I have a friends friend who works in finance that never married his ex, yet they had 2 kids. They split amicably and still spend time together with the kids, but are no longer interested in romantically pursuing their relationship.
I asked my friend how badly he got divorce raped, to which he answered 'they were never married'. He said something along the lines that they structured an agreement and she is given a salary and it turned out to be cheaper with taxes.
I have two questions:
- Does anyone have any idea exactly what this arrangement is?
- Along this line of thinking, would a business contract not suffice as a binding contract between two parties to manage the risks of engaging in a child rearing relationship? I understand that this is essentially a pre-nup, but can we extend the concept to the entire institution of marriage?
For example, instead of me being the head of the household married to a stay at home wife that takes care of the kids, could I instead "employ" my partner in a non-profit partnership with the goal of raising the children? We sign an agreement, which includes the terms of engagement and clauses for termination.
In essence, tailor your own marriage without involving the state. In the name of personal liberty and freedom, what would be the challenges or implications of setting up such an arrangement?
blacwidonsfw 10y ago
I'm calling bullshit on your friend. What it comes down to is a judge seeing some bullshit business agreement and then seeing your very real kids and coming to the conclusion to support the kids you created you must pay child support. I ANAL but I can't see any contract changing that. Even pre nups which are designed for this fail in court.
BowlOfCandy 10y ago
The goal of such a contract is to provide an adequate environment for the raising of children. In this manner, why wouldn't it be possible to replace the role of the state with terms of the agreement?
Child support is included in the agreement, under terms that each party agrees to. Agreeing to these terms also means agreeing to not make claims through other channels (i.e. state)
oldredder 10y ago
because judges decide the law and would crush it for the sake of showing you that you can't make a contract that side-tracks their mighty power.
blacwidonsfw 10y ago
I'm not arguing the rationality of what you are saying. This is exactly what a prenup is suppose to accomplish.
The problem is judges don't decide things based on rational thought or contracts when it comes to children. They will rule in favor of the women because of the emotion of the situation. Plus if you make such agreement, and the girl starts claiming you abused her and forced her to sign the papers, the agreement will be worth shit.
Sounds like it worked for your buddy because his girl DECIDED to abide by the contract. I bet if she decided to become bitter and resentful he would be telling a different story regardless of whatever bullshit agreement they made.
BowlOfCandy 10y ago
I think you're right. I've met her, she seems the type.
Rasalom72 10y ago
The only way this works is if she gives up all rights as a parent, and you employ her as a nanny to raise her own kid... and good luck getting that to happen.
trpftw 10y ago
In some places, such as Canada, just living with a girlfriend for a specific amount of years, counts as a marriage license in the eyes of the court.
Yes you can have an "amicable agreement" with a woman. But you can also have an "amicable perfect marriage" too.
The point is, once a woman decides she can go to court and extort your money, she can do so.
She can even do it before marriage, but this requires more deception about you abusing her etc. Some women are willing to lie.
The solution? If you get married, you get your pre-nups and lawyers before getting married. Yes pre-nups can be voided but you're better off with it than without. Especially if you decide to live together. Remember, many women do want marriage, so by refusing to marry them but continuing a very long-term relationship, you could be pissing them off and making them more likely to use the courts against you one day, especially if you give them false promises of marriage.
Many RPers who did get married, tend to have lawyers with proper pre-nups or blind trusts and hiding their assets properly. The result is, even if you did get a divorce, you're protected.
Marrying a richer woman who owns her own finances, is probably not risky.
Not getting married and having LTRs, but not long enough that they feel "deceived" that the "marriage never came", is also a good idea.
Getting married in a country with very fair marriage laws also helps, but not if you decide to live in a place with divorce courts that are unfair.
oldredder 10y ago
Sounds like only a lawyer can answer this and one PER legal jurisdiction of interest.