3 ms·

> There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. You could begin by sourcing your claims :) I wrote my reply casually, based on my

> There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. You could begin by sourcing your claims :) I wrote my reply casually, based on my knowledge of the law, statistics, studies, and a number of personal anecdotes. This time, I'll source myself and provide links to official statistics and the actual law this time, as you're mistaken on a few counts. > 1) ...The validity of a prenuptial agreement is measured at the time it was signed, unless extraordinary circumstances justify re-evaluating it at the time of divorce... This is simply not true. For instance, here's the California legal code: "Any provision in a premarital agreement regarding spousal support, including, but not limited to, a waiver of it, is not enforceable... if the provision regarding spousal support is unconscionable at the time of enforcement." California Family Code, Section 1612.7, part c. Convenient link here: http://law.justia.com/california/codes/fam/1610-1617.html http://law.justia.com/california/codes/fam/1610-1617.html That hinges on the word "unconscionable"? In the real, practical world, that means that SUBJECTIVELY THE JUDGE DOESN'T THINK IT'S RIGHT BASED ON AMERICAN VALUES. Yes, that's actually how it goes. Edit: Here's the legal definition and some discussion of unconscionable for curious people. Practically, it leaves it up the judge's... conscience. Subjective. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unconscionable http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unconscionable > 2) Spousal support -- does not include money for the children. Correct. If the woman sues for full custody, and gets it, she gets more than equalization of income. Therefore, pressing for full custody and no father's custody rights = more money. Big problem. > Interlude: Nas. Nas is a millionaire. He had a kid, with a woman, and lived a lavish lifestyle. B/c of that, on divorce, his wife and kid get to continue living a lavish lifestyle via alimony (wife's standard of living during marriage) and child support (child's standard of living during marriage). Right, I think that's crazy. He had her to host parties for him, cook for him, keep the home, help him keep his finances. All of that is gone. His quality of living will go down, it is shot, he no longer receives enjoyment of having his child around to play with when he comes home from a hard day. She's used to living a $150,000 per month lifestyle and thus deserves to keep it? He's used to having a supportive wife behind him, that keeps the home, that helps, that he can bounce ideas off of. That's gone. He should pay her close to $2 million a year because it'd be a shame for her quality of life to go down while his is getting shot up? The system is crazy. > Lesson to learn: If you're rich, live a normal lifestyle and you won't pay (relatively) much in support. So then you live modesty, and save, and invest, and the assets are split 50/50 if you divorce instead. Not much better. > 5) The divorce rate for... A lot of the statistics overlap and there's a lot of noise there, but divorce rates are high here. For instance, "The National Center for Health Statistics recently released a report which found that 43 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years. The study is based on the National Survey of Family Growth, a nationally representative sample of women age 15 to 44 in 1995. Bramlett, Matthew and William Mosher. "First marriage dissolution, divorce, and remariage: United States," Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics; No.323. Hyattsville MD: National Center for Health Statistics: 2 1. http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html (first one in Google for "divorce rates", looks relatively unbiased and cites sources) The divorce rates are high in the States. Subjectively, I think it'd be a good thing if they were lower and would lead to more individual happiness and a stronger society on the whole. You can debate how high the rates are when controlling for certain statistics, but they're clearly really way too damn high (again, in my subjective judgment). > 5) Harsh divorce laws discourage divorce. Yes and no. Harsh divorce laws against both partners discourage divorce. Harsh divorce laws against one gender increase divorce. One quick and dirty way to figure out which side a country's divorce laws are slanted is to look at who initiates divorce proceedings by gender. United States? Over 2/3rds initiated by women. It's close to 70%. http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articl... I tried searching divorce rates by country to find the statistics for you, but I couldn't find a link - so this is going off personal recall, but I remember seeing some crystal clear statistics. Divorce rates close to 50/50 in much of Continentinal Europe, slanted 70/30 men in many Islamic countries, and 70/30 women in the USA and UK. Those are just numbers - but my subjective judgment call? Things are messed up here. I ended my original comment with a statement that wasn't quite right. I'll amend it: If the laws were made less brutal to men, I think you'd see more people marrying, marrying at an earlier age, having more children, and paradoxically - I think the divorce rate would go down.

fatdog789 17y ago
1) Unconscionable -- IS NOT SUBJECTIVELY DEFINED. At law, it must be objectively apparent that the prenup is "substantially unfair". It's not simply a matter of the judge's conscience -- b/c the determination is a legal one (not a factual one), it must be apparent to the appeals court. BTW, only first-year law students use legal dictionaries, which do not have the force of law in any state, and at best, offer only the shared elements of the meaning of a term as it is individually used in all 50 states. 1b) You see that part where it says "spousal support"? That's crucial -- b/c the REST of the prenup is evaluated at the time of execution, not the time of divorce. 2) Both spouses' quality of living is considered -- the post-divorce quality of living must be equalized -- his may go down, but then so does hers. Usually, even with spousal support, the woman is at a disadvantage. BTW, if you think partying every night is a lowered standard of living for Nas, you don't understand who he is or what he does for a living. From the source YOU cited: "Divorce Myth 5: Following divorce, the woman's standard of living plummets by 73 percent while that of the man's improves by 42 percent. Fact: This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman's loss was 27 percent while the man's gain was 10 percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades." http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articl... 5) My source was Newseek, based on the latest US Census and the latest edition of the study you cited. If you want to wade through the census data, feel free to do so. "In 2005, the marriage rate was 7.5 per 1,000 people, while the divorce rate was 3.6 per 1,000, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. But since the people who get married in any given year usually are not the same people who get divorced (OK, maybe a few), the statistic isn't very meaningful. Even if you look at divorces among married couples, the rate has declined from a peak of 22.8 divorces per 1,000 in 1979 to 16.7 divorces in 2005." http://www.newsweek.com/id/161233 http://www.newsweek.com/id/161233. 5b) And I reiterate, that harsh divorce laws discourage divorce for both genders. The gender imbalance is not inherent in the laws, it is an outgrowth of the fact that women have babies and usually stay home to take care of them, meaning that they lose/leave their jobs and thus earn lower pay for their relative age/experience. BTW, have you ever looked at European family law? Divorce is even easier than getting married, and it shows -- European divorce rates trump the US. I worked in the Family Court for a year. I can say from experience (a) people do not think about divorce when they think about getting married, unless they are wealthy and/or educated (b) young people do not generally put much thought, if any, to marriage beyond what their hormones are telling them, (c) people have plenty of kids before/outside of marriage just fine as it is, and finally (d) stress from child-rearing is a significant factor in most divorces -- couples with more children are more likely to get divorced. Don't believe me? Have you ever heard of "Jon and Kate + 8"? For a few weeks, you couldn't read a newspaper without seeing talking heads talk about the divorce rate among parents of large broods (4+ children).

fatdog789 17y ago

1) Unconscionable -- IS NOT SUBJECTIVELY DEFINED. At law, it must be objectively apparent that the prenup is "substantially unfair". It's not simply a matter of the judge's conscience -- b/c the determination is a legal one (not a factual one), it must be apparent to the appeals court. BTW, only first-year law students use legal dictionaries, which do not have the force of law in any state, and at best, offer only the shared elements of the meaning of a term as it is individually used in all 50 states. 1b) You see that part where it says "spousal support"? That's crucial -- b/c the REST of the prenup is evaluated at the time of execution, not the time of divorce. 2) Both spouses' quality of living is considered -- the post-divorce quality of living must be equalized -- his may go down, but then so does hers. Usually, even with spousal support, the woman is at a disadvantage. BTW, if you think partying every night is a lowered standard of living for Nas, you don't understand who he is or what he does for a living. From the source YOU cited: "Divorce Myth 5: Following divorce, the woman's standard of living plummets by 73 percent while that of the man's improves by 42 percent. Fact: This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman's loss was 27 percent while the man's gain was 10 percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades." http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articl... 5) My source was Newseek, based on the latest US Census and the latest edition of the study you cited. If you want to wade through the census data, feel free to do so. "In 2005, the marriage rate was 7.5 per 1,000 people, while the divorce rate was 3.6 per 1,000, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. But since the people who get married in any given year usually are not the same people who get divorced (OK, maybe a few), the statistic isn't very meaningful. Even if you look at divorces among married couples, the rate has declined from a peak of 22.8 divorces per 1,000 in 1979 to 16.7 divorces in 2005." http://www.newsweek.com/id/161233 http://www.newsweek.com/id/161233. 5b) And I reiterate, that harsh divorce laws discourage divorce for both genders. The gender imbalance is not inherent in the laws, it is an outgrowth of the fact that women have babies and usually stay home to take care of them, meaning that they lose/leave their jobs and thus earn lower pay for their relative age/experience. BTW, have you ever looked at European family law? Divorce is even easier than getting married, and it shows -- European divorce rates trump the US. I worked in the Family Court for a year. I can say from experience (a) people do not think about divorce when they think about getting married, unless they are wealthy and/or educated (b) young people do not generally put much thought, if any, to marriage beyond what their hormones are telling them, (c) people have plenty of kids before/outside of marriage just fine as it is, and finally (d) stress from child-rearing is a significant factor in most divorces -- couples with more children are more likely to get divorced. Don't believe me? Have you ever heard of "Jon and Kate + 8"? For a few weeks, you couldn't read a newspaper without seeing talking heads talk about the divorce rate among parents of large broods (4+ children).