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

[Malifice]

Children are entitled to the same lifestyle after their parents divorce as they had before they were divorced.

Children have an entitlement to 'a loving and meaningful relationship with both parents'. There is no entitlement to any particular lifestyle after divorce.

On another note, why am I not surprised to see the usual angry conservatives also being the ones stitched up in divorces and supporting MRA bullshit?

 

[Lethality]

My dad always told me that when I grew up my wife would take all my money and leave me broke in the gutter. He said that other people would do the same too, but I guess it's harder to avoid being destroyed by your partner. Whereas at least I can fully protect myself from outside entities such as the banks, and gambling companies, and so on, by just being sensible. There's no telling when people can get abusive, and I don't think there's much sympathy for men with abusive partners either.

 

[Toump Ass]

My dad always told me that when I grew up my wife would take all my money and leave me broke in the gutter.

Yes that's right, women are horrible insidious creatures, born from the furthest depths of hell itself, their only goal in life is to ruin the lives of weak-willed men and leave them broke and in the gutter.

Suck s**t.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

"Brad" needs to harden the f up and take responsibility for his actions.

No sympathy here sorry.

He'll be devastated to hear.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Young fellas, here's some rolled gold advice.

Put some loads on ice, get snipped and have all your non liquid assets tied up in trust.

It's some of the best advice you will ever get. Trust me.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Young fellas, here's some rolled gold advice.

Put some loads on ice, get snipped and have all your non liquid assets tied up in trust.

It's some of the best advice you will ever get. Trust me.

Most of us are quite fine with women, unlike yourself it seems.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Most of us are quite fine with women, unlike yourself it seems.

From memory he left Australia in part because he hated honky women not doing all the cooking and cleaning.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Most of us are quite fine with women, unlike yourself it seems.

It's pretty obvious that I wasn't referring to the resident cucks.

Stick to administering nightly foot massages and begging for a root once a month when "the bull" is occupied elsewhere.

 

[Bradesmaen]

It's pretty obvious that I wasn't referring to the resident cucks.

Stick to administering nightly foot massages and begging for a root once a month when "the bull" is occupied elsewhere.

Your disdain for women has already been noted before, can see why they don't touch you with a barge pole with vicious hatred like that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Your disdain for women has already been noted before, can see why they don't touch you with a barge pole with vicious hatred like that.

Hey, if you get off on being despised by them, then go for it. It's your life.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Men who actually get along wit women = cucks. Right.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Snake_Baker]

Men who actually get along wit women = cucks. Right.

"Get along".........as in............compromise?

You dropped your guard with your choice of terminology.

You're a cuck. You're infuriated by real men because they are a constant reminder of your own inadequacies.

I'll give you the mail champ, it 'ain't their fault, it's yours.

 

[Bradesmaen]

"Get along".........as in............compromise?

You dropped your guard with your choice of terminology.

You're a cuck. You're infuriated by real men because they are a constant reminder of your own inadequacies.

I'll give you the mail champ, it 'ain't their fault, it's yours.

Pretty low and pathetic women hating here. Kind of fits the Malifice bill of "I've got it under control"

 

[RegHickeyStand]

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).

Of course you are right. But I was seeing it mainly from what was happening to my friend, Brad. I know her well enough to know what she was up to. She wanted violence. She wanted a punch up between the two men. And the strategy was to get Brad kicked out of his house. My wife actually was the first to say it early on when he picked up his children for an afternoon kids party at our place, but was confronted by the boyfriend during the swap-over. I don't know if there is an equivalence with women. How many women have restraining orders against them to enter their homes? Facts of life. Accuse me of being a men's right's advocate, but you are just tilting at windmills. Of course there is a difference. Men can do more damage physically. Ask any cop who has to deal with this stuff. I can't believe thats men's rights advocacy - its just a fact.

My only wonder was the status of the owners of the marital home during a separation under the same roof. I think both spouses should have rights. But if one spouse can bring in whoever they like during the separation period when the other spouse just can't handle it, that is just wrong. The law allows for it, but it is fraught with problems. Before you go on, think about how the children would find all this? They need a settled environment. . It don't work. Humans aren't that civilized. So laws should reflect that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Pretty low and pathetic women hating here.

If you had a brain larger than a tic tac, you would have picked up that I was selling an insurance policy to protect men from government.

Kind of fits the Malifice bill of "I've got it under control"

Lagging to who you believe to be a politically accommodating authority.

That's straight out of page 1 of the cuck playbook.

 

[Snake_Baker]

As for complaining about "men's rights activists", who cares? If it's an issue to another male, then they also have problems. How and why should it effect their lives...............unless it hits a raw nerve with them?

Real (and smart) men insure themselves from government interference, on behalf of women, and for the benefit of government.

I have never seen a woman alone take a house off a man.

 

[Bradesmaen]

If you had a brain larger than a tic tac, you would have picked up that I was selling an insurance policy to protect men from government.



Lagging to who you believe to be a politically accommodating authority.

That's straight out of page 1 of the cuck playbook.

 

[Number37]

There is no entitlement to any particular lifestyle after divorce.

I would disagree with you.

s.75 (2)(g) where the parties have separated or divorced, a standard of living that in all the circumstances is reasonable; and

What constitutes "reasonable" is the lifestyle that you had during the marriage.

 

[Malifice]

It's pretty obvious that I wasn't referring to the resident cucks.

See ya.

 

[Frank Bunn]

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'.

That's not true. The family court makes no allowance for any future child support payments. The Dad might lose his job, hide his income or go overseas - so there will be zero child support.

Alternatively, in many cases, the Dad gets the double whammy of an assets split against him, and has to pay high amounts of child support for the most of his

 

[Malifice]

What constitutes "reasonable" is the lifestyle that you had during the marriage.

No it's not.

Its a reasonable lifestyle having regards to all the circumstances of the marriage.

You might have had a ridiculous lifestyle during the marriage on account of marrying a billionaire. Doesn't mean you get half a billion dollars on separation though.

You'd certainly get a better separation asset split than if you were married to a burger flipper at Maccas however.

Im telling you now, there is nothing in Australian Law about 50/50 asset division. If you go into a divorce wanting 50/50 prepare to be disappointed more often than not.

I actually have a friend moving in to my joint next week. Ex-Stripper (current teacher) who paid off her entire first house from her Stripping money (and if you're smart and not a junkie, it's considerable coin). Her (now ex) Husband is claiming the lions share of that house (and the investment property they have) on account of his income passing hers when she left stripping behind to become a teacher.

They're likely going to sort it out amicably, but it's a tough one to get an accurate asset division there., and both parties have already brought in the lawyers

 

[Malifice]

That's not true. The family court makes no allowance for any future child support payments.

Ive said it four times now, but you're wrong. The Court do take future Child support payments into account when determining property settlement.

Specifically s79(4)(g) of the Family Law Act provides:

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 79
Alteration of property interests

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

(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.

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s79.html

If your lawyers advised you differently, take it up with them.

If the court stitched you up with a property settlement on Child Support grounds, it's likely because you were dodging those Child support payments at the time of the Property settlement orders, so the Court had little to no confidence you would actually pay those Child support payments:

https://hhfamilylaw.com.au/child-support-and-property-settlement-be-smart/

Accordingly the Court ordered the money be paid now, via the property settlement orders, and you wound up with a shitty property settlement.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Bagging women, "cucks", Jordan Peterson video. We've hit the right wing young-ish male trifecta.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Ive said it four times now, but you're wrong. The Court do take future Child support payments into account when determining property settlement.

Specifically s79(4)(g) of the Family Law Act provides:

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s79.html

I'm aware of the legislation. The courts give little if any weight to that clause. It comes from a time before the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, when each child support agreement had to go through the court and there was more of a link between the assets split and the child support order. Effectively you could pay some of your child support up front. The Child Support Act makes no allowance for how the assets were divided (apart from their potential to generate income) so subsequently it is no longer relevant to factor in child support into the property settlement.

Child support is reassessed annually, or on request due to change of circumstances. The Dad might lose his job, hide his income or go overseas - so there will be zero child support. It can be against the Mother's interest for future child support to factored in - in the Father's favour - because the payments might evaporate.

Note - the acts do not discriminate based on sex so we should talk about 'payees' and 'payers'. But the number of men paying child support represents about 87% of all paying parents.