Society/Culture A Man's Right In A Marriage Breakdown

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
57,547
107,609
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Unfortunately, he has no work at the moment as his employer shut down, and is working on his home trying to sell it. The boyfriend is unable to get digs (I suspect because he has a tenancy finding against him. so the scuttlebutt goes), she won't do it (clinging on to the home). So none of them have a stable abode and that would make it difficult to organize strict parenting orders and times that would stick. Where will the kids be at school next year? Where will both parties reside? I reckon things need to be settled first. I don't know.
as Malifice and the rest are saying, he needs to just focus on the law and ignore the gossip side of this.

go the mark taylor forward defensive block with every shot, and just focus on his side of the equation.

worrying about her plans or his tenancy history is irrelevant, and just sucks him into this becoming about the drama


btw idiot question, but from past experience with mates it has to be asked. Does he really know its over? I know some peeps take a while (and im talking even years after the divorce) for this to sink in.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
34,934
30,930
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Interesting. That sounds grossly unfair, as a couple may agree to sacrifice a partners career to rear children, for example.
The settlement needs to be 'just and equitable'. Grossly unfair is not 'just and equitable'.

If both parties were working, earning roughly the same money and the wife (its usually the wife) took years off work to look after the kids, then you're looking more at a 50/50 split.

If she was a millionaire before you met her, and you were focused on playing the playstation during the marriage and sponging off her, you're not getting 50/50.

As a rule of thumb you look at how much each party contributed (taking into account time off work to raise children etc).
 

Chief

Electric Boogaloo
Dec 1, 1999
87,426
60,817
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
A spouse should have rights in it. Don't you think?
And each spouse does. One partner's feelings don't really get a look in.
Yeah, she said last week her and her boyfriend were broke and they couldn't afford a hotel this week. He told her its not his problem he is moving back in for his 4 days and they can move out. She is very much a thin end of the wedge operator. So I get what you are saying.
From hearing one side of the story, it sounds like he needs to keep everything strict and in writing. Not fall for creeping changes that nullify any orders and give her ways to dud him and the kids.

She has shown she will take advantage at any opportunity.

Others in here know the letter of the law better.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fire

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 12, 2003
10,284
3,507
New York
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The settlement needs to be 'just and equitable'. Grossly unfair is not 'just and equitable'.

If both parties were working, earning roughly the same money and the wife (its usually the wife) took years off work to look after the kids, then you're looking more at a 50/50 split.

If she was a millionaire before you met her, and you were focused on playing the playstation during the marriage and sponging off her, you're not getting 50/50.

As a rule of thumb you look at how much each party contributed (taking into account time off work to raise children etc).
If a partnership decides that one person will work, and another one will rear children, then what you are describing is not 'just and equitable'. In fact, the person who stayed home has probably sacrificed more because they never developed their career and can't just walk back into it on the same level after the marriage. So you even factoring in if they were earning the same before giving it up is indeed grossly unfair.

I am not saying that the law doesn't do a good job of judging it; I would have no idea. But what you are describing is not.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
34,934
30,930
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
If a partnership decides that one person will work, and another one will rear children, then what you are describing is not 'just and equitable'. In fact, the person who stayed home has probably sacrificed more because they never developed their career and can't just walk back into it on the same level after the marriage.
Which is what I said.

If the career she/ he sacrificed was flipping burgers at Maccas, and the other partner was a Barrister on half a mil a year, then you're not getting a 50/50 division of assets from that marriage based on those circumstances.

You're getting whats fair and equitable based on that context.

From what I understood from the OP, the wife in this marriage never worked a day in her life, and the husband contributed all the savings to the house (likely with a deposit already in the bank before they even met), and contributes solely to the mortgage while they've been married. There are kids involved however, and the wife seems to have had the primary caregiver role, staying at home to look after them so that counts in her favor (although I'm not sure how much seeing as that seems to be a 50/50 arrangement at the moment).

It's not like she sacrificed a well paying career to be the primary caregiver of the children.

She'll get a share of the assets from the marriage, but she aint getting half of them.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
16,463
16,261
AFL Club
Sydney
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 79


(4) In considering what order (if any) should be made under this section in property settlement proceedings, the court shall take into account:

(a) the financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last-mentioned property, whether or not that last-mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and

(b) the contribution (other than a financial contribution) made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last-mentioned property, whether or not that last-mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and

(c) the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or parent; and

(d) the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party to the marriage; and

(e) the matters referred to in subsection 75(2) so far as they are relevant; and

(f) any other order made under this Act affecting a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage; and

(g) any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided, is to provide, or might be liable to provide in the future, for a child of the marriage.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
16,463
16,261
AFL Club
Sydney
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 75

(2) The matters to be so taken into account are:

(a) the age and state of health of each of the parties; and

(b) the income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment; and

(c) whether either party has the care or control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years; and

(d) commitments of each of the parties that are necessary to enable the party to support:

(i) himself or herself; and

(ii) a child or another person that the party has a duty to maintain; and

(e) the responsibilities of either party to support any other person; and

(f) subject to subsection (3), the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under:

(i) any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or Territory or of another country; or

(ii) any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was established, or operates, within or outside Australia;

and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party; and

(g) where the parties have separated or divorced, a standard of living that in all the circumstances is reasonable; and

(h) the extent to which the payment of maintenance to the party whose maintenance is under consideration would increase the earning capacity of that party by enabling that party to undertake a course of education or training or to establish himself or herself in a business or otherwise to obtain an adequate income; and

(ha) the effect of any proposed order on the ability of a creditor of a party to recover the creditor's debt, so far as that effect is relevant; and

(j) the extent to which the party whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other party; and

(k) the duration of the marriage and the extent to which it has affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration; and

(l) the need to protect a party who wishes to continue that party's role as a parent; and

(m) if either party is cohabiting with another person--the financial circumstances relating to the cohabitation; and

(n) the terms of any order made or proposed to be made under section 79 in relation to:

(i) the property of the parties; or

(ii) vested bankruptcy property in relation to a bankrupt party; and

(naa) the terms of any order or declaration made, or proposed to be made, under Part VIIIAB in relation to:

(i) a party to the marriage; or

(ii) a person who is a party to a de facto relationship with a party to the marriage; or

(iii) the property of a person covered by subparagraph (i) and of a person covered by subparagraph (ii), or of either of them; or

(iv) vested bankruptcy property in relation to a person covered by subparagraph (i) or (ii); and

(na) any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided, is to provide, or might be liable to provide in the future, for a child of the marriage; and

(o) any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account; and

(p) the terms of any financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the marriage; and

(q) the terms of any Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on a party to the marriage.
 

Toump Ass

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 14, 2015
7,928
16,609
TOUMPASSO LAND
AFL Club
Melbourne
I'll eat my hat if this dog whistling MRA bullshit is actually real.

If it is, Brad's a cuck and deserves everything he gets.

If you want to have kids with someone who is lazy and mean and is sits around doing fu** all while you're out busting your arse to pay for a house, you are an idiot.

I was floored when I realized there is no law to say a man's home is his castle and the bloke ******* his wife can just saunter in as bold as brass.
You don't say? Have you written to your local MP?
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
Which is what I said.

If the career she/ he sacrificed was flipping burgers at Maccas, and the other partner was a Barrister on half a mil a year, then you're not getting a 50/50 division of assets from that marriage based on those circumstances.

You're getting whats fair and equitable based on that context.

From what I understood from the OP, the wife in this marriage never worked a day in her life, and the husband contributed all the savings to the house (likely with a deposit already in the bank before they even met), and contributes solely to the mortgage while they've been married. There are kids involved however, and the wife seems to have had the primary caregiver role, staying at home to look after them so that counts in her favor (although I'm not sure how much seeing as that seems to be a 50/50 arrangement at the moment).

It's not like she sacrificed a well paying career to be the primary caregiver of the children.

She'll get a share of the assets from the marriage, but she aint getting half of them.
As usual, you are citing extremes to make your case. Where there is a smaller but significant difference in previous incomes the courts will often disregard it and assume that the mother's caregiver role over a few years counts equal to the father's income. So a nurse previously on $70k and a GP currently on $170k might start on the basis of a 50/50 split of assets, then if she takes the kids it will shift to between 60% and 80% in her favour.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
34,934
30,930
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
As usual, you are citing extremes to make your case. Where there is a smaller but significant difference in previous incomes the courts will often disregard it and assume that the mother's caregiver role over a few years counts equal to the father's income. So a nurse previously on $70k and a GP currently on $170k might start on the basis of a 50/50 split of assets, then if she takes the kids it will shift to between 60% and 80% in her favour.
It doesnt work that way. If that's how it worked for you, sack your lawyers.

If she 'takes the kids' he'll likely end up paying through the nose via Child support. But she doesn't get a larger property (and asset) settlement due to having the larger role in parental access after the marriage dissolves.
 

RegHickeyStand

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 29, 2009
14,744
14,339
Belgrave
AFL Club
Geelong
as Malifice and the rest are saying, he needs to just focus on the law and ignore the gossip side of this.

go the mark taylor forward defensive block with every shot, and just focus on his side of the equation.

worrying about her plans or his tenancy history is irrelevant, and just sucks him into this becoming about the drama


btw idiot question, but from past experience with mates it has to be asked. Does he really know its over? I know some peeps take a while (and im talking even years after the divorce) for this to sink in.
Oh yeah, he knows its over. He is working on staying out of the drama. What he tells me, neither of them are very good with boundaries so there is always potential for drama, which is what she thrives on. She was diagnosed years ago by a psychologist a having borderline personality disorder. I tell him to go to his solicitor whenever.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
57,547
107,609
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Oh yeah, he knows its over. He is working on staying out of the drama. What he tells me, neither of them are very good with boundaries so there is always potential for drama, which is what she thrives on. She was diagnosed years ago by a psychologist a having borderline personality disorder. I tell him to go to his solicitor whenever.
in that case, the sooner he stops sharing the better. even if he takes a hit, move on asap
 

RegHickeyStand

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 29, 2009
14,744
14,339
Belgrave
AFL Club
Geelong
I'll eat my hat if this dog whistling MRA bullshit is actually real.

If it is, Brad's a cuck and deserves everything he gets.

If you want to have kids with someone who is lazy and mean and is sits around doing fu** all while you're out busting your arse to pay for a house, you are an idiot.

You don't say? Have you written to your local MP?
What is MRA? At his worst early on, I'd agree with what you say. Some of the self justifying sh*t he was saying drove me up the wall. But when I slowly found out what had been going on over the years and put myself in his shoes, I had a lot of sympathy for him. And probably because I have seen similar and that guy come out the other end ok (took about 5 years) I got faith my friend will do ok. Eventually.

You have never been married and you don't have much life experience, so I will give you a pass on the other stuff.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RegHickeyStand

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 29, 2009
14,744
14,339
Belgrave
AFL Club
Geelong
It doesnt work that way. If that's how it worked for you, sack your lawyers.

If she 'takes the kids' he'll likely end up paying through the nose via Child support. But she doesn't get a larger property (and asset) settlement due to having the larger role in parental access after the marriage dissolves.
He wants 50-50 his kids, or as close as he can get it. He said he is willing to take a hit on the split money to get it. I think she has agreed to 50-50 on both. I've told him to take it and sell up which he is doing.
 

Toump Ass

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 14, 2015
7,928
16,609
TOUMPASSO LAND
AFL Club
Melbourne
What is MRA? At his worst early on, I'd agree with what you say. Some of the self justifying sh*t he was saying drove me up the wall. But when I slowly found out what had been going on over the years and put myself in his shoes, I had a lot of sympathy for him. And probably because I have seen similar and that guy come out the other end ok (took about 5 years) I got faith my friend will do ok. Eventually.

You have never been married and you don't have much life experience, so I will give you a pass on the other stuff.
"Brad" needs to harden the f up and take responsibility for his actions.

No sympathy here sorry.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
34,934
30,930
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
What is MRA?
Mens Rights Activists. Bascially a bunch of bitter sexists whining about the 'system' and how it favours women.

It doesnt.

You sound like one due to how you gendered the premise of this thread asking about a 'Mans' rights in a breakup.

There is nothing about 'Mens' rights here at all. The situation you describe would be no different if it happened in reverse (your mate was the stay at home parent who never worked and got himself a mistress and his wife was the one who was working and paying for the house etc).
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
If she 'takes the kids' he'll likely end up paying through the nose via Child support. But she doesn't get a larger property (and asset) settlement due to having the larger role in parental access after the marriage dissolves.
Wrong. The parent who takes the majority role in looking after the kids (nearly always the Mum) will get the property settlement weighted in their favour. Then the other parent (usually Dad) will also have to pay through the nose in Child Support.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
34,934
30,930
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
The parent who takes the majority role in looking after the kids will get the property settlement weighted in their favour.
No, they don't.

Child contact arrangements post separation have no effect on property settlements. They only affect child support obligations.

Im happy to be proven wrong. If you have it, post your legal authority that does so.
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Mar 3, 2005
24,725
10,099
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Men dont have more (or less) rights under any relevant laws here.
That's all very well, but there's a quote by Anatole France that comes to mind.

Whilst family law is not explicitly gendered, courts have a lot of discretion in assessing some fairly broad and subjective criteria. I think it is reasonable to say that ‘fair’ is a difficult thing to define, and when courts do err (or are perceived to err) in favour of one party, it tends to be the one which is financially vulnerable and/or responsible for primary care of the child. Due to social norms and gender roles, more often than not that’s the woman.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with that – if you have to tilt the system one way or the other, that should probably be the direction. But it does mean that there’s probably a disproportionate number of men out there who feel they’ve got the rough end of the stick.

To be clear - that’s not to give credence to the MRA argument, which I think is stupid and ignores the systemic advantages that the system is trying to allow for. But equally I don’t think we have to accept that the system is gendered to accept that it may nonetheless be unbalanced. Getting family law right is hard, and we would be silly to pretend that every decision handed down is perfectly fair.
 
Last edited:

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
16,463
16,261
AFL Club
Sydney
That's all very well, but there's a quote by Anatole France that comes to mind.

Whilst family law is not explicitly gendered, courts have a lot of discretion in assessing some fairly broad and subjective criteria. I think it is reasonable to say that ‘fair’ is a difficult thing to define, and when courts do err (or are perceived to err) in favour of one party, it tends to be the one which is financially vulnerable and/or responsible for primary care of the child. Due to social norms and gender roles, more often than not that’s the woman.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with that – if you have to tilt the system one way or the other, that should probably be the direction. But it does mean that there’s probably a disproportionate number of men out there who feel they’ve got the rough end of the stick.

To be clear - that’s not to give credence to the MRA argument, which I think is stupid and ignores the systemic advantages that the system is trying to allow for. But equally I don’t think we have to accept that the system is gendered to accept that it may nonetheless be unbalanced. Getting family law right is hard, and we would be silly to pretend that every decision handed down is perfectly fair.
When the Family Court faces a tough decision it is bound by statute to default to what is in the best interests of the child/children.
This assumes that both parents have an interest in doing what's best for their children, regardless of their animosity toward each other.
It is a false assumption because people are spiteful, vindictive, petty idiots.

The number of people that pay lawyers $40,$50,$100000 to fight over property worth much less than that is testament to how f'd people are.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
34,934
30,930
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
That's all very well, but there's a quote by Anatole France that comes to mind.
I know the quote well. The law in its magnificent equality treats the rich and poor alike etc.

Whilst family law is not explicitly gendered, courts have a lot of discretion in assessing some fairly broad and subjective criteria. I think it is reasonable to say that ‘fair’ is a difficult thing to define, and when courts do err (or are perceived to err) in favour of one party, it tends to be the one which is financially vulnerable and/or responsible for primary care of the child. Due to social norms and gender roles, more often than not that’s the woman.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with that – if you have to tilt the system one way or the other, that should probably be the direction. But it does mean that there’s probably a disproportionate number of men out there who feel they’ve got the rough end of the stick.
Agree.

To be clear - that’s not to give credence to the MRA argument, which I think is stupid and ignores the systemic advantages that the system is trying to allow for. But equally I don’t think we have to accept that the system is gendered to accept that it may nonetheless be unbalanced. Getting family law right is hard, and we would be silly to pretend that every decision handed down is perfectly fair.
A large part of my work in Family Law is working with the men to overcome the bias that 'the system is against them'. It's really not, but the perception remains.

With 99 percent of these MRA's when you dig a little deeper you find a total denial of their own responsibility in the issue. They'll whine about how 'she took the kids and refused to let me see them and the courts had her back' and then conveniently gloss over the fact it was their own Meth problem that triggered the whole thing in the first place because 'I had it under control'.

You see the same thing in responses to VRO's with a lot of men failing to take responsibility for their own actions. They'll admit to threatening or assaulting their partners, but still blame the Courts (and her) for them being excluded from their homes as a consequence 'because she was crazy and was just as bad' (notwithstanding the fact the bloke is double her size, and violence is never justified no matter how much you're 'provoked').

The main point that 'MRA' dudes have (that I actually agree with) is the length and cost of family court proceedings. When their partner is witholding the children, it can take years for the Father to see them again, and a perception is created that the Courts favour the woman.

That's not the actual case, but due to the nature of proceedings involving children, a lot of information is needed by the courts (police attendances, drug tests, DCP reports, Single expert witness reports, affidavits etc etc etc) to enable the courts to make a decision 'in the best interests of the child'.

I hate Family Law with a passion. People are never more unreasonable than in these sorts of proceedings. Working at the Family Court is a grim grim task.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
Child contact arrangements post separation have no effect on property settlements. They only affect child support obligations.

Im happy to be proven wrong. If you have it, post your legal authority that does so.
It's not defined in law. It's up to the discretion of the Family Court to determine what is just, fair and equitable.

There is a five step approach and step 4 is – should there be any adjustments for future needs? Future needs include care of a child/children.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
34,934
30,930
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
It's not defined in law. It's up to the discretion of the Family Court to determine what is just, fair and equitable.

There is a five step approach and step 4 is – should there be any adjustments for future needs? Future needs include care of a child/children.
Those future needs of the children are already accounted for in Child support payments.

You cant say 'I want more money now to cover for future needs he's already legally obliged to be paying for, and is paying for'.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
16,463
16,261
AFL Club
Sydney
Those future needs of the children are already accounted for in Child support payments.

You cant say 'I want more money now to cover for future needs he's already legally obliged to be paying for, and is paying for'.
Children are entitled to the same lifestyle after their parents divorce as they had before they were divorced.

Sometimes the easiest means of achieving that is by giving the parent with the kids the family home.

Which is interpreted by MRA's as oohh ahhh glen mcgrath.
 

Top Bottom