Guys,
This is all close to bollocks. Some of you want so dearly for this to be true that you're willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence out there that judges, like the laws themselves, favor women in family court proceedings.
Great but hugely depressing synopsis out of the UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rness.html
I disagree that judges will follow the wishes of wealthy men, though. It's just that they're fucked over less in proportional terms. Their jobless witch of an ex-wife will almost certainly get too much, many thousands per month, but at least a far more cashed-up guy won't be thrown on the scrapheap to make ends' meet, unlike the average joe who hands over his house and most of his retirement funds, plus assumes liability for exorbitant, unrealistic child support.
Speaking of child support, even if you win moderately on the prenup count, an ex with whom you had children can easily fuck you over using "Think of the children!" diversions to get herself more money. The court won't follow up on how she spends the dough you cough up to her for the "kids".
Some of the few ways I can think of for greatly minimizing your risk of divorce rape are measures like trust funds created prior to marriage (and perhaps partially administered by a close relative) or what former British First Lady Cherie Blair did with her son. When he married, this son of Tony and Cherie had property owned jointly with his mother, reducing the chances that his bride could lay her fingers on it later on.
This is all close to bollocks. Some of you want so dearly for this to be true that you're willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence out there that judges, like the laws themselves, favor women in family court proceedings.
Great but hugely depressing synopsis out of the UK:
Quote:Quote:
It added that in the eyes of the court, ‘meeting needs is the central factor on divorce’, and only the very wealthy – who have more money and property than their ex-partner could possibly need – can expect to benefit from having a pre-nup.
There is no legal definition of what a divorced husband or wife ‘needs’, but courts will usually try to make sure both parties live as closely as they can afford to the lifestyle they enjoyed before their divorce.
Judges will also put the needs of any children first. The guide, called Sorting out Finances on Divorce, said the only case where a pre-nup might be of use to an ordinary couple was when a spouse hoped to keep a specific item of personal or sentimental value, such as a family heirloom, pet or vehicle.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rness.html
I disagree that judges will follow the wishes of wealthy men, though. It's just that they're fucked over less in proportional terms. Their jobless witch of an ex-wife will almost certainly get too much, many thousands per month, but at least a far more cashed-up guy won't be thrown on the scrapheap to make ends' meet, unlike the average joe who hands over his house and most of his retirement funds, plus assumes liability for exorbitant, unrealistic child support.
Speaking of child support, even if you win moderately on the prenup count, an ex with whom you had children can easily fuck you over using "Think of the children!" diversions to get herself more money. The court won't follow up on how she spends the dough you cough up to her for the "kids".
Some of the few ways I can think of for greatly minimizing your risk of divorce rape are measures like trust funds created prior to marriage (and perhaps partially administered by a close relative) or what former British First Lady Cherie Blair did with her son. When he married, this son of Tony and Cherie had property owned jointly with his mother, reducing the chances that his bride could lay her fingers on it later on.
Born Down Under, but I enjoy Slovakian Thunder: http://slovakia.travel/en/nove-zamky