# Prenup



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

Hello CMFers,

Any advice on this? 

We love each other but want to protect one another against businesses/debts etc. Any advice? 

Y&A


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

Is either one of you substantially further ahead of the other prior to getting together?

Call me jaded, but marriage is a partnership.
I currently earn three times the salary of my wife, but that is just how things worked out. 
She worked as a secretary after high school, I went to uni and got a professional degree.
We met and got together in our late 20's, and married a few years after that.
I did not pay off her debts when we met, but did help her budget to get her own house in order, and that took a couple of years.. 

She stayed away from paid work for almost 7 years giving our two kids a great start in life.
I put my head down in a job that sometimes is not all that thrilling, and brought home the bacon.

Now kids are older, and we both work outside the home. A bit more financial breathing room.
Still, we share our world, and I feel that it would be diminished if there was some 'get out of jail free' card lurking about.
Maybe the fact that both of our parents had long marriages with no divorces shapes my view as too cherubic. 


If there is a contemplated prenup, make it's impact declining over time, so after say 5 years it has no value. 
If after five years you are not yet a team, there are bigger concerns than if there is a prenup tucked away somewhere..


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Ponderling said:


> Still, we share our world, and I feel that it would be diminished if there was some 'get out of jail free' card lurking about.


Perhaps from your perspective. On the flip-side, no prenup is precisely a get-out-of-jail-free card; for your wife.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Existing divorce laws (which provide for the division of assets and income support for spouses and children) already provide "get out of jail free cards" for non-earning spouses (as distasteful as that metaphor may seem, or not). 

Prenups protect assets the spouses have prior to marriage. If you don't have assets prior to the marriage, there is nothing to protect. And if you want to create a prenup which doesn't jive with existing matrimonial law based on future conditions that do not yet exist, you will likely have difficulties enforcing it.


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

Peterk, wow. Just wow.

Kids cost money, whether a parent stays home or both go to work. And this may come as a shock to you, but having kids is generally a JOINT decision. And they are certainly a JOINT responsibility. Let me give you a little perspective on how these decisions affect BOTH parties. When one parent leaves paid work to make that joint decision possible, s/he loses those years of earnings increases and will never recoup that, no matter how much alimony he or she may get in the event of a divorce. The other spouse, meanwhile, gets the opportunity to continue on an ambitious career track because they don't have to take daily primary responsibility for their decision to have kids which ultimately magnifies the discrepancy between their earnings. Ensuring that the person who takes the financial hit in that decision is compensated in the event of a divorce isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, it's just fair.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Young&Ambitious said:


> We love each other but want to protect one another against businesses/debts etc. Any advice?


Can you be more specific on what you want to protect against ... on the surface I read this more of a incorporation issue than a prenup.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

we both have assets going into the relationship. he has a growing business and I want to protect myself from the worst case scenario of the business failing and he wants to protect from, if we ever split up, not having to sell a business in order to make things work. in the future, we are looking at having myself work part-time when we have kids. Should we ever split up I would want that to be recognized. On the other hand, for tax efficiencies, assets are going to be shared between the two of us going forward which also complicates things. It's an important document that hopefully never comes into effect but at the same time, I want to do have it as solid as possible and hopefully just leave this solid doc in a filing cabinet forever.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Y&A: do this through corporate structures, not a prenup. 

The equalization of property and, to a large extent, income, based on one parent voluntarily decreasing labour force participation to raise children is a cornerstone of modern family law in Canada. Nothing you could put in a prenup would provide any more protection than existing provisions of family law. (BTW check this with a lawyer, not a semi-anonymous internet forum)


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

One more p.s. - prenups generally complicate matters, not simplify them, in the event of divorce. If your goal is less complication, you will achieve that by how you arrange your affairs over time. Divorce IS complicated and a prenup will never contemplate all the situations that will or can arise.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> The equalization of property and, to a large extent, income, based on one parent voluntarily decreasing labour force participation to raise children is a cornerstone of modern family law in Canada. Nothing you could put in a prenup would provide any more protection than existing provisions of family law.


Yikes! Is that the case? I thought a prenup could be written to indicate almost anything (so long as it's thoroughly written by a competent lawyer)

But are you saying that in a typical case -- Young couple with few assets gets married in late 20s, 2:1 income ratio, woman takes 5-20 years off work, returns to workforce, income ratio is now 5:1. Divorces in late 40s. -- Is there really nothing much one can do to protect assets accumulated _during_ marriage?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Hide them overseas. Spend them instead of saving them. :love-struck:

Or, in your case, perhaps the best advice is to never get married. :encouragement: Or keep it common-law!

A prenup CAN be written to cover anything at all. Getting a prenup ENFORCED that doesn't jibe with the whole concept of equalization of family property is another matter.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MoneyGal said:


> Or, in your case, perhaps the best advice is to never get married. :encouragement:


^^^^ This.



MoneyGal said:


> Or keep it common-law!


^^^^ NOT this.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

No automatic division of assets if no legal marriage (BC common-law marriages somewhat excepted).


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

Haha oh Moneygal. And here I thought common law was essentially marriage but without the fun party and the blingy ring :love-struck:


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MoneyGal said:


> No automatic division of assets if no legal marriage (BC common-law marriages somewhat excepted).


Yup, but be careful with this one, in many places common law is becoming (or already is) virtually the same as being married.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Well, I'd like to see any examples you have of that.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

http://www.commonlawrelationships.ca/canada/

I think this sums it up quickly, check the rules for the different provinces.
BTW, I didn't verify the info of that site.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Looks like B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba equalize property upon the dissolution of a CL marriage. Good site!


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

peterk said:


> Yikes! Is that the case? I thought a prenup could be written to indicate almost anything (so long as it's thoroughly written by a competent lawyer)
> 
> But are you saying that in a typical case -- Young couple with few assets gets married in late 20s, 2:1 income ratio, woman takes 5-20 years off work, returns to workforce, income ratio is now 5:1. Divorces in late 40s. -- Is there really nothing much one can do to protect assets accumulated _during_ marriage?


Um, yes, dividing the assets upon dissolution does protect them. Or rather it protects both parties' interests in them. I think the question you really want to ask is whether or not there is a legal way to steal your spouse's contribution to the family.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

KrissyFair said:


> I think the question you really want to ask is whether or not there is a legal way to steal your spouse's contribution to the family.


But what if it was her (or his) choice to stay home with the kids even if the other spouse objects? What if there are no kids and one spouse chooses to stay under or unemployed.

Why does the person who makes more money automatically have to cover for the other spouse's decision to make less money?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

BECAUSE REASONS! HOPE THAT HELPS!!! I can muster up a little more outrage if you like. UNFAIR! WOMEN! DISCRIMINATION! CHILDREN! DECISIONS!


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

Four Pillars said:


> But what if it was her (or his) choice to stay home with the kids even if the other spouse objects? What if there are no kids and one spouse chooses to stay under or unemployed.
> 
> Why does the person who makes more money automatically have to cover for the other spouse's decision to make less money?


If your objection to your spouse staying home is so firm that you'll get divorced over it, then by all means do. But do it now. Pay alimony based on your current income. AND pay your fair share of the childrearing (either by cutting back your own hours to care for your children or paying a third party to look after your children. Don't acquiesce to the situation for years building up your salary while your spouse does a job for free that you would otherwise have to pay for and then expect to leave once that work is done.

And frankly, if a couple is that far apart on their basic life decisions... they really shouldn't be married anyway.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

KrissyFair said:


> AND pay your fair share of the childrearing (either by cutting back your own hours to care for your children or paying a third party to look after your children. Don't acquiesce to the situation for years building up your salary while your spouse does a job for free that you would otherwise have to pay for and then expect to leave once that work is done.


Work less and spend more time with your kids. My wife is currently away for work for the next 3 weeks and I get to take care of our little dude solo. Super fun and a lot more fun than making money.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

KrissyFair said:


> If your objection to your spouse staying home is so firm that you'll get divorced over it, then by all means do. But do it now. Pay alimony based on your current income. AND pay your fair share of the childrearing (either by cutting back your own hours to care for your children or paying a third party to look after your children. Don't acquiesce to the situation for years building up your salary while your spouse does a job for free that you would otherwise have to pay for and then expect to leave once that work is done.
> 
> And frankly, if a couple is that far apart on their basic life decisions... they really shouldn't be married anyway.


You've made so many silly assumptions with your post that I'm not even going to bother with a proper response.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> BECAUSE REASONS! HOPE THAT HELPS!!! I can muster up a little more outrage if you like. UNFAIR! WOMEN! DISCRIMINATION! CHILDREN! DECISIONS!


Haha - ok, how about this one:

My friend has always been good with money (ie super-cheap), max the rrsp, has a good career, responsible person etc etc. Her ex-husband was an unemployed artist (or something equivalent) and was terrible with money. He basically just used her to do whatever he wanted.

Guess who got screwed in the settlement?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Four Pillars, why are you describing MY first marriage on this site?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

quel free-for-all !

there are plenty women quietly raising children with no help at all

& quite well too, thank you

a married husband can die young with no provision
an ex-husband can die young with no provision
boyfriends can die young or disappear ... with no provision

spend what? the children?
hide what overseas? the children?

there's no solution until all women on earth shall be raised to entirely provide for themselves & their children if necessary. Extremely radical solution, i know.

it's why spice here in cmf forum who natter on & on about how the (usually) female half is dumdum when it comes to money are unfortunately infantilizing the female half ... but then there could also be males who are infantilized in like fashion ... theoretically speaking ...

it's necessary to create a prenup that goes beyond dither palaver imho


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> Four Pillars, why are you describing MY first marriage on this site?


I was actually talking about a co-worker - but I doubt it's a rare story unfortunately.


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

FourPillars, I was initially speaking to peterk's scenario in which one spouse was unhappy with their financial management for years but went along with it and then wanted to leave the other high and dry with the short end of that outcome. To that you replied with the assumption that such a scenario would occur without the higher earning spouse's consent. I do understand that sometimes people get screwed in divorces, but the point is, as long as the marriage exists then both parties are agreeing to the terms. If one doesn't like the terms he or she can leave, but they can't stay for years - as peterk was describing, and to which I was speaking - and then expect to not pay their portion for the time that they were participating in that agreement.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

@krissyFair: I'm actually a bit astonished at this thread. Everything you have written I thought was self evident. There certainly seem to be a few people here who seem to not like their spouses very much and don't understand the institution of marriage.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> there's no solution until all women on earth shall be raised to entirely provide for themselves & their children if necessary. Extremely radical solution, i know.


there's no solution until all *people* on earth shall be raised to entirely provide for themselves & their children if necessary. Extremely radical solution, i know.

Fixed that for you


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

Pretty awesome video by a PF blogger on the topic (funny stuff)

http://www.thousandaire.com/blog/you-gotta-get-a-prenup-music-video/


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

KrissyFair said:


> FourPillars, I was initially speaking to peterk's scenario in which one spouse was unhappy with their financial management for years but went along with it and then wanted to leave the other high and dry with the short end of that outcome. To that you replied with the assumption that such a scenario would occur without the higher earning spouse's consent. I do understand that sometimes people get screwed in divorces, but the point is, as long as the marriage exists then both parties are agreeing to the terms. If one doesn't like the terms he or she can leave, but they can't stay for years - as peterk was describing, and to which I was speaking - and then expect to not pay their portion for the time that they were participating in that agreement.


But sometimes things can change and there isn't always a whole lot you can do about it. You can marry someone who has a good job and is ambitious and then later on decide they want a much lower-paying career change. Do you divorce them the minute that happens?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

If you value the money more than the persons companionship yes. If not, no. It really is that simple.

Generally people put far too much value on money. Once you pass a threshold, it's all rather meaningless. You own a chrysler instead of an Audi? Who cares? Only people who you shouldn't care what they think.

_“The only time you should look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.”
― Louis C.K._


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> But sometimes things can change and there isn't always a whole lot you can do about it. You can marry someone who has a good job and is ambitious and then later on decide they want a much lower-paying career change. Do you divorce them the minute that happens?


You mean like ....
http://www.voanews.com/content/former-microsoft-exec-brings-books-to-worlds-poorest/1653789.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wood_(Room_to_Read)




none said:


> If you value the money more than the persons companionship yes. If not, no.
> It really is that simple ...


If I am recalling the book jacket blurb correctly, his wife who also worked for M$ decided it was simple and left him so she could continue to focus on M$.


Cheers


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> You mean like ....
> http://www.voanews.com/content/former-microsoft-exec-brings-books-to-worlds-poorest/1653789.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wood_(Room_to_Read)


That would be an example - I'm sure there are many out there.


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

Four Pillars said:


> But sometimes things can change ...Do you divorce them the minute that happens?


No, obviously not _the minute_ that happens. Nor do you wait 20 years and expect to leave without honouring the terms of the agreement as they stood for those 20 years like peterk described. As with most things the answer lies in the middle, and not at either end of the hyperbole.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

What a great story, I wasn't aware: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/o...libraries-12000-so-far-change-lives.html?_r=0

Makes all this financial circle jerk - do I have 800K or 1200 K look pretty small, stupid and insignificant.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

KrissyFair said:


> No, obviously not _the minute_ that happens. Nor do you wait 20 years and expect to leave without honouring the terms of the agreement as they stood for those 20 years like peterk described. As with most things the answer lies in the middle, and not at either end of the hyperbole.


Actually, in PeterK's example the answer is at the end of the hyperbole rainbow. 

I guess my question is 'what agreement?' - I don't know too many people who agree to much more than loving each other and death do us part etc etc.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

KrissyFair said:


> And frankly, if a couple is that far apart on their basic life decisions... they really shouldn't be married anyway.


I stayed for the kids then gave her half of everything and started anew...I do not regret doing that.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

You sure seem to like breaking things down to appear to be logical, KrissyUnFair. But, naturally, you leave out the other half of the equation.

You've got the free childcare compensation mentioned and the lost wages from staying at home, but you've missed out the other half. How about the free house, free car, free food, free closet of clothes, free vacations, and free lifestyle received by the non-working spouse?

If you can expect to be compensated after the fact (through divorce) for making a choice to not work, then I can expect to be reinbursed for choosing to pay for your entire cost of living for a number of years, as well.

And thanks for the tongue in cheek outburst MoneyGal  It's nice to see that there's at least some ladies that can keep their cool when I refer to "wife" instead of non-earning spouse, and "man" instead of higher earner. I'm not doing it to take an unnecessary jab at you gals, I'm just trying to eschew political correctness whenever I can.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

peterk said:


> How about the free house, free car, free food, free closet of clothes, free vacations, and free lifestyle received by the non-working spouse?


Taking care of a home and family is "work" and there is a value to that. If one had to outsource the housework and family care it would be quite expensive.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

@peterk

I know we're not married but can we have a divorce? Yeesh, thank you for being the poster boy for people to be wary of who you marry. Yikes.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

@ Y&A

And? I already aknowledged that, and point out that those things are already compensated for through alimony and income-based child support. So where's my compensation for your house and entire life's expenses?

Rhetorical question - There isn't any in the current legal system.

@ none - weren't you the one that advised their female friend who had made peace with her ex-commonlaw boyfriend that she should go back and take half his stuff because he was mean and cheated on her, therefore deserving it? I'm glad we aren't married either then. Also, aren't you a guy?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Compensation = income - Alimony


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

shall we all send Y & A a gigantic wave of good wishes for her happiness?

all together now ...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

> originally Posted by humble_pie
> 
> there's no solution until all women on earth shall be raised to entirely provide for themselves & their children if necessary. Extremely radical solution, i know





cainvest said:


> there's no solution until all *people* on earth shall be raised to entirely provide for themselves & their children if necessary. Extremely radical solution, i know.
> 
> Fixed that for you



fixed that? no, i don't agree.

i said all women on earth & i meant all women, not all people.

as long as the mothers have the offspring covered, that'll do in an imperfect world imho.

historically, males have had slightly more of a tendency to beget & begone, so i'm sticking with the mothers.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Dependents are dependent. Where's carverman?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

it's true, dependents are dependent. That's why i'm sticking to the mothers. In extreme circumstances - war, revolution, bereavement, coma of the partner - the mother will usually be the ultimate fortress.

what has carverman got to do with the price of chicken.


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

peterk said:


> You've got the free childcare compensation mentioned and the lost wages from staying at home, but you've missed out the other half. How about the free house, free car, free food, free closet of clothes, free vacations, and free lifestyle received by the non-working spouse?


You're right, I didn't speak to those things. In return, you've totally discounting the benefit the higher earner gets from having a spouse stay home. Does she go to the grocery store to buy the 'free' food, and then turn the groceries into meals to her spouse's benefit? Are there any other ways in which his share of the household labour is reduced because his spouse stays home. Then there are the things that don't have to be outsourced at a cost because someone is available to do them. When we both worked (and didn't have kids) we spent a lot of money compensating for our lack of time - takeout, laundering, you name it the privilege of working cost us a lot of money. Then there's the opportunity benefit. When my husband's company said 'Hey, we want to give you a giant promotion and move you across the country' he got to say yes. Had I been working he would have either had to turn down the promotion (cost to him) or we would have been in the same situation we are now (at least for a period of time) except that my house and car and closet full of clothes wouldn't be freebies, they'd be the cost of his job opportunity. This fall I'm going back to work so guess what? Either he's going to have to cut from 60 hrs a week to 40 and in so doing totally take himself out of the running for another advancement in the near future, or he's going to be up all hours of the night fitting the workload in after he's finished what will be his increased share of the domestic duties. There _will_ be a cost to him.

I think what's actually the biggest flaw with my position is that I'm working from the assumption that families work as a unit towards an overall goal and both parties are contributing equally towards that goal even if those contributions do not have the same dollar value on the job market. As such, each member deserves to enjoy an equal portion of the result. As FourPillars pointed out though, he doesn't know many couples who agree on anything, so obviously I'm very wrong there. 

Then again, I'm basing my view on my experience and observations, as someone who has been partnered for a decade and has no divorced friends or family members.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> fixed that? no, i don't agree.
> 
> i said all women on earth & i meant all women, not all people.
> 
> ...


No problems, to each their own ... I myself prefer to treat/view both sides as equals.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i do treat/view both sides as equals

different equals

_vive la différence!_

does any young male grow up today imagining how he'll cope if the wife disappears with her hi-paying job & leaves him with the children :biggrin:

but i have more than one friend who married - for the first time - a man with children from a prior marriage & prior to the new marriage the new husband discussed with his bride-to-be that he'd only agree to having more children if she'd first understand that she had to be at least partly financially responsible.

i think this is in the ballpark of what peterk is driving at


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

This "discussion" has really gone off the rails with insinuations and insults, and debates about the relative "worth" of spousal roles in different marriages.

Young&Ambitious asked a perfectly reasonable question, and expanded on her reasons (both have assets going into marriage; a business is involved that could be either an asset or liability in the future). 

My advice: they should at least consult to a lawyer to see if a prenup can accomplish what they want, in the face of all the other family law. I have also seen advice that each partner should have a separate lawyer, as otherwise one lawyer can be perceived as having a conflict of interest. Personally I think this is carrying matters too far for simple situations, potentially making a mutual agreement into an adversarial situation: but I have heard that some lawyers will insist on it.


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

Humble, it's funny you say that about wives leaving with their higher paying jobs. The reason I try to say 'spouse' and 'higher earner' or 'lower earner' instead of assuming that the man is the higher earner isn't to be PC, it's because I'm pretty much the only woman in my peer group who earns less than her male partner. I know an awful lot of men who spent time without jobs because their PhD wives can only work in a handful of places on the planet and those places don't happen to be ripe with opportunities in his field. And for the record, yes, those men absolutely deserve alimony.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

KrissyFair said:


> You're right, I didn't speak to those things. In return, you've totally discounting the benefit the higher earner gets from having a spouse stay home. Does she go to the grocery store to buy the 'free' food, and then turn the groceries into meals to her spouse's benefit? Are there any other ways in which his share of the household labour is reduced because his spouse stays home. Then there are the things that don't have to be outsourced at a cost because someone is available to do them. When we both worked (and didn't have kids) we spent a lot of money compensating for our lack of time - takeout, laundering, you name it the privilege of working cost us a lot of money. Then there's the opportunity benefit. When my husband's company said 'Hey, we want to give you a giant promotion and move you across the country' he got to say yes. Had I been working he would have either had to turn down the promotion (cost to him) or we would have been in the same situation we are now (at least for a period of time) except that my house and car and closet full of clothes wouldn't be freebies, they'd be the cost of his job opportunity. This fall I'm going back to work so guess what? Either he's going to have to cut from 60 hrs a week to 40 and in so doing totally take himself out of the running for another advancement in the near future, or he's going to be up all hours of the night fitting the workload in after he's finished what will be his increased share of the domestic duties. There _will_ be a cost to him.
> 
> I think what's actually the biggest flaw with my position is that I'm working from the assumption that families work as a unit towards an overall goal and both parties are contributing equally towards that goal even if those contributions do not have the same dollar value on the job market. As such, each member deserves to enjoy an equal portion of the result. As FourPillars pointed out though, he doesn't know many couples who agree on anything, so obviously I'm very wrong there.
> 
> Then again, I'm basing my view on my experience and observations, as someone who has been partnered for a decade and has no divorced friends or family members.


I think I wrapped up all those points within childcare and lost wages, though much more succinctly... You can ramble out a 20 page detailed list of all the things a "spouse" does for his/her/its other "spouse", but the reality is this:

A judge will make a very thorough attempt to calculate the incalcuable amount of "contribution" that the wife (gasp!) has made to the relationship. The husband's contribution, which could quite easily be calculated, ironically, is ignored and determined to be 0.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> My advice: they should at least consult to a lawyer to see if a prenup can accomplish what they want, in the face of all the other family law. I have also seen advice that each partner should have a separate lawyer, as otherwise one lawyer can be perceived as having a conflict of interest. Personally I think this is carrying matters too far for simple situations, potentially making a mutual agreement into an adversarial situation: but I have heard that some lawyers will insist on it.


Thanks OhGreatGuru. We do have a lawyer and the draft provided to us was basically a template for us to start the conversation. I'd like to get as much information together as possible before the next meeting so I can maximize the value/minimize the cost. 

We both agree to have me work part-time in the future so how would I be "compensated" for that during marriage/if the marriage ends? And our assets are going too mixed as a result of tax planning in order to provide tax savings so it won't be as easy as Jack earns X and Jill earns X, it's a more complicated situation so my question remains how do you capture all of this into a document not knowing how businesses/careers etc will turn out without having it so vague or open to interpretation that the document is worthless?


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Don't get married.I agree with peter(men get screwed!)I have seen it with my own eyes in my life.
One of my fears is one day losing half of what I built to a women in a "starter marriage"
marriage has always been a bigger risk for men.
Maybe I'm wrong but a women scorned is way scarier when the gloves are off than generally a man(men tend to just want to go in peace,in a marriage breakdown and move on)plus men conditionally have been trained by society to save face(few men try to soak a women in divirce even if the women has mire assets)
Its more socially acceptable for a women to take a man to the cleaners imo


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

@donald -- you have obviously never read any stats regarding spousal abuse. http://www.canadianwomen.org/facts-about-violence

I'm shocked at the level of ignorance in this thread.










Most men are not abusive to their families. However, when family violence does occur, the victims are overwhelmingly female:

83% of all police-reported domestic assaults are against women.
This pattern is consistent for every province and territory across Canada.

In spousal violence, three times as many women experience serious violence such as choking, beating, being threatened with a knife or gun, and sexual violence. 

Women are more likely to be physically injured,26 to get a restraining order,27 and to fear for their lives.

For the past 30 years in Canada, women are three to four times as likely to be killed by their spouse.

Over 80% of victims of dating violence are female.

Girls are four times as likely as boys to be sexually assaulted by a family member.


----------



## kevinlk (Jul 9, 2009)

While violence against women is not acceptable (nor it is against men), that it happens doesn't make it right that men get screwed more often than not during divorce. Using a wrong to justify another wrong thing isn't right. It would be like stating different pays for men and women is acceptable because women are given much more programs and resources at school.

Regarding violence, while it may not excuse what is being done to women, let's not think it's so one-sided. Violence against men is much more frequent than what stats may show, but why men would report such things when abuse against men is considered as comedy or even praised? A woman can kick a man in the balls and it's seen as acceptable (despite being sexual violence), which is totally wrong. Anyway, two links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkmanLIAdXI
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hopping-man-street-argument-caught-video.html


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Young&Ambitious said:


> We both agree to have me work part-time in the future so *how would I be "compensated" for that during marriage/if the marriage ends*? And our assets are going too mixed as a result of tax planning in order to provide tax savings so it won't be as easy as Jack earns X and Jill earns X, it's a more complicated situation so my question remains how do you capture all of this into a document not knowing how businesses/careers etc will turn out without having it so vague or open to interpretation that the document is worthless?


This is the essence of modern family law in Canada: you would be compensated by dividing equally the financial assets accumulated during the marriage. This is why I said you don't need a prenup to provide the kind of protection you are looking for. 

Same deal with mixed assets: a market value is assigned to each, one-half of the total value is assigned to each spouse, and then assets are split/sold in order to have one spouse write a cheque to the other spouse (or whatever is required to equalize the net family property). (Same goes with debts; they are typically split equally.)


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Whoops, missed the first part of the question - how would you be compensated for working part-time if/when you raise children? the answer is, you would have access to the lifestyle provided by your spouse's earnings, although you are not earning them directly. What other form of compensation would you be looking for?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> That would be an example - I'm sure there are many out there.


I'm fairly certain that it's an extreme example ... :biggrin:




none said:


> What a great story, I wasn't aware: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/o...libraries-12000-so-far-change-lives.html?_r=0
> 
> Makes all this financial circle jerk - do I have 800K or 1200 K look pretty small, stupid and insignificant.


Yes ... though some are not able to comprehend the idea of "I've already got enough & can make a difference for others".


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> i do treat/view both sides as equals ...
> 
> does any young male grow up today imagining how he'll cope if the wife disappears with her hi-paying job & leaves him with the children :biggrin:


Probably not ... but then life happens & sometimes he's stuck raising the kids.


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

none said:


> I'm shocked at the level of ignorance in this thread.
> 
> Most men are not abusive to their families. However, when family violence does occur, the victims are overwhelmingly female


What do spousal abuse stats have to do with divorce settlements? A minority of men commit heinous crimes and you want to bias something against the entire gender? Where are the historical stats on passive aggressive mental abuse? How do any of these stats justify a "lower earner" to treat divorce more like a conquered battlefield to pillage than a respectful division? (from the person you promised to share a bed with until death)

It's still a social landmine to ask for a prenup, yet divorce is so common now that it's not stigmatized at all... Even with a prenup, you're probably financially insane to marry anyone whose potential income is much lower than yours. The highly profitable law industry is probably what encourages so many divorces in the first place. I think that's an unfortunate reality.

Is the $20k symbolic diamond gift and $30k religious ceremony factored into the settlement? If the "higher earner" bought a house at a young age instead of shoes and lattes, is the "lower earner" still entitled to half of its capital gains? Is the "higher earner's" potential income and projected networth before marriage factored in? Is the "higher earner's" career progression before marriage factored in?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

eclectic why should he - or any parent for that matter - be *stuck* raising the kids?

i mean, he's lucky to have the kids ...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

m3s said:


> ... Even with a prenup, you're probably financially insane to marry anyone whose potential income is much lower than yours




funny!

one can see where this kind of thinking might lead. We're heading gently off in the direction of the taboo arranged marriage.

families plotting which other family will add wealth. Preserve the patrimoine. Improve the bloodline. Gawd forbid the princess should marry a peasant.

truly they do all this so much more efficiently & with so much less emotional uproar when they're breeding prize farm animals each:

btw how exactly is one supposed to pre-evaluate "potential income"


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

donald said:


> 1. *(men get screwed!)* I have seen it with my own eyes in my life.
> 2. Maybe I'm wrong but a *women scorned is way scarier*
> 3. when the gloves are off than *generally a man(men tend to just want to go in peace*,in a marriage breakdown and move on).
> 4. Its more socially acceptable for a *women to take a man to the cleaners* imo


*1.* And women aren't victims at all? Open your ears and eyes a lil more!
*2.* Still thinking about Jodi Arias, or perhaps Catherine Kieu? :biggrin:
*3.* Men are 'generally' the more amicable and 'peaceful' half of the equation? You only seem to think in terms of $$$$ signs & seem to judge all women the same. 
*4.* Like in this case?

http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii28892/2009canlii28892.html
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=956

And indeed there is such a thing as 'damages for pain & suffering' in divorce/separation context, and as was in the case below, without assaultive conduct even, but granted such cases are rare considering where the Supreme Court stands on the issue.

*McLean v. Danici and McDermott* [the woman received $15K for d]. 

In her application, Ms. McLean requests the following relief:

a. a declaration of trust in the two properties,
b. quantum meruit,
c. compensatory support,
*d. damages for pain and suffering;*
e. full vesting orders of both properties on the basis that, given the history of the Respondent’s conduct, any order that requires any degree of cooperation on his part will be hollow; and
f. full indemnity costs on the basis of his “ongoing and repeated misconduct in this action, his harassment and extortion of the Applicant and his obstruction of justice.”

*"The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering involves the following 3 elements: i) flagrant or outrageous conduct; ii) calculated to produce harm; and iii) resulting in a visible and provable illness. Justice Harvison Young emphasized that the $15,000 award of “compensatory and aggravated damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering and emotional distress” (plus interest) was also intended to express “society’s outrage at this conduct.”
*

Given the various comments upthread, some may also want to review the definition of *quantum meruit* in divorce litigation [10,000 hours of hard labour was awarded in this case, and pretty much what she had asked for {see #35 = 11,872}]. 

*Y&A:* keep this in mind: 'when people tell me they’ve learned from experience, I tell them the trick is to learn from other people’s experience' - Buffett.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I think going through the prenup exercise should be mandatory for all couples seeking a legal marriage. The thinking needed is what will sort out many issues that are likely to crop up later. 

When my first wife and I split up after 26 years, I offered her half of everything then she got her own lawyer. Suddenly half the air miles and half my corporation were no longer on the table. She asked me if I was mad at her and I said no that she had chosen to go with what the lawyer could extract (which happened to be less than what I had offered).


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Young&Ambitious said:


> how do you capture all of this into a document not knowing how businesses/careers etc will turn out without having it so vague or open to interpretation that the document is worthless?


I honestly don't think you can. And as MG says, the prenup is worthless if family law overrides anything.


----------



## YYC (Nov 12, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> btw how exactly is one supposed to pre-evaluate "potential income"


I think it's clear from this thread and others that some people should never get married.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

YYC said:


> I think it's clear from this thread and others that some people should never get married.


No worries, some of these individuals [hopefully] never will.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Toronto gal-I've seen in my own family a ugly divorce.Not only did the higher income earner lose half(man in this case,she had basically nothing)he also got side swiped finding another man in his bed during working hours!he did the right thing for the kids and likely(I'm certain)still supports her to this day.
He spent 6 yrs in a dark house at night wondering what the "hell" happend while said women danced off into the sunset with her new lover.
**** happens eh!


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> eclectic why should he - or any parent for that matter - be *stuck* raising the kids?
> 
> i mean, he's lucky to have the kids ...


When the partner is still alive - it's hard not to remember the good old days when there were two people raising the kids. Never mind, when she walzed off with the higher income so that it's reduced manpower as well as reduced financial resources.


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> 1) Gawd forbid the princess should marry a peasant.
> 
> 2) btw how exactly is one supposed to pre-evaluate "potential income"


1) Actually I think it's really unfortunate as I said. Emotions aside, it's a ridiculous risk for anyone financially savvy to marry a spendthrift. It's a lot more realistic to provide for a couple than 2 individuals. Most divorces are apparently sparked by finances in some way

2) I had a pretty good idea what my projected networth would be, most of your potential is capped pretty young. When someone has credit cards maxed, student debt and a degree that seems to make them "overqualified" for everything available... you can make an educated guess

I grew up on child support so I don't have any issue with that whatsoever. If a "higher earner" choses to be with a "lower earner" regardless of finances, why should they have a financial incentive to leave at the drop of a hat?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

m3s said:


> It's still a social landmine to ask for a prenup, yet divorce is so common now that it's not stigmatized at all... Even with a prenup, you're probably financially insane to marry anyone whose potential income is much lower than yours. The highly profitable law industry is probably what encourages so many divorces in the first place. I think that's an unfortunate reality.
> 
> Is the $20k symbolic diamond gift and $30k religious ceremony factored into the settlement? If the "higher earner" bought a house at a young age instead of shoes and lattes, is the "lower earner" still entitled to half of its capital gains? Is the "higher earner's" potential income and projected networth before marriage factored in? Is the "higher earner's" career progression before marriage factored in?


You are far to focused on money.

The "lower earner" is entitled to the capital gains incurred as soon as the marriage (even common law) begins. I'm really surprised you don't know these thing - what do you think the purpose of marriage is? Sure, it's kind of about love (relatively recent inclusion) but it's about joint finances and lives.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The irony is my gf has a masters in law, several businesses on the side, her own condos and land, and aspires to be a judge. I'm pretty sure she would serve me a prenup if I even tried to bribe her with a diamond. A lot less people are bothering with the pomp and pageantry these days.

I don't see the point of making the discussion personal. The questions were rhetorical for the sake of discussion. What's the financial implications of a diamond ring? $10-20-30k is pretty significant.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

this is such a wildly excited thread. Hilarious. Probably reflects the true - if fractured - state of thinking today about the once-upon-a-time revered institution of holy matrimony.

somewhere MG has said something sensible, if tough.

re Q: How is Future Mama to be Compensated for giving up a good part of her career & slaving unpaid to raise the kids, when the couple finally goes to divorce 20 years later?

A: hey she already got to enjoy the nice house, cars, clothes, lifestyle for all those years.

i remember the day my 17-year-old said, at the table, looking stunned with horror, OMG does this mean your job is more important than your boyfriend ??

not always, i said. But i was tickled pink that she had got at least within kissing distance of the idea.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm with m3s in a totally non-conjugal way.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> this is such a wildly excited thread. Hilarious. Probably reflects the true - if fractured - state of thinking today about the once-upon-a-time revered institution of holy matrimony.
> 
> somewhere MG has said something sensible, if tough.
> 
> ...


Since when is it "slaving" and let's keep in mind that some (many? a few?) of those women were never going to have high-paid careers in any case. Many (some? a few?) women (people?) relate to ANY work as slavery and lots of stay-at-home moms are (I figure) happy enough to be freed from the demands of the paid labour force. 

NEways, back to my high-powered career.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

"people?"

i've never met or even heard of a happy househusband, have you?

i for one don't believe "lots [underscore lots] of stay-at-home moms are ... happy enough to be freed from the demands of the paid labour force." 

where are u going with this? surely not towards barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen although it does sound a bit like ...


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

no-no. They're being repressed by the patriarchy, MoneyGal. Freedom is waking up at 6 to an alarm, entering data into excel that no one will ever look at, attending weekly safety meetings, sitting in smoggy traffic, and being too tired to exercise as much as necessary, for 30 years.

Cooking, playing with children, shopping, vaccuuming, and planning holidays, all on your own schedule, is a torturous, antiquated ritual from an unenlightened past. Didn't you get the memo?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

The stay at home moms that *I* know are grateful they aren't in the paid labour force, for what that's worth. What else would be keeping them home? Most of the families I know have one or two children and one high income earner - daycare costs would not be a significant or long-term barrier to the wife's participation in the paid labour force; this is a lifestyle choice. 

I'm not going towards barefoot and pregnant etc. If anything, through my own model my own girls will appreciate how working outside the home can be satisfying personally and economically for women. 

As for whether people in general relate to paid labour as "slavery" - isn't there a very active "early retirement" set of discussions on this very site? (I'm not the one who brought the concept of "slavery" into the discussion though - although I have added lots of hyperbole, just not that point!)


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

PeterK, I did NOT get the memo and I'm deliberately keeping it from my female children. THE HORROR!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> i've never met or even heard of a happy househusband, have you?


Meet my happy househusband friend. He has an engineering degree and left $90k so they could live together. Daycare and long-distance or separated families are a lot more common though.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

My husband was a househusband for about 5 years when our kids were smaller. Mystery solved?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> i've never met or even heard of a happy househusband, have you?


I was one for about four years. 
Also one of my friends has been one for nearly a decade now.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Since when is it "slaving"


Idk, but I interpreted that comment as merely hard work & devotion, and not the relaxed type life/schedule that Peter has in mind. Wait until you have kids Peter. 

I stayed home with my child for 2 years, and most definitely I was his slave, lol. Definitely, the most stressful, albeit wonderful full-time job I ever had, but in many ways, it was freedom going back to work, so I admire any stay-at home person with 1+ children.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> "people?"
> 
> i've never met or even heard of a happy househusband, have you? ...


Yup ... especially the one who was feedup with the politics at work so when his wife was called by her former boss and offered a bump in pay to come back, he volunteered to stay at home with the kids. He never did go back into the rat race.




humble_pie said:


> i for one don't believe "lots [underscore lots] of stay-at-home moms are ... happy enough to be freed from the demands of the paid labour force." ...


Not sure about the lots but I have met some ... just as I've met those who aren't getting enough adult interaction and/or time away from the kids.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> ... What else would be keeping them home? Most of the families I know have one or two children and one high income earner - daycare costs would not be a significant or long-term barrier to the wife's participation in the paid labour force; this is a lifestyle choice ...


Strange ... except for the ones with access to Quebec's $9 a day daycare, most that I'm talking to are usually commenting that daycare is expensive. In some cases, the cost of daycare is stated as the reason they are staying home while others take on caring for extra kids as a job. 

Frequently the comment is that the main reason for working is to keep the resume reasonably updated as daycare makes it a breakeven or loss situation financially.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> ... I stayed home with my child for 2 years, and most definitely I was his slave, lol. Definitely, the most stressful, albeit wonderful full-time job I ever had, but in many ways, it was freedom going back to work, so I admire any stay-at home person with 1+ children.


So you would've been happy with my mom who had four and for some period, five. 


Cheers


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Strange ... except for the ones with access to Quebec's $9 a day daycare, most that I'm talking to are usually commenting that daycare is expensive. In some cases, the cost of daycare is stated as the reason they are staying home while others take on caring for extra kids as a job.
> 
> Frequently the comment is that the main reason for working is to keep the resume reasonably updated as daycare makes it a breakeven or loss situation financially.
> 
> ...


I'm in Toronto, downtown. The people who live here with young kids (the ones I am speaking of ONLY, which is the SAHMs in my social circle) are not phased by $1000+/month daycare. The cost is temporary in any case; your kids only need full-time daycare for about 4 years, then before-school/after-school care (considerably cheaper) for a few more years. 

Yes, daycare is expensive. But for the SAHMs and SAHDs I know, the cost of daycare is not a barrier to labour force participation.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

MoneyGal said:


> Or, in your case, perhaps the best advice is to never get married. :encouragement: Or keep it common-law!


Did BC recently retroactively apply marital rights to those in common law relationships? I feel like I read something along those lines. Absolutely terrifying. You choose to live one way for various reasons, the government doesn't like it, BAM your rights change.

This is what scares me in Ontario. As far as I'm aware, no division of assets takes place in common law relationships unless "unjust enrichment" (another terrifying concept defined by whichever forgiving or unforgiving judge gets the case) has occurred. So fully aware of the stakes, I move in with my girlfriend. What happens if now the government decides we're married with all the rights/responsibilities that go along with it?

If we wanted those rights/responsibilities, we'd be married, not shacking up. Scary how fast the game can change.


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

peterk said:


> no-no. They're being repressed by the patriarchy, MoneyGal. Freedom is waking up at 6 to an alarm, entering data into excel that no one will ever look at, attending weekly safety meetings, sitting in smoggy traffic, and being too tired to exercise as much as necessary, for 30 years.
> 
> Cooking, playing with children, shopping, vaccuuming, and planning holidays, all on your own schedule, is a torturous, antiquated ritual from an unenlightened past. Didn't you get the memo?


Funny you say this. My wife has been home with the kids for the past 5 years (yes, we both wanted this). She is highly skilled, and was paid well (more than me) before taking the time off to raise the kids. She also has been terrified that nobody will hire her, with such a gap in her resume and ideally she could find a part time job she could do from home. Well, wouldn't you know it but she just landed the perfect part time job that she can do from home. The only catch is that she needs to go into the office one day a week for 4-5 weeks. 

First day into the job (having commuted into the office and back home):
"I feel sad for you, having to do this every day"

So although I know she works at home with the kids, going to the office everyday is a different kind of grind. (no judgement here on which is harder). Because the days daddy has to stay home so mommy can go into the office are pretty eye opening 

PS. I actually enjoy my job, and the commute doesn't bother me at all anymore.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> I'm in Toronto, downtown.
> 
> The people who live here with young kids (the ones I am speaking of ONLY, which is the SAHMs in my social circle) are not phased by $1000+/month daycare ...


The limitation is a good thing as had my sister stayed in Toronto, at the jobs they were both working at - $1K for daycare would have been a killer. Though I'm not expecting that every two income family in Toronto is at the lower levels (ex. university contract position and charity worker).


Cheers


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Well, Toronto also has subsidized daycare for lower-income employed parents, funded by Toronto municipal taxes. I was treasurer of my kids' daycare for three years, we had a lot of subsidized families.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Strange ... except for the ones with access to Quebec's $9 a day daycare, most that I'm talking to are usually commenting that daycare is expensive. In some cases, the cost of daycare is stated as the reason they are staying home while others take on caring for extra kids as a job.
> 
> Frequently the comment is that the main reason for working is to keep the resume reasonably updated as daycare makes it a breakeven or loss situation financially.


You've answered your own question with the last part - leaving a decent job for several years to avoid daycare costs usually results in a far bigger 'human capital' cost than the actual $$ saved not paying daycare.

Money is often used as a rationalization for staying home with the kids, but someone with a decent job who quits to stay home is really making that decision because they want to stay home with the kids - not for $$ reasons. Convenience is another huge benefit. With one person at home - it's much easy to schedule things, shop, eat dinner early etc etc.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> you would've been happy with my mom who had four and for some period, five.


Sounds like a great & patient lady; a bit like you, no? 

Honestly, it annoys me when I hear [inexperienced] people say that stay-at-home people are lazy, or have it easy, blah, blah, because I gather that for a lot of people, it's not! I had planned to stay home for 5 years, but 2 years of mostly sleepless nights, was all I could handle.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

MoneyGal said:


> Well, Toronto also has subsidized daycare for lower-income employed parents, funded by Toronto municipal taxes. I was treasurer of my kids' daycare for three years, we had a lot of subsidized families.


 Subsidizing just makes that which is subsidized more expensive.

It makes me wonder why the herd thinks money invested in goverment bonds is so secure, when the goverment does such a wonderfull job of destroying the money world.


----------



## Mall Guy (Sep 14, 2011)

Wow, just wow. Y & A - Get a prenup, its like a landlord signing a lease. It sort of lays out the rules, until someone changes their mind. Tenant doesn't want to pay the rent and your lease doesn't seem to matter too much when trying to dislodge them when they want a free ride. The prenup with rational people (and perhaps irrational people with lawyers who like a retainer) will at least act like a road map, and the other party really has to want to have it set aside (again time and money).

And from what I have read, we should evolve to limited term, renewable option, marriages. First time out, sign up for 5 yrs, with an option to renew for another 5. Second time round maybe a 10 year with 2 x 5 renewable extensions! Kids in the picture, minimum 20 year term, with cleanly define termination provisions (like, oh I don't know, say family law . . .). Or of course you can just stay month to month (common law ?). You can add other provisions, like exclusives, restriction on certain activity . . .


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> this is such a wildly excited thread. Hilarious. Probably reflects the true - if fractured - state of thinking today about the once-upon-a-time revered institution of holy matrimony.


Wow! Wildly excited indeed. The most action happens on this forum when you are busy for a week at work.

It is clear that most people are basing their views on distinction amongst the sexes, but to me, it is pure math. If you have assets that you are unwilling to part with, then get a prenup. Everything in between and most of what is discussed is biased with assumptions of the roles of the genders.

The 'holy matrimony' and the 'institution' has been raised by several people, but that certainly has not helped people in the LGBT community. The laws must be respectful and fair for all communities, but at the same time, if statistics show that the 'under-employed' half of the equation happens to be woman in this case, then the law must reflect this bias.

The rule is clearly not fair for all, but it has to be a black and white law, and it has to benefit the majority.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Anybody read the article in Toronto life?about the McCain family?Here is a classic example of what a divorce looks like(un-real)pre up never held up!I know this is the 0.5 per centers but never the less it was a interesting read!McCain got soaked IMO.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Honestly, it annoys me when I hear [inexperienced] people say that stay-at-home people are lazy, or have it easy, blah, blah, because I gather that for a lot of people, it's not! I had planned to stay home for 5 years, but 2 years of mostly sleepless nights, was all I could handle.


Is it any easier to go to work during 2 years of sleepless nights? I have to sign legal papers everyday that I'm able (rested for one thing) to take responsibility for the lives of countless people. I'm fairly sure that staying at home is easier than many jobs. The real issue seems to be a lack of recognition for raising their kids, as anyone who has ever logged into Facebook can see :tongue-new: It's a mostly thankless job, as are many others



Mall Guy said:


> We should evolve to limited term, renewable option, marriages. First time out, sign up for 5 yrs, with an option to renew for another 5. Second time round maybe a 10 year with 2 x 5 renewable extensions! Kids in the picture, minimum 20 year term, with cleanly define termination provisions (like, oh I don't know, say family law . . .). Or of course you can just stay month to month (common law ?). You can add other provisions, like exclusives, restriction on certain activity . . .


Now there's some progressive thinking :encouragement: Common law isn't even recognized in many countries... so if you travel a lot and want to give your partner the very basic rights and needs of a family member you're pretty much forced to accept the "holy" institution of matrimony and all its archaic beliefs, unless of course you're not even recognized by the "holy" institution itself


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> Is it any easier to go to work during 2 years of sleepless nights?


Depends ... most of my male colleagues are going to work with a lot more sleep as their wife is getting up to take care of the kids while hubby almost never wakes up.
In fact, at times they proudly proclaim that "I sleep through anything". In some cases, both spouses are heading into work.

At the end of the day - YMMV and usually does. So ideas/statements that "it's always easier to stay home" or "it's always easier to go to work" tend to be bunk.




m3s said:


> I have to sign legal papers everyday that I'm able (rested for one thing) to take responsibility for the lives of countless people. I'm fairly sure that staying at home is easier than many jobs.


I wouldn't presume to know what your job is like. 

Just bear in mind that for a lot of people, the "stay at home" part means a lot longer day as that the working person is not doing much to help with the kids/house/meals as they are "too burnt" out from the job. 




m3s said:


> The real issue seems to be a lack of recognition for raising their kids, as anyone who has ever logged into Facebook can see :tongue-new: It's a mostly thankless job, as are many others ...


That and like a lot of other topics, people are willing to make general statements based on limited or ignored information.


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Depends ... most of my male colleagues are going to work with a lot more sleep as their wife is getting up to take care of the kids while hubby almost never wakes up.
> In fact, at times they proudly proclaim that "I sleep through anything". In some cases, both spouses are heading into work.


I think you took the gender-neutral question way out of context there.. "Is it any easier to go to work during 2 years of sleepless nights?" in reference to going to work tired instead of staying at home tired.. Nothing to do with uninvolved parents who ignore crying babies until they don't hear them anymore (if you ignore a train enough times you'll sleep through it as well... regardless of gender!)



Eclectic12 said:


> Just bear in mind that for a lot of people, the "stay at home" part means a lot longer day as that the working person is not doing much to help with the kids/house/meals as they are "too burnt" out from the job.


I might be from another generation or region because this just sounds very old-fashion to me.. it also supports the one line you skipped (the wanting of recognition) So how about the money/assets are split "on paper" all along? Receipts, income taxes etc.. Wouldn't that alleviate the "stay at home" parent's endless plight? It could greatly simplify (or maybe even reduce!) the plague of divorces.. Not so good for the law industry though!

It all comes down to Maslow's hierarchy of needs...



Eclectic12 said:


> So ideas/statements that "it's always easier to stay home" or "it's always easier to go to work" tend to be bunk.


I totally agree.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> most of my *male colleagues are going to work with a lot more sleep as their wife is getting up to take care of the kids *while hubby almost never wakes up.


In the case where both needed to go to work, it's pretty selfish of the ones that bragged, instead of having taken turns, eh? Lucky are those who have babies that sleep through the night, and pretty much from the beginning. I was just thankful for the time I was able to stay home, but obviously if I had not had that option, I would have made other arrangements, which I did until the kid finally learned to sleep at night. 

*Donald:* your extreme examples make me laugh. :biggrin: Why don't you look at the successful examples, even if those happen to be 50%?


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> *Donald:* your extreme examples make me laugh. :biggrin: Why don't you look at the successful examples, even if those happen to be 50%?


The bigger the risk the more seriously you have to take the outliers, no? 

If there's a 1% chance of getting a paper cut from reading books I'll take the risk.

If there's a 1% chance of my bungie jump cord breaking I will probably ask some serious questions and consider not doing it. 

If there a 1% chance that I'll lose far more than what is reasonable in a divorce I will probably ask some serious questions and consider not doing it...


----------



## NorthKC (Apr 1, 2013)

Growing up, I used to balk at the idea of a prenup. However, seeing so many of my friends getting a divorce within 5 years of getting married has made me seriously reconsider the idea of prenup. Given that I'm no longer in 20s and have accumulated some assets and now have own business, I definitely want to protect them! Marriage is definitely a contract, something that most people don't consider....


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> The bigger the risk the more seriously you have to take the outliers, no?
> 
> If there's a 1% chance of getting a paper cut from reading books I'll take the risk.
> 
> ...


When did I say that people should not think with their brains?

Btw, I do believe in prenups.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I do t-gal(my parents)happily miserable....ah i mean happily in bliss coming up on 36th wedding anniversary lol.
I just think it is important to protect oneself!I don't trust anyone(even family)when money is involved!sad but true.
People have ''cute'' sayings likene has character/honesty/integrity ect(where all GOOD people,it's the ''other's")
But when the proverbial ''chips'' are down the rules changes.(go ahead and ask a lawyer)
It's just being aware that when it comes to people(myself incl)I don't trust lightly.
It's not even the ''money" per se as it is people will go out of their way to harm others if they feel justified or entitled(even if they are not)
I wish i was not such a cynic but i'm a realist!
A few of my own relationships have taught me some lessons....also i have seen divorce and a family business go sour in my own life and being in my own immediate family(both were not pretty,and there were winner's and loser's in both outcomes and money was @ the heart of both in the end)But you believe in prenups so it's a mute point.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

Certainly no easy task. I too have experienced what happens when there is no prenup in an immediate family; in this case it was lose-lose-lose as it was not only the couple but also their family members who got negatively impacted due to family loans etc so prenups are certainly important. And legal set-up often does not matter as for small business owners as personal guarantees are required. And hence, the prenup. Never wanted until it's needed..such a catch22...essentially insurance for the worst case scenario. woop dee doo.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> I think you took the gender-neutral question way out of context there..
> 
> "Is it any easier to go to work during 2 years of sleepless nights?" in reference to going to work tired instead of staying at home tired..
> 
> Nothing to do with uninvolved parents who ignore crying babies until they don't hear them anymore (if you ignore a train enough times you'll sleep through it as well... regardless of gender!)


The lead up comment was about some people assume staying-at-home is easy/stress free, which was not the poster's experience. Then your comment pointed out that both can be sleepless and continued on with the suggestion that many jobs are harder than staying at home.

My comment was that for a fair number of people - the tiredness at the start of the day is not equal as he is heading off to work with a lot more sleep than she is staying at home with. Or to put it another way - how many are heading into work where both have had a sleepless night?




m3s said:


> I might be from another generation or region because this just sounds very old-fashion to me..


Old fashioned or not - this still seems to be pretty common.




m3s said:


> ... it also supports the one line you skipped (the wanting of recognition) ...


Personally - I think it's more a lack of communication as well as pride. Anyone who communicates with parents and interacts with kids plus is the least bit observant should be able to figure out that the person that stays at home to take care of the kids who has an easy time of it is rare (unless there is money for a nanny/maid etc. :biggrin.

Recognition as well as placing more value on it as a society would be much better.




m3s said:


> So how about the money/assets are split "on paper" all along? Receipts, income taxes etc.. Wouldn't that alleviate the "stay at home" parent's endless plight?


I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Sounds like a great & patient lady; a bit like you, no?  ...


I'd say I'm more like her as likely I learned it from her. :chuncky: 


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> In the case where both needed to go to work, it's pretty selfish of the ones that bragged, instead of having taken turns, eh?


Yes. Though while the braggarts are few in number, there's also a lot of more factual comment from her that "he almost never hears the baby cry while I'm easily woken up".

To be fair - there are more men that are taking some turns but I would have thought that more would do so.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Young&Ambitious said:


> Certainly no easy task. I too have experienced what happens when there is no prenup in an immediate family; in this case it was lose-lose-lose ...


I wonder if a pre-nup would have avoided the messy spat over the dog in my friend's divorce?

The one spouse fought against getting the dog, refused to help with the dog care except in emergencies but then as the amicable divorce turned nasty, all of a sudden couldn't live without the dog ... 


Cheers


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> To be fair - there are more men that are taking some turns but I would have thought that more would do so.


To be fair, it really depends on the age of the kid. If the child is still breast feeding, then it's going to be mom's turn every time.

Even when they get a bit older, they often get more comfort from mom rather than dad.


----------

