[parasubvert]

What needs to be fixed?

Terrible divorce settlements really are about poor planning and communication of expectations than something inherent in marriage or common law relationships.

I don't think most people should get married or move in before age 30 - too easy to focus on the short term and get taken advantage of, unless you're really willing to make a leap of faith in the other person.

But otherwise divorce isn't as big of a deal when no children are involved and both partners work at reasonably equal jobs. Maybe there is a split in the house equity and bank accounts, with one party possibly giving a lump sum to the other, and you're done - mostly a clean break with no ongoing payments. I've seen this multiple times among friends.

It's when your partner is stay at home, marrying them (or in many jurisdictions, merely entering into common law relationship) also sets an entitlement of lifestyle and income.

Basically if your partner doesn't work, you need to be okay with supporting them to various degrees for the rest of your life, unless you can enter into a pre-nuptial agreement that says otherwise.

Now, add children into the mix and it's much more complicated and has nothing to do with marriage. Child support is technically the child's money, and the state enforces its payment on the grounds that your child is entitled to your earnings based on some kind of income-equity formula.

So for me, there never was any despair about finding a partner, it was more about understanding what I wanted:

- we split what assets we put into the marriage if it fails, what we brought in is mostly hands off so that the one with more property can't be milked. I say mostly because capital gains etc. may happen on past assets that your partner should be entitled to.

- we put each other into our wills otherwise and ensure we have life insurance for the other

- we both hold jobs, even if one of us makes more, alimony and child support wouldn't be absurdly high

- a partner that isn't afraid to talk about what their expectations are for lifestyle, income during and/or after the marriage if it doesn't work out

Being afraid of having your assets stripped implies you don't think you could hire a strong lawyer to defend your interests and also implies you wouldn't have the ability to define stuff before the marriage. But it's totally doable.

As with any life commitment there needs to be trust in another human being... but some safeguards if they turn out to be very different people than you had thought.

[rrggrr]

A prenuptial is almost worthless when the marriage involves children because statute prevails. Its useless because in most cases attorneys are exceptionally good at persuading clients to expend fees for discovery, hearings, etc. that have little bearing on the overall outcome of the case.

[parasubvert]

A pre-nuptual agreement has nothing to do with your children's statuatory rights, that's correct, but also completely fair - they're a new human and your earnings are now their's.

As for discovery, hearings, etc, this just whittles away the value of the estate and is in neither party's interest. Most cases settle for this reason.

[rrggrr]

Most cases settle when the parties run out of money. That's inherently bad from a public policy perspective, but nobody cares. As for child support, the funds wasted trying to determine both parties incomes and on discovery is the issue, driven by the receiving spouse - not by the children. Its fair on paper only. In practice its hopelessly broken.

[parasubvert]

Perhaps Canada is just different, there is no discovery for income: the judge orders sharing of your T4 (1040 equivalent) with your ex every year which shows all income, capital gains, dividend gains, etc. By law it's what's required. Child support is usually a formula taken from a rolling average difference of income adjusted by regular access (50/50 parenting vs 70/30). Ability to work at past incomes due to illness, recession, etc. can also adjust this.

From a public policy perspective here, the family justice system is designed to encourage settlement and not go to trial: almost all cases need a dispute resolution or case conference ahead of trial to provide a preview ruling.

What is the policy you would prefer?

[flat6turbo]

not only that, it would be naive to assume family court judges don't push their own petty little political agendas from the bench.

[parasubvert]

I think you've decided to believe the system is somehow against you. It's really not.

[rrggrr]

No, that's not his position. His position is probably this: Judges are constrained by case load and the limits of the law - so even without an agenda outcomes are often bad. Add to that their reliance on 3rd parties and the attorneys and it goes from bad to worse.

[flat6turbo]

uh, yes, the system is against me. why do you think they call it a legal defense?

have you ever been in litigation, or received the threat of litigation? it's 100% crystal-fucking-clear from the outset that, yes, the entire system is against you. every single thing that happens in the system drives this point home further. not only that, it is costing you obscene amounts of money at every step. at any point along the way, if you can't pay, you lose. too bad, so sad, pay up sucker.

people commenting on HN are not children, they are fully formed adults with careers, businesses, and life experience, and the judgement and opinions that go along with that. i know for a fact going into a divorce will be a huge battle, uphill, traumatic, extremely expensive, and probably psychologically damaging, so i'm going to reduce that possibility to ZERO through whatever means necessary.

going to court over business matters is bad enough. it'll be a cold day in hell before i go to court over flesh and blood.

some people avoid starting a business because they are afraid of going to court, or the costs, the hours, or risk of bankruptcy; i can't say i blame them at all because it's all true. and i'm certaintly not going to make up some feel-good woowoo malarky about them not believing the world is against you, because it very much is, and if you don't believe that deep down in your soul, you aren't going to survive long, and most people don't. i might not even survive it in the long run.

[parasubvert]

Yes, I've been involved with litigation, divorce, and custody battles. Yes they're terrible. But I'd posit that is because people are terrible. Courts and the justice system have been indispensable in defending the rights of my family - without them, it would be might makes right / whoever fights dirtiest wins. Or like Duels in the 18th century. This can happen, but does not have to happen. The justices in our cases saw through the bullshit every time , with few exceptions. I could not imagine restricting my life choices over fear of court. I can't say it has been positive experience, more of an affirming experience that the system can sometimes work, if you are willing to study it and work with it. I've lived a fairly long life not thinking the world is against me: I help others, and have been helped and loved by others. The choice is yours, on how you act and react to events. In the long run, we are all dead, might as well take some risks while we are here.