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I think both the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act should be repealed.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

Yes Edward, the only acceptable prenups are those agreed by the, well advised, intending couple and ought to revolve around shared custody and taking out what you brung!

If it all comes crashing down due to life altering injury?

Any compensation ought to belong exclusively to the injured partner, unless the abled bodied partner picks up the slack and shoulders the injured partners burden, as opposed to jumping into the arms of a wealthier other?

And all other earned income, while in the relationship, treated as shared income, as ought be shared purchases, house car etc, taken with mutual consent while a single unit?

In conclusion let me add, that can't ever include leaving one partner unemployable or homeless and destitute in the twilight years!

My sainted mother i.e., rejected court ordered support; and while she keep her Celtic pride, we four kids paid for every forgone penny and for our entire lives!
Alan B.

If this subject is viewed from the point of view of children's rights, then a solution becomes clearer.

Alan B highlighted the consequences to children, of bitter struggles between partners at the end of a family relationship. It's too often devastating to the security and the future of children for parents to be clawing at each other over material values!

Currently the family home is sold and divvied-up between contestants. What should happen to be fair, and in the service of justice, children should be apportioned a physical slice of the pie at the time of sale, to be held in trust until they turn eighteen.

obviously to teach young children biblical principles of marriage and family and faithfulness saw this country greatly prosper. Now our secular high priests have so trashed everything decent and now are really dumb enough to ask why. Very sad to see kids coming last.

Alan B

That reminds me of Phyllis Diller's advice "Never go to bed angry. Stay up and fight."

Jennifer, I ask you to provide a simple 'hand on heart answer' to my simple question,
Q. Do you think it is fair for your sector to charge such enormous fees 'outrageous at times' for sorting out people lives at what must be one of the most stressful times of their lives.

I also ask, don't you think you may have a serious conflict of interest in this highly profitable scheme, one that often strips the tax payer of thousands.

I have had a family member go through a roller coaster and although he didn't have much to start with, due to his income, about $80K a year, he got didly squat by way of government support. But I guess it's hard for you to comment on that, given you most likely pay more in tax than he earns.

I watched this man (43) go from the most loving, caring father to a seriously twisted person because this lawyer did little for him other than to watch the courts take every cent he 'didn't have' ,a fair swag of which was taken by lawyers.

I have to wonder about the argument that pre-nups would take a lot of the courts time. Perhaps initially however I suspect it would not take long for a small number of relatively standard ones to emerge. It should not take courts (or some other mechanism ) long to register an agreement which they have seen and accepted previously.

There are so many unknowns in marriage (what about defacto in this?) and procreation that it's pretty much impossible to be very specific so quite likely that agreements with some broad clauses would arise.

A willingness or otherwise to accept (in a legally binding way) a particular broadly accepted pre-nup (or pushing for one that was clearly unfair) would be a useful indicator of a potential spouses values that might save some a lot of grief.

As for the earlier suggestion that children should be automatically entitled to a share of the assets. On what basis and do those reasons apply elsewhere?

If anything I suspect that would just help retain the aspect of the current system where children become something to fight over for financial reasons.

R0bert

Yes those reasons do apply already RObert. Currently the divvy works thus, they that win the custody of the children win the lions share of the assets.

The current status assures the conflict continues for inordinate periods of time, and definitely ensuring the continuation of damage to children.

By removing either waring party from the claim of ownership of assets, the conflict is defused entirely.

The value of the cashed in assets (under my proposal), is transfers to the children who cannot cash in the value until the trust fund matures, IE when the child reaches eighteen.

Now the real effect of this proposal, is to remove the disputed parties from the court room. This is how it occurs; if the disputing parents reach an amicable " private" settlement, then the court is not obliged to intervene, by forcing mandatory sale of assets, and reallocating their value to the children.

It's a simple concept which I'm sure the purveyors of the dogs breakfast could castigate in short time, but something must change!

diver dan, two main objections
- The state should not steal peoples assets and give them to another, even if the other is the persons children. There is no requirement elsewhere for parents to hand over assets to children as they turn 18.
- It would add to the existing issue of people manipulating children and trying to isolate the other parent in the hope that some of those assets would be returned to the "poor" parent who was there for the children.

I think your proposal just makes the manipulation of children a greater issue than it already is (which is bad enough).

R0bert

RObert, please .

Firstly addressing your objections, the transfer of assets . It's reduculous to say that, when the Family Law Court customarily transfers the asset called the "child" at will.
Along with transferring unequal portions of family assets between waring parties in a divorce.

The loudest objection of the ordinary man towards the Family Court, is their interference in family settlements, both of assets and of the children.
And you would be aware that whole Goverment department exist in the name of child protection. The Goverment is intensely interested in child welfare.

And in your second objection; no, under this proposal, less manipulation would be the outcome, since waring parties are encouraged by its nature, to resolve their own issues amicably. This would be an amicable settlement, since if one or the other of the parties is feeling coerced, then they can win in effect, by forcing the hand of the other, and apply for the mandatry distribution of all assets to the children.
It's win, win for children!

So Jenifer do you understand why any suggested changes to the Family Courts resonates with the general public?
You have copped enough slings and arrows about your filthy money grubbing antics surely?
Now you learn a lesson Jenny, you and your colleagues need to mend your ways and learn to behave like human beings.
I also think a large pay cut for all judges because they have allowed the courts to consider everything a lawyer wants to put up so making molehills into mountains. Tell the judges if you want to double the time to do a job we will halve the rate on you and your lawyer mates. If there is one thing that gets their attention it is money.

Oh dear, another 'hit and run' by a bias author.

Jennifer Hetherington sort of misses the point. In 2014 The Productivity Commission recommended the way to cut court queues over night. They said adopt the NZ system, which is 50-50 paid quickly in all cases except paraplegic kids and short marriages. Mediation does not work- because as the Section 60 I factories simply prove, at law, mediation just means "turning up".