I have no interest in family law, my own family having managed to live a full and functional life without interference from politicians, bureaucrats and baby-lawyers.

What ever Hanson's ideas for family law, they could be no worse than the current dog's breakfast and gravy train for the legal profession.

For full life satisfaction don't make the grievous legal errors of:

A. getting married, or

B. being deemed in a lurving (ie. cash risk when feelings turn) relationship.

family law seems a haven for lawyers. They win by making things more complicated. Watching Burnside on Q & A made me wonder how people blinded by ideology and dogma can earn so much.

I think both the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act should be repealed.

The law of contracts should govern the parties' financial relations.

Women should not be entitled to exploit men and children as money objects. The starting principle should be that no-one is entitled to payment from anyone else without the consent of that person.

The current system is one in which women have all the protections, support and privileges of patriarchy *and* feminism, and men have the costs, risks and downsides of both.

Speaking as a divorced male and from the 30 year virtual solitary confinement inside my humble hovel, separated from all I love and hold dear/my reason to live! She left me just when I needed her most!

I agree with a much more mature Pauline than a woman's exclusive rights, family law advocate!

Nothing conceptually wrong with a, take out what you brung, prenuptial agreement and forces intending couples to contemplate the consequences of treating adult human relationships with schoolgirl/boy romance expectations!?

Or allowing infatuation and lust to cloud judgement?

There are some simple rules to avoiding the family law court and its immature female advocates and include.

#1/ Fidelity!

#2/ Never let the sunset set on an argument and work on the relationship with small acts of thoughtful kindness!

#3/ Understand that marriage and children come as a complete package, so if you don't want one don't ask for or accept the other!

#4/ If you want to keep it for better or worse, put a ring on it!

#5/ If you're only in it for the sex, go visit the nearest brothel! And ultimately cheaper?

Time and time again we hear stories of married folks about ten years into a marriage replete with kids, waking one morning beside a stranger they don't even like!

A prenuptial, would at least minimize the harm caused by immature, dream castle dwelling? Not to mention the outrageously exorbitant lawyers fees and courts clogged with never ever resolved cases!

In conclusion let me add the only winners here are the overpriced and overvalued legal profession and prenups deals them out!

Hence the, I believe, puerile, pious, disingenuous, legalistic, clap trap bird's fur and horse feathers humbug!?
Alan B.

I think it would be a good idea in that the breadwinner of the couple might well get a shock in learning how, in the only prenup the court will accept as valid, he or she will be financially fleeced should a divorce eventuate. And even worse, if it is a male, with regards to custody.

A better solution to current family law problems would be to not mandate prenups, but those that couples do decide to make, should be, by law, honoured by the courts (as long as both parties had legal representation) even if the individual judge hearing the divorce case thought their preferred party was not getting a good deal.