids are generally more clear and in many countries the law applies to divorce, whatever agreement you may have signed.
I'm really sorry you made that experience.
The text you are quoting:
I dont' really know the situation in the USA but I'm not astonished to see that once again it's the lawyers who make the law when it concerns private people (as it's the corporations who make the laws when it concerns big big money. One ends up understanding why so little people actually go to vote!).
In Europe the regulations regarding the kids are generally more clear and in many countries the law applies to divorce, whatever agreement you may have signed.
I'm really sorry you made that experience.
Stef__Granny, Jul 24, 2007 @ 17:19
In Europe the regulations regarding the kids are generally more clear and in many countries the law applies to divorce, whatever agreement you may have signed.
I'm really sorry you made that experience.
Stef__Granny, Jul 24, 2007 @ 17:19
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: The End of Romance???
Post 16
Jul 24, 2007 @ 17:26
Pre-nup is a good idea. I too believe that it is a good idea that mature adults can and should consider discussing.
It is good when either the man or the woman has already accumulated wealth prior to becoming married or becoming civil union partners (or PACS, se pacser if French).
It is good even if the man and the woman have moderate means.
Pre-nups should not only include separation of assets. A fair pre-nup should consider the unique circumstances and home/career plans of both. If the couple want the wife (or husband) to be a homemaker, the pre-nup can include sections that provide for some fair distribution of assets if the marriage ends. If both are professionals, the pre nup can take a different form. A good pre-nup should not be one sided, it should be fair. The pre nup can have sunset clauses, accretion clauses, and many many other things that anticipate not all, but major events that most couples can face as the relationship matures and life blossoms. One can include child support and wealth inheritance clauses that are more generous than what courts may normally provide. Pre-nup agreements can always be revised or cancelled any time after the marriage.
Pre-nup draft is a good start. Discussions that follow make it worthwhile. It is worth considering even if you wonder "why marry?, why not just love and live life together."
Hopefully pre-nups would become norm, may be even a pre-requisite before marriage certificate is issued.
It is good when either the man or the woman has already accumulated wealth prior to becoming married or becoming civil union partners (or PACS, se pacser if French).
It is good even if the man and the woman have moderate means.
Pre-nups should not only include separation of assets. A fair pre-nup should consider the unique circumstances and home/career plans of both. If the couple want the wife (or husband) to be a homemaker, the pre-nup can include sections that provide for some fair distribution of assets if the marriage ends. If both are professionals, the pre nup can take a different form. A good pre-nup should not be one sided, it should be fair. The pre nup can have sunset clauses, accretion clauses, and many many other things that anticipate not all, but major events that most couples can face as the relationship matures and life blossoms. One can include child support and wealth inheritance clauses that are more generous than what courts may normally provide. Pre-nup agreements can always be revised or cancelled any time after the marriage.
Pre-nup draft is a good start. Discussions that follow make it worthwhile. It is worth considering even if you wonder "why marry?, why not just love and live life together."
Hopefully pre-nups would become norm, may be even a pre-requisite before marriage certificate is issued.
The text you are quoting:
Pre-nup is a good idea. I too believe that it is a good idea that mature adults can and should consider discussing.
It is good when either the man or the woman has already accumulated wealth prior to becoming married or becoming civil union partners (or PACS, se pacser if French).
It is good even if the man and the woman have moderate means.
Pre-nups should not only include separation of assets. A fair pre-nup should consider the unique circumstances and home/career plans of both. If the couple want the wife (or husband) to be a homemaker, the pre-nup can include sections that provide for some fair distribution of assets if the marriage ends. If both are professionals, the pre nup can take a different form. A good pre-nup should not be one sided, it should be fair. The pre nup can have sunset clauses, accretion clauses, and many many other things that anticipate not all, but major events that most couples can face as the relationship matures and life blossoms. One can include child support and wealth inheritance clauses that are more generous than what courts may normally provide. Pre-nup agreements can always be revised or cancelled any time after the marriage.
Pre-nup draft is a good start. Discussions that follow make it worthwhile. It is worth considering even if you wonder "why marry?, why not just love and live life together."
Hopefully pre-nups would become norm, may be even a pre-requisite before marriage certificate is issued.
colorado, Jul 24, 2007 @ 17:26
It is good when either the man or the woman has already accumulated wealth prior to becoming married or becoming civil union partners (or PACS, se pacser if French).
It is good even if the man and the woman have moderate means.
Pre-nups should not only include separation of assets. A fair pre-nup should consider the unique circumstances and home/career plans of both. If the couple want the wife (or husband) to be a homemaker, the pre-nup can include sections that provide for some fair distribution of assets if the marriage ends. If both are professionals, the pre nup can take a different form. A good pre-nup should not be one sided, it should be fair. The pre nup can have sunset clauses, accretion clauses, and many many other things that anticipate not all, but major events that most couples can face as the relationship matures and life blossoms. One can include child support and wealth inheritance clauses that are more generous than what courts may normally provide. Pre-nup agreements can always be revised or cancelled any time after the marriage.
Pre-nup draft is a good start. Discussions that follow make it worthwhile. It is worth considering even if you wonder "why marry?, why not just love and live life together."
Hopefully pre-nups would become norm, may be even a pre-requisite before marriage certificate is issued.
colorado, Jul 24, 2007 @ 17:26
Your Reply:
