Pre-Nuptial Agreement Stands

[Chil1234]

The precedent has been set. Supreme Court Ruling Provided the pre-nuptial agreement is fair and everyone understands the implications then it's now allowable & binding.

You don't need to be massively wealthy to take advantage of this new ruling. Many people, particularly those who are embarking on second time around relationships, bring assets to a marriage that they might not want to have to split 50/50 should things go wrong. I think it's progress.

This has HUGE implications for couples.

I thought that Katrin Radmacher said something interesting along the lines of the prenup had proved to her that their marriage was for love because it meant that her husband was prepared to walk away with nothing. OK, she got that last bit wrong but it's an interesting take on it as they have always seemed so mercenary.

I can see how they come across as 'mercenary' but, on the other hand, so many people drift into marriage dazzled by the romantic, hearts and flowers aspect and find they are financially exposed when it all goes wrong.

Great ruling and long overdue

I don't like it, but then I dislike the legal side of marriage anyway.

I would have massive concerns about this where there are children involved, because that changes everything. Women give up their careers and their earning power for their children and their free labour in the home, allows men to soar in their careers. Loads of women have no idea of the financial and career implications of having children before they do it and so in this particular case, where there are no children, this is fine and I think probably right, once children come into the picture, that changes things IMO.

Children are a separate issue. By signing a pre-nup you agree how the assets are to be divided between you(or not as it may be)if you get divorced. Maintenance for children will be a separate issue. In any case it is not always the man who ends up benefiting from having a pre-nup. My parents had one - in case of a divorce everything was to go to my SAH mother.

It is an interesting ruling but its implementation comes with a whole lot of caveats
Both parties need to have engaged lawyers
It must have been discussed a few months beforehand and signed at least 28 days before marriage
It must make reasonable provision for spouse and children
There must have been full disclosure of assets / liabilities beforehand

So the courts retain discretion and divorce lawyers huge fee potential

Do I think its a good ruling? I guess so - with the above caveats and assuming discretion to deal with cases like those mentioned by her beatitude. I never forget my PILs telling me about a lady in france who gave up her job and brought up 4 kids and whose husband one day, 18 years later announced he was gay and he wanted a new life. He left her and the children with practically nothing. Luckily she could go back to her former career as a teacher and live rent free in a flat owned by my dh's family. Still. She suffered.

Prenups were a huge issue for me - I was worried that having one would make my marriage invalid (the religious one not civil obviously). After much heartache I got some advice - and a sad comment that this had brought a serpent of money into the garden of love. In the end I signed a French contract of marriage. DHs assets are completely separate from mine - i dont even know what they are - and since I lost my job and will now follow him oversees for his career and bring up the kids I am taking a risk but the alternative was not to trust him. And how could one marry someone without trusting them completely? Am i a fool? My sisterr thinks so but dH is now putting all new assets in my name to protect me not from himself but the taxman - to him that's the main use of the contract.

Mingg it's not just maintenance for children that is an issue.

When a couple has children, overwhelmingly it is the mother who takes the financial hit that that involves, because it tends to be mothers, not fathers, who give up their careers, downshift, take part time jobs, etc., in order to look after the children. Maintenance doesn't recognise that, maintenance is purely and simply about supporting children now and doesn't recognise the financial sacrifice that a mother has made, which in turn has enabled a father to pursue his career more successfully than he would otherwise have been able to, if he had had to discharge domestic and childcare commitments.

Then make arrangements to cover yourself, like a pre-nup. Anyway in most cases nobody is forced to stay at home, it is perfectly possible for both parents to work, full-time if they so decide. Making "a sacrifice" is a choice one makes and, imo, only fools rely on other people when finances are concerned.

Then Mingg, for the next few years at least, I am a fool
[hwink]

Yeah, just dismiss all SAHMs or people who make a deal with their partners whom they love and trust, as fools.

I think you are ignoring reality there mingg. People don't know that the logic of the workplace and childcare may result in the only sensible option for a family is one of them (usually the mother because her wage is lower) being a SAHP for a few years, until it happens.

The court has ruled tho that pre-nups stand so long as they do not adversely affect children of the family or that they have been taken into account.

The family in the news report has two girls, the father gets to keep a two million pound home till the youngest child hits 20, it's not dissimilar to asset splits which currently stand, the former marital home tends to go to the main carer till the youngest child is a certain age, at which point the former marital home is sold and the other parent gets a percentage of its value. Or the main carer gets the higher percentage of the value of the property and the other parent gets a lesser percentage.
The assumption here being that the marital home is the main family asset.

Which for most people of course is true - their home is the most valuable thing a family own.

I am ignoring nothing Herbeatitude - it is perfectly possible for both parents to work. If you think in the future one of you may not wish to then make arrangements for it. Pre-nup is a one way to do that. I'm also dismissing nobody, just stating that, in my opinion, anyone depending on someone else for their financial security is a fool. (Good luck btw Blondecat - I'm sure you'll prove me wrong)

"People don't know that the logic of the workplace and childcare may result in the only sensible option for a family is one of them (usually the mother because her wage is lower) being a SAHP for a few years, until it happens." Really? You seriously think most people are that ignorant?

Yes Mingg I do.

I think most women are blissfully unaware of the systematic sexism in the workplace and in their marriages, which only becomes apparant on having children and leads them to downshift their expectations of how far they can get in their careers and how much support they can get at home. That cannot be anticipated before it happens, because everyone except for feminists, who are marginalised voices, are ignoring the statistics and telling women that they can do exactly like men do when they have children, which is not to let their needs interfere with the smooth trajectory of pursuing their careers.

There are now 3 generations of women who have been educated to believe that they will be the equal of men. And we are still paid nearly 20% less than them and they still have on average, 15 hours more leisure time than us every week. There is still a glass ceiling. Feminists blame systemic sexism for this. Non-feminists blame women themselves.

You are ignoring the fact that in a marriage, when children are born, it is normally the woman who takes primary responsibility for childcare and household tasks. This doesn't always mean giving up paid work, of course it's possible for both parties to work, in fact most marriages are organised that way. But because of the way relationships and the workplace are structured, most men are paid more than their wives and most women do more of the domestic labour and childcare in the house than their husbands. This generally goes unnoticed by both partners, but this invisible work frees up a man's time to pursue his career goals more effectively and hampers a woman's ability to pursue her career goals. That very invisibility is the danger here - women's free labour simply isn't recognised, because it is taken for granted and unvalued. And therefore, I suspect it will be ignored in any pre-nup contract simply because it isn't recognised or anticipated - all young couples think they're going to have an equal relationship, so they're not going to have a clause which provides for inequality, are they?

Not where I come from, they are not. Perhaps that is because it is also not a common thing for mothers not to work - you will have to be able to actually afford it, the government is not going to subsidise you.

In any case most people who have careers instead of jobs are somewhat intelligent and I would like to think aware of how the world works. Those are also the people I would presume who take advantage of pre-nups and could, if they so chose, to have clauses to that end. No relationship is ever 100% equal and it would be just as foolish to think that to be the case than it is to not to make arrangements for the future. Furthermore I refuse to believe that majority of women do not know that.

You can refuse to believe it all you like, I don't blame you, it's very depressing to believe it.

But the statistics are against you. And that's not because most women who find themselves doing jobs below their skills level are not intelligent, it's because of structural sexism in the workplace and in the home, which nobody except feminists are willing to discuss. So unless you are a feminist, you are not going to have that expectation of inequality written into your pre-nup - you probably think you're too intelligent to allow your relationship to become unequal, but inequality isn't about intelligence.

Also you keep talking about women not working. I haven't been saying that, I've been talking about women downshifting their careers - they're still working outside the home as well as doing the bulk of work within it, but they aren't pursuing their careers as energetically as their husbands, because of the structural sexism I've been talking about.

I think this ruling is important for women. I'm glad you posted Chil.

HB - the reason this stuff happens - and of course I agree with you that it happens - is because women allow it to happen.

I hope that this ruling means that women recognise that they have to protect their own positions.

Quattro, everyone always blames women for this.

Sexism in the workplace isn't happening because women allow it to happen. It's happening because employers - usually men - and the government - mostly men - are allowing it to happen. We don't "allow" them to pay us 20% less, we don't "allow" them to have a culture where part time work is career death. And sexism in the home happens becuase men allow themselves to "not see" the work their wives do which enable them to pursue their careers. We are not responsible for men's behaviour, it is infantilising men to use the term "allow" about their behaviour. Let's stop blaming women for sexism.

The problem I have with this, is that it's the wrong way round. Pre-nups aren't goign to make women less vulnerable, more assertive and more aware of the need to protect their rights, because of the lack of awareness of the dynamics of the career/ home/ relationship earthquake post-children. They're just going to fuck them in divorce even more than they are fucked at the moment (5 years after a divorce, most men are financially better off, most women are financially much worse off). If we had an even playing field, there were equal numbers of men and women in the boardroom, men did the same amount of houswork as women and took the same amount of time off to look after sick children or collect them early for dentist appointments, didn't go for promotion opportunities because it would compromise the time they spent with their kids, did part time work to teh same extent as women did, these pre-nups would be absolutely fine, nothing wrong with them - just as they are for this particular childless couple.

These pre-nups are brilliant in an equal society and that's where they belong. Unfortuanately, we aren't living in an equal society. If we were, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

I said no relationship is ever 100% equal and that includes mine, nothing to do with how intelligent one is. I have however taken steps to protect both myself and my husband should we end up divorcing or should one of us decide to stay at home with the child. I have also already taken steps to make sure my child's assets, should he marry in the future (only 2 at the moment so not really an issue), are protected.

The picture you are painting is actually really quite depressing Herbeatitude. Women have just as much say as men should they choose to use their voice and they are just as smart as men, in this day and age nobody is as unaware of the realities of life as you/statistics seem to think. I agree with you that women are not responsible for men's behaviour but they are responsible for their own. You can say women are not to blame but imo both sexes are equally at fault and women need to stop facilitating this kind of behaviour.

Quatro I too hope that women recognise that they have to protect their own position.

I think that many women, if they marry before the have children, are totally unaware of the adverse impact that having children is likely to have upon their careers, income etc. Barring xenia, of course.

I don't think it's on to blame women for this. Most naively think that taking some maternity leave, going part time, those sort of actions will not affect their careers. Women have been brought up to believe that sexism in the workplace is pretty much done and dusted. Then you have some children and zap, you're thrown about 16 rungs back down the career ladder.

Many young women simply don't really think about what it will mean when they have children. Same as many young men and women don't think about pensions. That's not abnormal.

ISNT I don't think this JUST applies to women though, if a MAN took time off to look after his children, he would be in same position.

Also, of course people who take time off work are going to slip down career ladder.
There is nothing unreasonable about this.

What is unreasonable is treating men and women differently when they've spent same amount of time actually at work.

I don't quite get this... my Dh and I have a prenup - it is basically COP with accrual - basically, we are financially restored to where we were before marriage and all assets and accumulation of wealth (and I suppose pension) after marriage is divided equally between us. We do not have any claim over our spouse's inheritance. I don't see the unfairness in this ...