Glossary items: (these are not ads.)
End of list.
Examples of bias in property settlements
Property settlements are biassed
Examples:
Outdated case law and the fear of upsetting mothers
Property settlement is used as a threat
Mediators and lawyers manipulate the process
Property Settlements are biassed
The Family Court's approach to property settlements is deeply flawed and anti-father. It is also unregulated, Judges can do whatever they want.
Financial settlements remain parochial, outdated and discriminatory. Men get very little. Unfair property settlements prevent many men from moving forward in their lives.
The last Parliamentary Inquiry into family breakdown excluded property settlements. That Inquiry found problems with child custody and child support payments. Men's complaints of discrimination against them were found to be true. There are similar problems with property settlements. A Parliamentary Inquiry is needed.
This page lists some of the problems with current practice in property settlements. These items should be investigated by the Inquiry.
If you are aware of other problems, please email details (excluding case identifying information) to this site. They will be added to the list.
In an effort to improve disclosure of marriage law, this list should be provided to young men contemplating marriage.
See also:
Financial risk in relationships, plus more detail on need for Inquiry into property settlements... here.
Deregulation of marriage law, greater choice in marriage, improved documentation and legal disclosure... here.
Extortion
Often a father's contact with his children and the expense of legal action are used as extortion to extract a "generous financial settlement". With no guarantee a Judge will grant shared parenting, many fathers are bullied into buying contact, rather than risk an expensive Court case, and possibly losing contact with their children.
Outdated case law and the fear of upsetting mothers
The Family Court started in the 1970s.
At that time, people married younger, and had more defined gender roles. Many women didn't have careers before their marriage, and not much prospect of work afterwards. Most men enjoyed stable long-term employment.
Now, people marry later and have children later. Both partners have the opportunity to establish a career. Both partners earn income and make non-paid contributions. Both partners are exposed to uncertainty after marriage.
However, much of the thinking about property settlements is based on 1970s relationships with defined gender roles. The dominant idea is that the mother may not have other opportunities. She must be provided for.
This is no longer a relevant model.
Judges are also well aware that women expect to get most of the marital assets, based on past judgements. Judges may be concerned that a mother will be upset if she doesn't get what she expects, and that this will have a negative effect on the children.
The result is a pattern of very large shares of joint assets being transferred to the mother.
Property settlement is used as a threat
Many men report that the prospect of an unfavourable property settlement is used as a threat in existing marriages.
Men are told - "You better do what I want, because I can leave whenever I want, and take 80% of everything. There isn't a thing you can do about it".
The prospect of unfavourable property settlements can be used to trap men in controlling or abusive relationships.
Mediators and Lawyers manipulate the process
When a business is split up and sold, there may be an interim period when it is under joint control of buyer and seller. The sale contract specifies rules in advance about how the business will be operated during this joint period. This is done to avoid a lawyer-driven mayhem - i.e. trying to sort out costs, income, and who made what decision, retrospectively.
If you suggest this approach to Family Law lawyers and mediators, when you separate, their response is - "no, we don't do it that way". They refuse to agree rules in advance for how expenses and joint assets will be managed during the separation period.
Two years later, your case comes to Court. It is time to work out the property settlement. You sit for 2 days while lawyers or mediators haggle over every small expense, during the last 2 years, to decide what type of expense it is - personal, child-related, asset-related, or for joint benefit.
This process costs the family about $1,000 per hour. Neither lawyer concedes anything. Your lawyer tells you that your interpretation for the costs is correct. However, he suggests a Judge will not want to take the time to work through it all, and it will be expensive. He suggests the conflict will reflect badly on you.
You are advised to just split the difference. In effect this disadvantages the father, because it takes a bigger proportion of funds from your smaller share. You walk away shaking your head.
This process wastes money on fees, and encourages people to ambit claim and to stick to their position. It also ratchets up conflict between the couple.
Either party in the relationship should have the right to insist on rules being set down in advance, to specify how joint financial issues will be managed during the separation period.
To be continued ......
Help by sending your story
You may have experienced, or you know about, some of the tricks to bring about bias in property settlements.
If so, send us your story. No breaches of privacy, or inappropriate identifying details, please.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
End of Section
Copyright © 2007-2008, Max Rollins. All rights reserved.