My guess is the impact will be larger on the relationship opportunities of those who've already been through the mill once. Those who either managed to keep some assets or who have busted their boiler to rebuild knowing that time is short will find it that much harder to find partners without placing their future at risk. Those left with nothing after a bad ending will find it harder to get a chance.

The risks during the "getting to know what kind of person you really are stage" are dramatically increased if defacto laws touch assets accumulated prior to the relationship.

Many older singles find the process difficult enough as it is juggling responsibilities with children, more demanding employment roles, the signs of age in a world that places so much value on youth.
We often don't really know what kind of person we are dating until we have got our lives well entwined, entwined enough that defacto laws may apply.

R0bert

very true RObert

and also many Buttercups who came out of their first marriage with their 80% are dead keen not to marry a bloke who got the 20% [plus child support debt], especially as we dont have a "proper" pre nup deal in Oz as they do in USA.

In fact I came across this problem myself 20 years ago with several putative partners/spouses and in reality that is the only reason I got past that initial desire to jump back to the frying pan, and live a life free of any person at all telling me what to do, as I do now [and thank my lucky stars every day]

In other words "If the Massey is signed, only love is in mind" [George Clooney as Miles Massey] does not apply here, and I have no idea if it applies in USA to the extent depicted in Intollerable Cruelty [nor do I want to know, as it is a full time job being an expert on Oz Fam Law]

Divorce Doctor, it's not just the Buttercups who win these. I know of enough cases of women being thoroughly done over by unscrupulous ex's that I'm strongly of the view that the systems work to help those most willing to do the wrong thing. The support and advice networks for women are more established than for men and the maternal bias in the system skews the outcomes. My impression is that overall an honest fair person dealing with someone willing to lie and play the system for unfair advantage has little chance.

Most of the women I know with assets are ones who have built them up post divorce. The ones who've tried to use divorce to build wealth that I know of have tended to blow those assets by bad choices fairly quickly. A small sample and probably not indicative of the whole but I find it interesting anyway.

I take a different tack to you on this, I want the gender divide out of the debate as much as possible. When the focus is on that people stop looking at causes, start ignoring lies from their own "side" and focus on any negative of the other. That just entrenches the problem.

There are enough gender warriors around convinced that their side has been harmed more than the other, I don't choose to be one of them.

R0bert

*but hey, YOU yourself could go to the judge FREE of cost and depose the fact Buttercup simply lay on her back [and thanked the Queen] and argue YOU should get 95% [applying Crawford 1979, Pierce 1998 etc]
he would then say OK
no lawyer will help you mate, it is YOUR money so YOU must protect it*

DD, thankfully it hasn't affected me personally, but I know of alot
of very sad cases.

Yup, alot of people know zilch about the law, so trust a lawyer.
They might not be up with Crawford 1979 or Pierce 1998,
as you are. Of course many lawyers act in their own self interest,
rather then in the interest of the client.

I disagree that judges simply agree with what lawyers suggest.
Judges are fallible, like anyone else. If the judge had a bad
hair day, fancies the wife or whatever, would all be part of it.

What we have now is law where judges can really do as they please
with other's hard earned assets. How fair that is, is rather
questionable.

I know of cases where farms were built up over generations. Land
is to a farmer, as a law degree is to a lawyer, they need it to
operate their business.

If a young farmer makes a bad judgement and marries the wrong girl,
after a few years, in the courts, he can lose half of that land
and go out of business. The lawyer on the other hand, won't be losing
half his law degree.

That is why my suggestion that assets accumulated outside of a
marriage be kept separate from assests accumulated during that
marriage. Why assets accumulated outside of a relationship should
be included in the spoils now, hardly sounds fair and just to me.

Yabby said:

If a young farmer makes a bad judgement and marries the wrong girl,
after a few years, in the courts, he can lose half of that land
and go out of business. The lawyer on the other hand, won't be losing
half his law degree.

well there is plenty of case law on what is termed "income poor, asset rich", eg Le Sterre in property and Dwyer and McGuire in child support departure determination, so if that farmer lost 50% it is HIS fault for using a lawyer. THAT is why I wrote the book for gods sake

Yabby said:

That is why my suggestion that assets accumulated outside of a
marriage be kept separate from assests accumulated during that
marriage. Why assets accumulated outside of a relationship should
be included in the spoils now, hardly sounds fair and just to me.

as I say in the submission, the new rules for de factos are so identical to those of s 79 and s 75(2) one could almost accuse the legislature of plagiarism, AND s 79 says assets accumulated outside the marriage [or more correctly the period of cohabitation] are NOT included. Once again I explain all that in the Property chapter of the book so there is no excuse for just throwing money at a lawyer.

Do you really think a lawyer has read any court cases??

most of them would not even know where the court is, as they simply send the consent orders [after extracting 50 grand from their client]to the filing desk via their clerk

that's the way it's done, and yes I KNOW and have DEALT WITH over 1,000 cases, so I am not just quoting Adel Horin or Judge Judy

I've purposefully stayed away for a while , in order to not be a distraction and let you "males" (I won't use the word "men"......because "men" you are not.......whiners you ARE), COME OUT.

And "come out" you surely have. Remember when I earlier stated there's probably an anti-female bias on this topic? Thanks guys, you've just proven me correct. You've stated that women only make money by lying on their backs, only make money from unjust divorce settlements, and one idiot even said if a judge fancies your wife he'll likely rule in her favour. And that's just a tiny, little bit of the magnificently stupid, anti- female sentiment you guys are now coming up with. You couldn't help yourselves could you.

Gee, the overtly sexist DD can't even bring himself to refer to women as "women"......they're just "buttercups" to him: Totally moronic! DD now boasts there's nobody in his life now to tell him what to do..........sounds like he's very much still an adolescent emotionally, even though he's a grown adult.

Oh deary, deary me..... those nasty, nasty women are only out to exploit you poor, kind, gentle innocent males who have done nothing except love and worship your horrible, evil "female" partners and children.

Many of you sorry excuses for men, are mere whiners.....weak, bitter and resentful.

"REAL" men, like myself, make a success of their life and relationships, and if something doesn't work, we put in place workable solutions. When a relationship ends "real" men and "real" women ensure fairness and equity ensues regarding property settlement and child support. It's about fairness for **ALL**......not just revenge for men! I don't run away, trying to avoid my responsibility. But let's face it.......nobody whines like a bitter, resentful man who despises women, and you guys sure know how to whine, and whine and whine!