Err Philips, I can't see any whining, simply some blokes making
some valid points.

If you think that how a woman looks in court, has no bearing on
the judge's decision, you clearly know sweet f**ckall about human
behaviour :)

Perhaps what is needed is more real women. Rather then trying to
use the family law act to gain money which they have not earned,
if more just named their price for services rendered, would be
far more honest!

I'd prefer honesty any day.

Thanks yabby old boy, you just proved my point.

Ah this has degenerated.

Thanks Robert for trying to keep it gender neutral. Phillips I think you and DD are as bad as each other. The difference is DD isn't judging all the female posters as buttercup, but you judge all male posters by DD, or else DD just happens to re-inforce your pre-existing opinion of men. I think the latter.

The sad thing is, De Facto's will now be dragged into this kind of environment of the family court under the new legislation, with all the resultant bitterness it seems to foster, evidenced here. There's no avoiding it and remaining independent financially and being able to walk away from a bad relationship, as we've been retrospectively married off.

Robert once said it would be best to untangle the finances of broken families. Here he makes another good point about 40-50 yo people trying to have some companionship without being put through the ringer if it doesn't work out again. Too bad their options have been reduced, and a lot will probably choose to stay alone for their old age.

If the bill is correctly depicted then I agree the bill is absurd.
- How come married people don’t get the 2 year grace period?
- It is nonsense to suggest as an absolute that a married couple have any more chance of success at a relationship that the Defacto couple.

It seems that some law makers don’t seem to understand that this is a secular state. The state should stay out of the personal relationship functioning as a registry “Social Contracts” (Marriages) and as arbitration in dissolution conflicts like any other contract.

Those with extraordinary methods of prognostication or religious inclination can go to a church and have the union performed and/or blessed.

Parties enter into (business) partnerships with an inventory of their level of financial investment and a contract. Some last a lifetime and others fail miserably. At the dissolution each party takes in accordance with a previously agreed percentage or input.

It seems to me that Defacto relationships are equivalent to the above partnership except without the contract and therefore unregulated. To me it’s an act of considerable daring if not stupidity to enter into any partnership without intelligent preparation. The state isn’t there to provide for safety nets for individuals who choose such a relationship and do so under the principle of CAVEAT EMPTOR.

It is therefore up to the people involved to enter with an inventory of inputs proving ownership. (These lists of assets/property should sensibly already exist for insurance purposes.) In the absence of proof of ownership, lists or contract the court should rule 50/50.

The state should be only involved when children are involved. Custody should be 50/50 unless there are court agreed reasons why not. The mother bias is highly questionable when applied as an absolute. Both parties are obliged to maintain the well being of the children but not necessarily that of the ex-partner. Clearly this structure allows for the desired flexibility and encourages more legal guarantees of marriage thus making frivolous less likely.

>>Those with ... religious inclination can go to a church and have the union performed and/or blessed.<<

If I am rightly informed, this is not the case in Australia: A priest is not allowed (by the secular authorities) to marry you (as far as the Cannon law is concerned), unless he marries you also according to the secular law.

Germany does not officially have a separation of State and Church, but from 2009 on you can be married by a priest only. Your marriage will be recognised by the Church (you are "kirchlich geheiratet") but not by the state (there is no official status of de facto relationship in Germany). The partner (whom you have married only "kirchlich") is not legally considered your spouse, so for instance if the bride was a widow she would not loose her widow's pension, whereas if she legally remarried she would (see e.g. http://www.kbwn.de/html/deutschland.html.)

Usual Suspect thanks. I bite more than I'd like to. One good thing that may come out of this, the point that I've been making for some time that paternalists play a big part in the creation and support of an injust family law system is being demonstrated fairly well here under the rational of protecting less than capable women from nasty men. We've been over this before but I think the warfare with feminists which some persist in is misplaced, the extremists are a problem to all as are the paternalists. Neither group has respect for the other gender or other members of their own gender who don't think like them. In the middle are the majority who respect and value the other gender but see some areas where their gender is disadvantaged.

Some want to provide a safety net over every area of life for those they deem less capable of making adult choices for themselves. The women I value are live and work in the adult world and are just as capable of making their own decisions as any male I know.

R0bert