RObert, oh goodness gracious me, you have just mortally wounded me with your magnificently intelligent personal comments (but please don't give up your day job for comedy writing).

The topic is extremely complex, requiring a diversity of complex laws in order to deliver fair equity to all sides, whether the protagonists are married or in de facto relationships.

One side will sometimes whinge and tell lies about the other side, and tell lies about financial matters, access matters, abuse matters.....the list is almost endless; that's why we have "LAWS" enacted to deliver as much fairness as possible. When a decision at law is made, often at least one side proceeds to "WHINGE" about the result; this is usually in cases that are bitterly contested.

RObert, if you don't like the rule of law.......move to a country of your dreams; one that enables a partner to do what they like, and to treat their ex and their children as they choose; and good luck living in the year 1808, instead of 2008! Paradise awaits you. Go for it.

gosh!

Crikey!

It's important that, upon separation, fairness and equity be delivered to the often "3" parties involved: The 2 partners, plus any children.

Very often, but not always, the partners themselves are the LEAST able to correctly judge "fairness". If people could be relied on to treat each other fairly, there'd be no need for any laws regarding relationships. Fairness to "all" parties is important.

Phillips, several ranting posts and nothing but mindless ad hominem and vitriol in any of them. At least you're maintaining what passes for your standards, I suppose. [cue sock puppets]

US, having discussed this topic yesterday with a few people, I found that your comments were reflective of the consensus view. All of the people I spoke with had experimented with de facto relationships in their young adulthood and only 1 had ended up in a long-term relationship with the same person she had first lived with. All the others, including myself, I might add, had several relationships of a few years that broke down more or less amicably, with no further consequence for either party. All the people I spoke to, without exception, said they would not have done so in the knowledge that they may be held responsible in the long-term for what was only ever a short-term arrangement.

This proposal smacks of cost-shifting to me, as well as the obvious social-engineering appeal to the religious Right of making short-term relationships less palatable and marriage less daunting by comparison with the alternatives. If the burden of paying for indigent former partners can be shifted to those in work, the Govt can wipe their hands of it. I recommend Prof Patrick Parkinson's take on it in yesterday's SMH as well http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/de-facto-choice-deserves-respect/2008/08/03/1217701846384.html. As the person responsible for the current amendments to the Family Law Act, he knows a thing or two about the topic and he's not impressed.

philips, you should seek some help for those abusive traits. Totally uncalled for but after reviewing some of your other posts I realised I'd been mistaken when I expected a better standard from you.

Antiseptic, a former girlfriend went through hell when a bloke she was dating for a while (not me) started a claim for a big cut of her property based on a claimed defacto status. He propoably never had a case but the rules were fuzzy enough that she could not just dismiss it. She had to engage a solicitor, spend many nights digging through old paperwork trying to find evidence of when the relationship started and a lot of tearful times dealing with the possibility that her hard work to re-establish some financial security could be destroyed by someone who knew how to play the game. Someone willing to manipulate that complex web of laws for their own advantage.

It seems that a lot of relationships end 1 1/2 to 2 years in. The initial enfatuation has had time be replaced with a more realistic view of the other party. The short term tough time a person was going through has had time to show itself as a long term pattern etc, it becomes more difficult for someone to keep up the pretense of being what they are not.

Contributions should be considered, kids from the failed relationship should be catered for but the players should not be able to use that for personal gain at someone elses expense.

R0bert