should a christian get a prenup?

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

I believe that couples who divorce with children where each party wants to remain in their child's life should be given 50/50 custody and be required to live within the school district they lived in before the divorce until the youngest of their children reach 18--I'll call this the Proximity Rule. This would definitely reduce frivolous divorce which is good for the kids and it would be good for the kids in the case of a divorce. If one party no longer wants to abide by the Proximity Rule and move off to Timbuktu with their new lover or w/e they forfeit their half of custody and are required to pay their share of child support--they pay for not putting their children first.

The main problem with traditional 50/50 custody is many times the parents move far apart making 50/50 custody traumatic for the children. Moving back and forth changing schools, etc, sucks. But if the parents lived relatively close to one another and the child could still attend the same schools and after school activities it would be much less traumatic, hence the Proximity Rule. The problem with 100% sole custody given to only one parent (usually the woman) is that she oftentimes uses her custody of the kids to punish her ex-husband who still wants to be active in his kids' lives. This type of manipulation is not good for the children at all. The Proximity Rule helps alleviate the potential for this type of manipulation as well.

The point of the Proximity Rule is to help the only innocents in divorce, the children. The kids should not have to pay for the immaturity and selfishness of their parents. With traditional court proceedings, the kids oftentimes are the ones who end up paying.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

... The Proximity Rule helps alleviate the potential for this type of manipulation as well.

It would indeed. And remember, some states require joint legal custody as well as joint physical custody.

 

[bored]

Also states get alot of federal dollars for collecting child support, so any "professionals" acting in the interest of child support dollars comming in which means more federal dollars for their jobs cant be taken seriously. Its the same thing as drug enforcement and why pot is not legalized, the DEA and the drug dealers would all be out of a job. As the US dollar slowly becomes junk bonds you will see alot of these programs forced out or thoes with the money will leave as the gov gets more desperate to financially assult thoes with money.

 

[dobieman0488]

but a prenup is essentially planning out your divorce before you're married, it's stupid.

 

[bored]

but a prenup is essentially planning out your divorce before you're married, it's stupid.

Pre-nups are desirable because our justice system is so corrupt. What would normally be contained in a pre nup should just be part of civil law. If the gov see's divorces happening they should figure out why and move to fix it. The problem is their are federal dollars that gov workers get the more child support they collect to preserve their own jobs.

Legacys should not be allowed to be destroyed because a couple gets a divorce, the justice system turns divorce into a big game that disolves wealth and productivity and the lawyers and gov workers win. There is alot to loose for a man in a divorce and 50% ends up in divorce so I can see why a guy would cover his rear.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

Pre-nups are desirable because our justice system is so corrupt. ...

This is so bizarre that it has to reach up to touch bottom. Who, exactly, do you think enforces pre-nups????????

 

[bored]

This is so bizarre that it has to reach up to touch bottom. Who, exactly, do you think enforces pre-nups????????

The fact that the pre nup has to exist is the problem, and even if you do have a pre nup your going to have to have a top notch lawyer to enforce the pre nup in court if the divorce goes viral, without that pre nup the man will be at the complete mercy of the court with no protections. Thats where the corruption is. Likely any assest that is supposidly protected by the prenup is going to be sucked up by the lawyer just to enforce the pre nup.

Thats the problem.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

The fact that the pre nup has to exist is the problem, and even if you do have a pre nup your going to have to have a top notch lawyer to enforce the pre nup in court if the divorce goes viral, without that pre nup the man will be at the complete mercy of the court with no protections. Thats where the corruption is. Likely any assest that is supposidly protected by the prenup is going to be sucked up by the lawyer just to enforce the pre nup.

Thats the problem.

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time in court. OR, that you got burned in a divorce.

 

[Conservativation]

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time in court. OR, that you got burned in a divorce.

There is irony buried in this comment, "huge and tasty" as a steak restaurant ad used to say

 

[FaithPrevails]

There is a thread in Singles about whether or not it is "Christian" behavior for a woman to wear a bikini. My response here is the same as my response there. This matter is a personal conviction. People should be entitled to decide either way about the matter and NOT be subject to judgement/ridicule/condemnation from fellow believers.

Honestly - if I attended a church where the pastor refused to marry someone b/c they signed a pre-nup, I would be finding a new church post haste. No offense, OP, but a pastor is the absolute last person who should be judging a couple on such a matter.

 

[Niffer]

We didn't get a pre-nup. We figured it'd be pretty easy to split the nothing we both had.
Plus, Remi already told me that if we divorced (or I died) he'd abandon all his possessions and become a wandering monk.
Gotta love a man with a plan.

- Niff

 

[Luther073082]

but a prenup is essentially planning out your divorce before you're married, it's stupid.

And the courts have your divorced planned out for you too, and I can tell you the courts arn't anywhere near as fair.

The fact that the woman lands physical custody of the children in pretty much every case means that she's a lot more likely to file. Money is money, and it means nothing next to children. For a woman a divorce is little more then kicking her husband out of the family at the cost of some money & assets. Everything else for her stays the same.

For him he gets removed from the family, which means he has no one. Not his kids, not his dog, and certainly not his wife. Why do you think men get re-married more often then women. Most people don't like living alone, the woman gets the kids to live with. Man gets stuck out in the cold on his own.

A pre-nup can make sure that both partners are going to feel the pain of losing something more important then money if they do divorce.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

And the courts have your divorced planned out for you too, and I can tell you the courts arn't anywhere near as fair.

The fact that the woman lands physical custody of the children in pretty much every case means that she's a lot more likely to file. Money is money, and it means nothing next to children. For a woman a divorce is little more then kicking her husband out of the family at the cost of some money & assets. Everything else for her stays the same.

For him he gets removed from the family, which means he has no one. Not his kids, not his dog, and certainly not his wife. Why do you think men get re-married more often then women. Most people don't like living alone, the woman gets the kids to live with. Man gets stuck out in the cold on his own.

A pre-nup can make sure that both partners are going to feel the pain of losing something more important then money if they do divorce.

You can write child custody into a pre-nup, but it won't be enforceable by a court.

 

[Luther073082]

You can write child custody into a pre-nup, but it won't be enforceable by a court.

In California law or in any state law?

 

[MacNeil, D.]

In California law or in any state law?

Definitely in California, and very, very likely everywhere else, because states use the "best interests of the child" standard to determine custody and child support issues. This government website summarizes "best interest" policy and doesn't list a pre-nup among the things to be considered.

But if anyone can show that this isn't always so, I'd like to see it.

 

[dallasapple]

You can write child custody into a pre-nup, but it won't be enforceable by a court.

This is good thing..As children are not property.

Love

Dallas

 

[dallasapple]

Definitely in California, and very, very likely everywhere else, because states use the "best interests of the child" standard to determine custody and child support issues. This government website summarizes "best interest" policy and doesn't list a pre-nup among the things to be considered.

But if anyone can show that this isn't always so, I'd like to see it.

The childs best interests and the criteria for that is the only way custody should be handled...

Writing in and factoring 50/50 sufferning for each parent is ridculous as has been suggested.

I mean come one..the child is better off with one parent or the other..But hey that woudlnt be fair ..Both parents should have to suffer evenly..

Its about the children..not even steven hurt and lonliness for each parent.

Love

Dallas

 

[MacNeil, D.]

The childs best interests and the criteria for that is the only way custody should be handled...

Writing in and factoring 50/50 sufferning for each parent is ridculous as has been suggested.

I mean come one..the child is better off with one parent or the other..But hey that woudlnt be fair ..Both parents should have to suffer evenly..

Its about the children..not even steven hurt and lonliness for each parent.

Love

Dallas

For is it not writ, "for when a child is born, there goeth the good ol' days"?

 

[dallasapple]

For is it not writ, "for when a child is born, there goeth the good ol' days"?

There they goeth indeed...

Love

Dallas

 

[Conservativation]

The childs best interests and the criteria for that is the only way custody should be handled...

Writing in and factoring 50/50 sufferning for each parent is ridculous as has been suggested.

I mean come one..the child is better off with one parent or the other..But hey that woudlnt be fair ..Both parents should have to suffer evenly..

Its about the children..not even steven hurt and lonliness for each parent.

Love

Dallas

I dont know what this means

so, 50/50 is a bad idea? Bad for kids?

If thats the case, lets state this accurately

Let me say what this means in a practical sense.

Men should not get more than "visitation' of kids, women should be primary conservators, physical custody, thats in the best interest of the child.


Wow, at least say it correctly because not using gender specificity is window dressing