6 ms·

Divorce is a messy process and the laws around it have become incredibly messed up from trying to handle a ridiculous number of nuanced situations with a single

Divorce is a messy process and the laws around it have become incredibly messed up from trying to handle a ridiculous number of nuanced situations with a single broadsword. Make pre-nup agreements a requirement to get married. It's really the only fair way to handle the incredible universe of situations.

lokar 4y ago
A pre-nup can't really address the best interests of children. They are not property to be negotiated.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. They also an agreement on how two parties will behave should things go bad. In addition, by pre-negotiating the financial considerations, the two parties might better be able to negotiate what's truly in the best interests of the children instead of weaponizing them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - YPPH 4y ago
    In what jurisdiction? I find this hard to believe. It makes no sense to permit parents to agree in advance as to who should have parental responsibility. Things change, particularly when divorce occurs, and the best interests of the child is what matters - not what's agreed to beforehand.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I think the idea is that it sets an initial post-divorce set of conditions. From there, both parties could agree to do something different that was more in the interests of the children and/or the adults, but by having a written set of indicative initial conditions, you hope to reduce the cost, stress, and animosity of the subsequent divorce. (Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it be way, way better than nothing [meaning the default jurisdictional law/customs]? Absolutely.)
  - ajross 4y ago
    I think you missed the point: there are more than two parties here. The children's interests, in fact, are primary to any decision a court is going to make. And they weren't party to any prenup and certainly aren't bound by it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. Contracts inherently deal only with property interests of the contracting parties; they can (within certain bounds) address custody because our legal system treats that as a property interest that is subject to some domain-specific limitations and oversight, because the general premise is that it is not a natural property right, but a legal contrivance for the interests of the child because parents will normally be the best motivated to serve those interests. (Though there is definitely a not-uncommom view that children are naturally property, as well.)
- blip54321 4y ago
  A pre-nup could handle the best interest of the children far better than a court. Best interest of the children are to minimize parental conflict. No matter the outcome, a legal process inflames conflict. Arab countries have this right. There is a strong presumption that kids go with mother up to some age, and father beyond. The rules are clear and simple, barring exceptional circumstances. Some of the Scandinavian countries do to. Barring exceptional circumstances, there is a presumption of 50/50 custody and child support is capped. There is nothing to fight over, and fighting dies down. The US high stakes system, where child support is astronomical and where everything is up for fighting over, is the biggest loser here.
- indymike 4y ago
  Ink my state, the interests of the kids trumps the prenup.
TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
Pre-nuptial agreements are often challenged during divorce and sometimes not upheld.
triceratops 4y ago
What would you put in a pre-nup for a situation like this? And if the agreement solves all issues, why wouldn't you just put it into regular marriage/family law so everyone can enjoy the benefits without hiring a lawyer when tying the knot?
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  a pre-nup solves issues by deterministicly reverting to a sane state as agreed to by the individuals involved when they loved each other. A 'general pre-nup' is a contradiction, practically. The point is to have extreme customization, at least as suggested by GP comment. That's why the solution suggested to cumbersome divorce law would be to enforce pre nup agreements.
  - umvi 4y ago
    So... To answer GP's question you're saying a prenup would solve this by specifically laying out what would happen to the children in different scenarios? (Father is domestic abuser, mother is alcoholic, etc?) And you'd have to enumerate the bazillion different scenarios that might happen?
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      I believe that's what was intended by the comment, yes. I'm only correcting a misinterpretation. I don't have a strong opinion, but I bet a pre-nup could include many "decision trees" and mitigation strategies. I don't have a pre-nup, so I don't know.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    How would you revert “we had children”? Or “my partner turns out to be a pedophile and we agreed to 50/50 custody”? Things change in ways pre-nups cannot account for. They’re fairly often litigated as a result.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      I agree, I was just clarifying the parent comment.
wjnc 4y ago
Thing is I expect usually when people get married there are no children yet. On top of that, say a decade of marriage, children and changes in the way couples share their respective roles (say one works fulltime and the other parttime) and their is not much to bargain about up front.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  About half of all kids are born out of wedlock these days in many developed countries. Doesn't change you'd need a measure which covers both, but that "usually" hasn't been as usual for a long while.
  - wjnc 4y ago
    My parent is talking about prenup. That’s only in case of marriage. For those so inclined to get married I do expect marriage before children. With falling marriage rates I expect that effect to be stronger.
    - Vrondi 4y ago
      You expect incorrectly. A great percentage of children are now born out of wedlock. Your expectations are not real.
      - jessaustin 4y ago
        Clearly GP knows this, and additionally expects that children born outside marriage will tend to stay outside marriage. That additional expectation may not be correct, but you haven't really addressed it.
        wjnc 4y ago
        Thanks for reading. It’s not even that subtle a distinction. If marriage gets less normal, those who do get married feel stronger about it. It’s value theory 101.
    - 4y ago
hotpotamus 4y ago
Is the pre-nup then that single broadsword?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
StevePerkins 4y ago
This sounds about as naive as the old libertarian argument against gay marriage, that we should instead "get the government out of the marriage business altogether". The idea that a prenuptial agreement could effectively address the concerns of children not yet born is absurd. I have been married for around 20 years now, and today have two children in elementary school (i.e. prime age to screw them up with a divorce). When I try to imagine the prospect of my silly mid-20's self and spouse, writing an agreement about children around 9/11 that would make any sense today, I laugh out loud. Even a prenup dealing solely with money and property would have little purpose years into a typical marriage of young people. Prenuptial agreements generally cover money and property that the couple had coming into a marriage. Not "common property" that is accumulated together after the marriage. My mid-20's spouse and I had no property and subzero net worth on our wedding day, it's all post-marriage common property anyway.
- achenet 4y ago
  The pre-nup getting outdated is a valid point. What if we made it mandatory to renegotiate the pre-nup every year or so? I suppose that could cause problems of its own, but it would 'fix' the outdate pre-nup problem (which would in turn fix the general divorce law trying to address very specific cases problem).
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Mandatory annual government paperwork would be an additional incentive to not get married.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > What if we made it mandatory to renegotiate the pre-nup every year or so? I’m wondering if you’ve ever been married. People generally don’t live their marriage with the intent of divorce, so planning in the way you suggest seems obtuse. I can’t ever imagine my wife, who does not have a career and depends on my income, annually renegotiating a prenuptial agreement.
    - 4y ago
vletal 4y ago
You should have seen the raised eyebrows of my psychologist when I told her I do not have a pre-nup. Yet she might be biased. Most people she meets needed it.
daveoc64 4y ago
In the UK, pre-nups are not always enforceable - especially if the terms are not favourable to any children involved. There are also many other scenarios in which a pre-nup or its terms can be invalidated during divorce proceedings. It's going to be difficult to come up with an agreement that covers all scenarios and is enforceable.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
balderdash 4y ago
While a prenup can address some child related elements (paying for school, the religion they’re raised, etc.) I don’t think they can be used for things like custody, visitation, child support, etc.

lokar 4y ago

A pre-nup can't really address the best interests of children. They are not property to be negotiated.

mmastrac 4y ago
Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. They also an agreement on how two parties will behave should things go bad. In addition, by pre-negotiating the financial considerations, the two parties might better be able to negotiate what's truly in the best interests of the children instead of weaponizing them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- YPPH 4y ago
  In what jurisdiction? I find this hard to believe. It makes no sense to permit parents to agree in advance as to who should have parental responsibility. Things change, particularly when divorce occurs, and the best interests of the child is what matters - not what's agreed to beforehand.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I think the idea is that it sets an initial post-divorce set of conditions. From there, both parties could agree to do something different that was more in the interests of the children and/or the adults, but by having a written set of indicative initial conditions, you hope to reduce the cost, stress, and animosity of the subsequent divorce. (Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it be way, way better than nothing [meaning the default jurisdictional law/customs]? Absolutely.)
- ajross 4y ago
  I think you missed the point: there are more than two parties here. The children's interests, in fact, are primary to any decision a court is going to make. And they weren't party to any prenup and certainly aren't bound by it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. Contracts inherently deal only with property interests of the contracting parties; they can (within certain bounds) address custody because our legal system treats that as a property interest that is subject to some domain-specific limitations and oversight, because the general premise is that it is not a natural property right, but a legal contrivance for the interests of the child because parents will normally be the best motivated to serve those interests. (Though there is definitely a not-uncommom view that children are naturally property, as well.)
blip54321 4y ago
A pre-nup could handle the best interest of the children far better than a court. Best interest of the children are to minimize parental conflict. No matter the outcome, a legal process inflames conflict. Arab countries have this right. There is a strong presumption that kids go with mother up to some age, and father beyond. The rules are clear and simple, barring exceptional circumstances. Some of the Scandinavian countries do to. Barring exceptional circumstances, there is a presumption of 50/50 custody and child support is capped. There is nothing to fight over, and fighting dies down. The US high stakes system, where child support is astronomical and where everything is up for fighting over, is the biggest loser here.
indymike 4y ago
Ink my state, the interests of the kids trumps the prenup.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

Pre-nuptial agreements are often challenged during divorce and sometimes not upheld.

triceratops 4y ago

What would you put in a pre-nup for a situation like this? And if the agreement solves all issues, why wouldn't you just put it into regular marriage/family law so everyone can enjoy the benefits without hiring a lawyer when tying the knot?

jvanderbot 4y ago
a pre-nup solves issues by deterministicly reverting to a sane state as agreed to by the individuals involved when they loved each other. A 'general pre-nup' is a contradiction, practically. The point is to have extreme customization, at least as suggested by GP comment. That's why the solution suggested to cumbersome divorce law would be to enforce pre nup agreements.
- umvi 4y ago
  So... To answer GP's question you're saying a prenup would solve this by specifically laying out what would happen to the children in different scenarios? (Father is domestic abuser, mother is alcoholic, etc?) And you'd have to enumerate the bazillion different scenarios that might happen?
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    I believe that's what was intended by the comment, yes. I'm only correcting a misinterpretation. I don't have a strong opinion, but I bet a pre-nup could include many "decision trees" and mitigation strategies. I don't have a pre-nup, so I don't know.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  How would you revert “we had children”? Or “my partner turns out to be a pedophile and we agreed to 50/50 custody”? Things change in ways pre-nups cannot account for. They’re fairly often litigated as a result.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    I agree, I was just clarifying the parent comment.

wjnc 4y ago

Thing is I expect usually when people get married there are no children yet. On top of that, say a decade of marriage, children and changes in the way couples share their respective roles (say one works fulltime and the other parttime) and their is not much to bargain about up front.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
About half of all kids are born out of wedlock these days in many developed countries. Doesn't change you'd need a measure which covers both, but that "usually" hasn't been as usual for a long while.
- wjnc 4y ago
  My parent is talking about prenup. That’s only in case of marriage. For those so inclined to get married I do expect marriage before children. With falling marriage rates I expect that effect to be stronger.
  - Vrondi 4y ago
    You expect incorrectly. A great percentage of children are now born out of wedlock. Your expectations are not real.
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      Clearly GP knows this, and additionally expects that children born outside marriage will tend to stay outside marriage. That additional expectation may not be correct, but you haven't really addressed it.
      - wjnc 4y ago
        Thanks for reading. It’s not even that subtle a distinction. If marriage gets less normal, those who do get married feel stronger about it. It’s value theory 101.
  - 4y ago

hotpotamus 4y ago

Is the pre-nup then that single broadsword?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

StevePerkins 4y ago

This sounds about as naive as the old libertarian argument against gay marriage, that we should instead "get the government out of the marriage business altogether". The idea that a prenuptial agreement could effectively address the concerns of children not yet born is absurd. I have been married for around 20 years now, and today have two children in elementary school (i.e. prime age to screw them up with a divorce). When I try to imagine the prospect of my silly mid-20's self and spouse, writing an agreement about children around 9/11 that would make any sense today, I laugh out loud. Even a prenup dealing solely with money and property would have little purpose years into a typical marriage of young people. Prenuptial agreements generally cover money and property that the couple had coming into a marriage. Not "common property" that is accumulated together after the marriage. My mid-20's spouse and I had no property and subzero net worth on our wedding day, it's all post-marriage common property anyway.

achenet 4y ago
The pre-nup getting outdated is a valid point. What if we made it mandatory to renegotiate the pre-nup every year or so? I suppose that could cause problems of its own, but it would 'fix' the outdate pre-nup problem (which would in turn fix the general divorce law trying to address very specific cases problem).
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Mandatory annual government paperwork would be an additional incentive to not get married.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > What if we made it mandatory to renegotiate the pre-nup every year or so? I’m wondering if you’ve ever been married. People generally don’t live their marriage with the intent of divorce, so planning in the way you suggest seems obtuse. I can’t ever imagine my wife, who does not have a career and depends on my income, annually renegotiating a prenuptial agreement.
  - 4y ago

vletal 4y ago

You should have seen the raised eyebrows of my psychologist when I told her I do not have a pre-nup. Yet she might be biased. Most people she meets needed it.

daveoc64 4y ago

In the UK, pre-nups are not always enforceable - especially if the terms are not favourable to any children involved. There are also many other scenarios in which a pre-nup or its terms can be invalidated during divorce proceedings. It's going to be difficult to come up with an agreement that covers all scenarios and is enforceable.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

balderdash 4y ago

While a prenup can address some child related elements (paying for school, the religion they’re raised, etc.) I don’t think they can be used for things like custody, visitation, child support, etc.