Prenup - I prepare for marriage, he prepares for divorce

[vashti]

Yes, that is a very popular arrangement here, too, assuming you have a father who is actually *interested* in having a child the full 50%. As was pointed out before, a lot of men don't. 50% custody represents a whole lot more child care than most men are accustomed to giving, and quite honestly, I'm not convinced it's ideal for kids, either. How many adults would like to spend half their life moving from house to house?

Anyway, this discussion has gone way off-topic. I am curious to know if the original poster has sought compromise with her fiance, or if she is just going to call it off?

[smackie9]

I bet she's still fighting him on it.

[m3rry]

I do not know French laws concerning divorce. If they are anything like USA laws, a pre-nup might not mean much in divorce.

Plus, how do they handle assets (in whatever jurisdiction) that are accumulated during the marriage? If this guy is already wealthy enough to worry about losing assets, he very well may have more by the time divorce comes up. The thing men and women have in common - they both believe they "got the shaft" after divorce. One never knows how it will go except in the case of amicable divorces (where the parties do their own and agree on terms) but when people start getting greedy and hateful, things go haywire.

I would say it might be best to NOT marry honestly. It sounds like he is already contemplating failure. It would be a lousy marriage at best. The divorce would be what we call "the shit hitting the fan". I don't know, the whole "pre-nup" issue in general just smells like something one stepped in, and they don't like the smell of it.

Thank you AnErin, your input is much valued. I resonate with you about feeling "not marrying honestly" and was ready to give up the marriage proposal to go for a marriage that would have been started in better circumstances. But I have good news though, though before that, I would like to know what you mean by: a pre-nup might not mean much in divorce?

[m3rry]

The divorce rate is not evidence of anything relevant to your situation - the divorce rate is very high regardless of whether or not it involves a prenuptial agreement. If that were true then why doesn't this same argument hold up in any other context? And why is the divorce rate so high regardless of whether or not the marriage includes a prenuptial agreement?

I'm sorry you misunderstood me, what I meant is that because most countries give divorce as an option, then there are more divorces, whereas in my country where this is not an option, although people still do separate, and in certain cases it gets ugly, but generally we have far lesser people separating because there is no divorce.

Divorce may be an option to him, but it is not to me. And I go into a marriage not thinking of it as a prison sentence but as challenge to fully love a person through the tests of time. If my man doesn't see it the same way as I do, then it will only be fair to both of us to not sign the marriage contract, because it may be the same paper, but we have different interpretations to it.

[m3rry]

In the same way that having car insurance is groundworks for a car crash?

Accidents, by nature, is largely out of our control, which is why we need an insurance. Why do people equate marriage with this when we all have a say to where our marriage goes and if it does start going downhill we ought to be held accountable.

[m3rry]

Well it looks like another OP is going to go against the advice of everyone in the thread. I think youve made up your mind.

I've always thought that forums should aid us in our judgement, not replace them. I value much the opinions here, but at the same time not wholly applicable to me.

For instance, I may be the only one here to come from a country where divorce is not legal and there is no chance for remarriage. I approach marriage from a perspective where there is no dissolution and focus on keeping it intact. Yes, it may seem idealistic to most of you, but it is the most practical and makes the most sense for me.

[m3rry]

50% custody represents a whole lot more child care than most men are accustomed to giving, and quite honestly, I'm not convinced it's ideal for kids, either. How many adults would like to spend half their life moving from house to house?

Anyway, this discussion has gone way off-topic. I am curious to know if the original poster has sought compromise with her fiance, or if she is just going to call it off?

Thank you for following this up Vashti. I apologize to all, I've been away for awhile as i needed much time to think, and to talk with my fiancé as well as meet the lawyers. It's been tough, but in the end, he decided to proceed sans the prenup. It is a major decision for him to take and I respect him all the more for thinking of us as a couple and a family first and foremost.

Thank you so much for all for taking the time to read and contibute your thoughts in my personal dilemna. I've learned so much. But for now, if you may excuse me, I have a wedding to prepare

[vashti]

Congratulations, M3rry! I'm happy that you were able to navigate this hurdle. He sounds like a keeper!

[Wakeup]

but generally we have far lesser people separating because there is no divorce.

That does'nt equate to more happier marriages that stay together because neither wants to be apart. All that says is that you can't dissolve the union. What is the rate of infidelity I wonder?

Anyway, Wishing you a marriage that lasts a lifetime in a happy, monogamous, mutually reciprocal dynamic.

[surfhb2]

Congrats !!!

[IndiReloaded]

I think smackie9 is dead on. It's easy for the person who has fewer assets and who makes less money to say, "Well, I gave a lot to the relationship, too, so I deserve at least half," even when that person didn't make nearly the same amount of money as his/her partner did and didn't have nearly as much to show for a lifetime of work.

It's very simple: A prenup protects everyone. OP, if he comes into the relationship with significantly more assets than you do, he gets to keep those assets if you divorce. If he makes, for example, three-quarters of the money in the relationship, then he deserves three-quarters of the money if you divorce.

Marriage *is* a legal contract. It should be treated as such. If you have any problem with signing a prenup that gives back to each individual party what he or she earned over the course of the relationship, my bet is you don't really want a mutual relationship; you want someone to completely take care of you financially.

1. Sign the prenup after having it looked over by your own lawyer. Find one that practices family law.

2. The above poster is missing the point. A prenup won't protect assets within the marriage (usually -- and there are laws which nullify those that are signed as such), they usually only involve pre-marriage assets, and possibly inheritance.

The problem with this poster's comment is that it doesn't allow for child rearing in a marriage. That high-income earner often wants it all -- the big house and children -- and a spouse who will support their work habits to support that success. Too many spouses have been left high and dry by the primary bread-winner after years of taking care of young children. The data is clear and this is the reason for the present laws in most western countries.

It's posts like these^ that leave some men wondering why their partner/wives refuse to have only 1 child, or none.

[IndiReloaded]

Ah I see he is foregoing the pre-nup. He must love you very much. I hope you recognize his trust and sacrifice for you. Wishing you both a long, happy marriage.

[smackie9]

1. Sign the prenup after having it looked over by your own lawyer. Find one that practices family law.

2. The above poster is missing the point. A prenup won't protect assets within the marriage (usually -- and there are laws which nullify those that are signed as such), they usually only involve pre-marriage assets, and possibly inheritance.

The problem with this poster's comment is that it doesn't allow for child rearing in a marriage. That high-income earner often wants it all -- the big house and children -- and a spouse who will support their work habits to support that success. Too many spouses have been left high and dry by the primary bread-winner after years of taking care of young children. The data is clear and this is the reason for the present laws in most western countries.

It's posts like these^ that leave some men wondering why their partner/wives refuse to have only 1 child, or none.

I can't say I know any woman that has been left high and dry....I have seen the opposite. I know men are left to keep the wife in the same lifestlye as when they were married. She stays in the house with the kids, most of the bills and mortagage paid by him while he lives in a basement suite eating Kraft dinner.

[Wakeup]

^^^ Then he decided to leave her in the house for the children's sake. I've seen the same scenerio but when the children were grown, the home (still in both their names) was sold and the equity distributed equally then.

Any man that ends up like your scenerio (and truly have ended up with nothing) I tend to see haven't bothered to fight for what is rightfully theirs or, they have gotten their share of the family property after debts paid out and have blown every cent of it in less then 5 years.

Family laws are in place to protect children and to equitably split assests incurred during the union. I'd bet that there are other underlying reasons why the men you know are ending up the way you say they are.

[Wakeup]

I always think of Tiger Woods Ex wife when there are threads like this. She was a nanny when they met and now she's a multi millionaire. No one will tell me that she didn't know he was a womanizing sex addict when she married him. The lady had a plan.

Anyway, Tiger has not had to give up the life he was accustomed to (in a financial sense anyway) after paying her out.