Philips:
You are unreal to condemn anyone else for "whingeing" after the amount that you did over the NT speeding thread! You whinged about everyone and everything as you canned ALL the NT drivers!.....apparently you are the only "perfect" driver in the NT!...(look at me I am the only one in step!)

I`ll bet that we don`t see you ever helping to claen up the bed of the Todd River!

Usual Suspect, thanks for this, I hadn’t read about this yet.

I agree with US, antiseptic, and RObert that this totally wrong and unfair. It’s simply outrageous.
Why not simply allow same-sex marriage?
I would have no objection if this were merely an option people could register for. How can this simply be imposed on people?

I wonder how they’re gonna figure out what is a de facto relationship and what is not. Many people live together as flat/house mates just so they can afford rent that they could not manage paying alone.
Do they come in and snoop around the house, looking at people’s wardrobes and beds?
Do people need to start moving around more- finding a new place to live before the two years are over?
Will young people remain living with their parents even longer?

I wonder how they’re gonna figure out what is a de facto relationship and what is not.

Cevilia, you hit nail on head

0.1.93. So at the new s 90RD, if a Respondent wants nothing
to do with a property/maintenance claim, he [normally he] will ask
the court to declare there was not a de facto relationship, before
even getting to the substantive matter [or having the Application
dismissed].
0.1.94. So not only will depositions on both sides make
previous Barbara Cartland 50 page Affidavits pall into
insignificance, but the judge will be at a loss as what to decide,
until a whole new swag of Risotto style precedents are developed.
To use this example, after 3 days of evidence he may conclude the
parties never slept together - but so what? The legislation does
not say they have to, as s 4AA goes on to say:
(3) No particular finding in relation to any circumstance is to
be regarded as necessary in deciding whether the persons
have a de facto relationship.
(4) A court determining whether a de facto relationship exists is
entitled to have regard to such matters, and to attach such
weight to any matter, as may seem appropriate to the
court in the circumstances of the case.
0.1.95. To paraphrase Sir Winston, "never in the history of the
Family Law jurisdiction have so few words been so loosely phrased
to invite so many lawyers to suck so much blood at so many Pig
Troughs".

here are the "matters" for a judge to consider, if de facto is contested as a prelim issue

(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the nature and extent of their common residence;
(c) whether a sexual relationship exists;
(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;
(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;
(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
(g) whether the relationship is or was registered under a
prescribed law of a State or Territory as a prescribed kind of
relationship;
(h) the care and support of children;
(i) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.

so there is no mention of 2 years there so looks like Adel Horin has jumped the gun and started to make her own "precedents", and of course she would consider her favourite

(j) whether bloke left dirty socks around

DD,

Obviously it's down to the judge, but 2 years is probably the minimum expected duration in most cases.

http://www.lawsociety.com.au/page.asp?partid=6651

'The law gives such partners rights which are similar to those of a married partner claiming property settlement, regardless of whose name the property is in. However, you usually need to show that you have lived together for at least two years. '

So divorce doctor, what is 'your' solution to property/finance/child disputes for de facto couples? It's the easiest thing in the world to criticise, without offering real world, workable solutions. What is 'your' solution. Forget about the amendment for the time being, as that's other peoples' solution.....what's 'your' solution?

To Robert - about your last comment to philips; now that's really the pot calling the kettle black. You made 2 nasty, serious personal comments to philips in your first post, then philips replied in kind but with sarcasm tinged with humour......instead of your serious nastiness. Robert, please look at yourself before you personally criticise others.

To antiseptic - contrary to your opinion, I have found philips comments to show a concern for both partners and also the children. He has said he believes in fairness for ALL, and I agree with that. He has also said that sometimes the marriage partners or de facto partners are not necessarily the best judges of what is, and isn't just upon separation, and this especially is correct. Having hate or bitter feelings towards another forum member is not good for you.

To cuphandle - you just displayed the same 'whinging' that you are whinging about. As with cuphandle, having hate or bitter feelings towards another forum member is not good for you.

In my opinion, life changes - it doesn't stay the same. Marriage changes, types of de facto relationships change and 'laws' change. I suppose some people are scared of ANY change that doesn't fit in with their narrow view. Not all people scared of change have narrow views, many do though. It's all just a part of being 'human'.