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

[Malifice]

I'm aware of the legislation. The courts give little if any weight to that clause.

Im a lawyer who acts in the Family Court, and you're wrong! Other than pointing you to the legislation, Im not sure what else I can do here.

Do you want me to post some recent case law to highlight how wrong you are?

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.

And the reason for that 87 percent is due to the fact that after Separation in 87 percent of cases, the woman is the one left as the primary caregiver of the children. It's often the husband that moves out of the family home and the wife that gets left with the kids as in most cases when a child is born, it's the woman who puts her career on hold to raise the children while the husband works.

If the situation was different (the husband did the stay at home dad thing while mum worked, and the wife was the one that moved out of the family home after separation) then it would likely be the father who would get the lions share of the 'custody' of the children, and the corresponding child support payments from the mother to go with it.

Most working dads are not in a position to be 50/50 or primary caregivers to children post separation. The whole 'one day a week plus alternating weekends/ school holidays thing' is often the best they can do factoring in their careers.

 

[Malifice]

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

Snakey wont be bothering this thread anymore.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Im a lawyer who acts in the Family Court, and you're wrong! Other than pointing you to the legislation, Im not sure what else I can do here.

And I'm the Attorney General. Refer the part of my post that you snipped.

If you were a lawyer you would know that the legislation isn't the whole story. There's ambiguity in the wording. There is mixed legal precedence. There is no advice on how to weight the clauses in 79 (4). "Consideration' as referred to in 79 (4) does not imply the outcome - the whole section can effectively be ignored by judges.

The family court can pretty much make any determination it sees fit. As I said, the courts have generally factored in changes due to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. Most courts would apply palm tree justice then justify it by reference to the legislation. It's harder to know the impact of the societal changes since 1975 such feminism and #metoo.

 

[Bradesmaen]

And I'm the Attorney General. Refer the part of my post that you snipped.

If you were a lawyer you would know that the legislation isn't the whole story. There's ambiguity in the wording. There is mixed legal precedence. There is no advice on how to weight the clauses in 79 (4). "Consideration' as referred to in 79 (4) does not imply the outcome - the whole section can effectively be ignored by judges.

The family court can pretty much make any determination it sees fit. As I said, the courts have generally factored in changes due to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. Most courts would apply palm tree justice then justify it by reference to the legislation. It's harder to know the impact of the societal changes since 1975 such feminism and #metoo.

Just lol..

 

[Malifice]

If you were a lawyer you would know that the legislation isn't the whole story. There's ambiguity in the wording.

No, there isnt!

There is mixed legal precedence.

Precedent. And no, there isnt.

the whole section can effectively be ignored by judges.

Not if they don't want their entire decision appealed they cant!

Judges don't just ignore Legislation mate. If you think they do, you're sorely mistaken.

The family court can pretty much make any determination it sees fit.

No, it cant.

Look man, I've posted you the actual Legislation on this subject, as an actual Lawyer who actually practices in the actual Family Court. I literally do this for a job, and you're wrong.

If you choose (like many of my MRA angry conservative clients do) to ignore that advice, argue against the reality, and go off whinging about how women get it all and men get nothing when that all backfires on you spectacularly, that s**t is on you.

I have a feeling this may have already happened by the way. Just a hunch.

 

[Toump Ass]

If you choose (like many of my MRA angry conservative clients do) to ignore that advice, argue against the reality, and go off whinging about how women get it all and men get nothing when that all backfires on you spectacularly, that sh*t is on you.

Slightly off topic but I find it really amusing that so many of these MRA types rage against feminism when one of the primary goals of feminism was abolishing gender roles in the first place.

So maybe instead of hating your ex-wife because she took half your assets (assuming you don't want to blame yourself for hooking up with the wrong partner), maybe have a crack at the patriarchy instead.

 

[Frank Bunn]

No, there isnt!

Precedent. And no, there isnt.

Not if they don't want their entire decision appealed they cant!

Judges don't just ignore Legislation mate. If you think they do, you're sorely mistaken.

No, it cant.

Of course judges don't ignore legislation, they interpret it.
eg It is open to any Family Court to determine how much weight should be given, if any, to each of the clauses in section 79 (4).
eg the word 'consider' is open to interpretation whether it means they have to abide by the clauses in 79 (4) or can go outside it to provide something 'just and equitable' - such as a 'lies where it falls' settlement.

But most property settlements don't end up before a judge. The family court is a last resort. There can be family dispute resolution which leads to binding financial agreements that do not have to be approved by the court. Then you are even further from what the legislation actually states. You are relying on what someone in a conciliation service thinks is a fair settlement, with all the subjectivity that brings.

Look man, I've posted you the actual Legislation on this subject, as an actual Lawyer who actually practices in the actual Family Court. I literally do this for a job, and you're wrong.

If you choose (like many of my MRA angry conservative clients do) to ignore that advice, argue against the reality, and go off whinging about how women get it all and men get nothing when that all backfires on you spectacularly, that sh*t is on you.

I have a feeling this may have already happened by the way. Just a hunch.

When someone makes a claim from authority it usually means they are struggling to make a convincing argument. There are plenty of inconsistencies in your previous claims - so that we might think your stories about you being a family court lawyer and having MRA angry conservative clients are doubtful.

I don't think it was coincidence that the article you posted was the first hit on google when you search for property settlement and child support.

I don't think it was coincidence that you cited the Family Law Act 1975 when the pertinent act for your jurisdiction is the Family Court Act 1997 (Western Australia) and the Family Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (Western Australia).

You made some personal insinuations that were not correct. Rather then whinging about how 'women get it all' I pointed out how women might be worse off if potential future child support payments were included in the property settlement.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Im a lawyer

Are you? I’ve never heard you mention this before...

 

[Malifice]

Of course judges don't ignore legislation, they interpret it.
eg It is open to any Family Court to determine how much weight should be given, if any, to each of the clauses in section 79 (4).

And in any dispute regarding property division in a marriage, the person with the obligation to provide child support lodges an affidavit showing:

1) How much money they are currently contributing via child support
2) How much money they are likely lawfully required to contribute via child support payments going forward

If the Judge in their judgement refuses to take those (substantial) amounts into account, and fails to adjust the property settlement accordingly as they are required to do under the Family Law Act, the decision is instantly appeal-able.

Future needs are a key component of property settlements. If the evidence is that the future needs of the children are already accounted for via child support payments, assessed as against the fathers income then it's a dead duck at that point. A Judge that fails to take into account those payments is not complying with s74 of the Family Law Act, and opens themselves up to appeal.

Not that this matters, because I'm telling you as a Family Court lawyer, Judges DO take child support payments into account when assessing future needs component of property settlements as they are required to do under the FLA.

 

[Malifice]

I don't think it was coincidence that you cited the Family Law Act 1975 when the pertinent act for your jurisdiction is the Family Court Act 1997 (Western Australia) and the Family Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (Western Australia).

Yeah I know we have our own Family Court over here in WA (annoyingly and arguably unconstitutionally). I was speaking generally because everyone else uses the Federal jurisdiction (and we do as well with certain matters with a lot of concurrent jurisdiction).

 

[Frank Bunn]

And in any dispute regarding property division in a marriage, the person with the obligation to provide child support lodges an affidavit showing:

1) How much money they are currently contributing via child support
2) How much money they are likely lawfully required to contribute via child support payments going forward

You are busking. There's no mention of such a requirement in the Act.

If the Judge in their judgement refuses to take those (substantial) amounts into account, and fails to adjust the property settlement accordingly as they are required to do under the Family Law Act, the decision is instantly appeal-able.

Future needs are a key component of property settlements. If the evidence is that the future needs of the children are already accounted for via child support payments, assessed as against the fathers income then it's a dead duck at that point. A Judge that fails to take into account those payments is not complying with s74 of the Family Law Act, and opens themselves up to appeal.

Yeah nah. As I said, there's nothing in the Act that compels judges to give weight to one clause of section 79 (4) over the others. After giving their esteemed 'consideration' they can ignore the whole section altogether.

I have said this three times now. Judges will give little weight to potential future child support payments, to sway the assets settlement in the father's favour - because there is no guarantee that those payments will continue.

Not that this matters, because I'm telling you as a Family Court lawyer, Judges DO take child support payments into account when assessing future needs component of property settlements as they are required to do under the FLA.

I'm not interested in your claims from authority. The previous inconsistencies in your stories make me think your claims lack credibility.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Don't bother Malifice , some people just want to be idiots for life. MRAs especially.

 

[fleabitten]

I disagree. Divorce, parenting plans and property settlements are all part of the legal process.

He needs to man the fu** up, resolve the property dispute and get a parenting plan in place for the kids, buy her out of the House, and get on with his life, making better decisions about who he gets involved with next time.

The current situation is volatile, and is no way to be spending your life.

Instead of sooking it up and blaming her, he needs to take responsibility here. He's made some bad choices, but they're not choices that cant be resolved with a simple property settlement, divorce and a parenting plan for the kids.

Jesus, lawyers are campaigners of people. You read that story and your solution is for him to "man up" and "stop sooking"? If the story has been accurately related to us, he's showing an enormous amount of restraint while attempting to do the right thing by his children as their mother uses them as pawns. She can easily make things much, much worse for him if he makes one "wrong" move and there is no obviously correct move for him to make. ******* lawyers.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Ahhh family law solicitors. First question is always ‘what assets do you own?’ - based on said answer many will then determine how hard they’ll work for a settlement. In an ideal world it would all be done via the Family Court with no commercial vested interest, but the resources and budget will never be there.

 

[Run n Spread]

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.

In a way not bad advice. Take responsibility for your own fertility and direction of life choices. Still an extreme option but reading the horror story of the op not the worse advice. Just make sure it's done properly.
As to op. Your mate just has to take the hit and get the * out. Sell sell sell and pay her out. Work out parenting be the best parent possible then gtfo. Don't spend a second longer in that toxic environment than necessary

 

[Chief]

When someone makes a claim from authority it usually means they are struggling to make a convincing argument. There are plenty of inconsistencies in your previous claims - so that we might think your stories about you being a family court lawyer and having MRA angry conservative clients are doubtful.

You should really stop digging this hole.

 

[Chief]

How much of it is deviousness and how much of it is misunderstood entrenched biological behavior?

Speaking from the male perspective, I think it's more a matter of young males not understanding general female behavioral traits (hypergamy, Briffaults law etc.), and what drives them.

I'm sure that the same confusion arises in many young females as they grow and experience what are non intuitive behaviors that arise in men (violence, material drive, etc).

Ultimately, each male and female must decide what is the limit for each of them individually.

 

[fleabitten]

Random person on twitter has spoken.

 

[Frank Bunn]

You should really stop digging this hole.

Malifice seems like a good guy. But he also seems like a fantasist. Not for the first time, he has introduced his supposed credentials into the discussion in order to bolster his position. I am happy to cross examine.

It's a little laughable that he's actually a family lawyer advising his MRA clients on the errors of their ways.

Not that it matters. Like I said, I don't give any credit to arguments from authority.

 

[Evolved1]

Jesus, lawyers are campaigners of people. You read that story and your solution is for him to "man up" and "stop sooking"? If the story has been accurately related to us, he's showing an enormous amount of restraint while attempting to do the right thing by his children as their mother uses them as pawns. She can easily make things much, much worse for him if he makes one "wrong" move and there is no obviously correct move for him to make. ******* lawyers.

You're reading free expert advice here, Karen. I'm sure he'll give you the same information without any "man up" and "stop sooking" included for $300/hr or whatever his going rate is if that's your preference.

 

[Chief]

I don't give any credit to arguments from authority.

How is he arguing from authority? He’s giving you real facts, adding in his credentials to get you to stop pretending your Google lawyering is convincing him.

 

[Malifice]

Yeah nah. As I said, there's nothing in the Act that compels judges to give weight to one clause of section 79 (4) over the others.

Dont change the goalposts mate. You initially claimed that there was 'nothing in the FLA that requires judges to take into consideration current or future child support payments WRT property settlements.'

Section 79(4)(g) of the FLA does exactly that.

You then made some absurd claim that judges will just 'ignore' S79(4), after I showed you its existence, and place no weight on it at all (despite the Legislative direction for the Court to do so).

Allow me to emphasise the operative word of the text of Section 79(4)(g) for you:

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 79
Alteration of property interests

In considering what order (if any) should be made under this section in property settlement proceedings, the court shall take into account 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://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s79.html

I'll say it again one last time for you: if I submitted evidence (in affidavit form or otherwise) of child support payments being made by a client and party to property settlement proceedings, and/or future liability for such payments, and a Judge failed or refused to take those payments into account in their decision, that Judge has made an error at Law, and the decision is appealable. The decision is also appealable if the Judge failed to apply appropriate weighting to those payments.

If you like, I can provide you with Case law precedent as well if for some bizarre reason the above text of the Legislation is still confusing to you, and not authority enough of the legal position at Federal law.

I'm not interested in your claims from authority. The previous inconsistencies in your stories make me think your claims lack credibility.

Think what you want mate.

I'm actually surprised you know about the separate (non Federal) FCWA. Not many people outside of WA and/or the Legal profession know that (and indeed many people inside WA dont know it either).

 

[Malifice]

Jesus, lawyers are campaigners of people. You read that story and your solution is for him to "man up" and "stop sooking"? If the story has been accurately related to us, he's showing an enormous amount of restraint...

An enormous amount of restraint from doing what exactly?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Dont change the goalposts mate. You initially claimed that there was 'nothing in the FLA that requires judges to take into consideration current or future child support payments WRT property settlements.'

Section 79(4)(g) of the FLA does exactly that.

You then made some absurd claim that judges will just 'ignore' S79(4), after I showed you its existence, and place no weight on it at all (despite the Legislative direction for the Court to do so).

You have misquoted me three times there. What I actually said was

there's nothing in the Act that compels judges to give weight to one clause of section 79 (4) over the others.

and not that judges will just ignore S79(4). But that they have to 'consider' it but after such consideration they can choose how to weigh its clauses, or in some (rare) circumstances go outside it.

eg

Chapman & Chapman - ‘a judge is not “obliged to take into account the matters in s79(4)'. Turner J in her trial judgment in Chancellor & McCoy, relied on that comment. A judge is at 'mere liberty' to do so in determining whether it is just and equitable to make any order altering property interests. Turner J took into account (amongst other things) the absence of sharing of financial information, the parties not making provision for the other in the event of their death, and a lack of joint financial decision-making, and declined to make any order altering the property of the parties. An appeal to the Full Court was unsuccessful.

You said

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.

This is a beginner's mistake and not something someone experienced in family law property settlements would get wrong, or be in doubt about like you are. It's widely accepted that the main caregiver of the children has a reduced current and future earning capacity, so the assets split will be weighted their way.

In regards to 79(4)(g) in relation to future child support payments affecting the property settlement - I knew what I knew, but just to confirm I went through a heap of cases that mentioned it.

None of the judges went outside 79(4) - like I said, it's rare.
They all gave the main caregiver of the children an increased share of the assets.
They pretty much all gave lip service to 79(4)(g). The judges considered it but I did not see one case where a property settlement was adjusted in favour of the father for potential future child support payments. Including appeal cases.

 

[fleabitten]

An enormous amount of restraint from doing what exactly?

Anything! Sounds like he's just going on about his responsibilities while his wife shags another man in the next room. Maybe that's a comfortable scenario for you, but I think most people would have some trouble with it.