Hi guys, new poster.
This isn't a men are better or women are better kind of post. Perhaps a little bit of 'the law is an ass kind of post'. Just curious as to whether its even possible for a person who is not a family court Judge to:
1. Enjoy a friend with benefits, girlfriend, boyfriend, partner, or fiance for as long as they both wanted, without becoming defacto. On the assumption that if they wanted to get married, then they would actually get married.
2. Predict when would be a safe but not apparently paranoid time to ask their variably significant other for a binding financial agreement. I.e. soon enough to prevent major property loss if things didn't work out. Which seems to happen quite often.
Many years ago but still within my lifetime things seemed simpler, although whether fairer could still probably be argued either way:
- A friend with benefits was pretty much that, although probably more benefit than friend, no legal significance unless kids resulted
- A boyfriend or girlfriend meant one person who was a closer than average friend, and whom one had sex with, unless religious views prevented this, in which case it must have been a closer than average friend who was being considered as fiance/husband/wife material
- If BF or GF lived rent free for example at the others house they were considered to be getting a benefit, i.e. free rent, rather than the provider of free rent taking on a lifelong liability
- A husband or wife was exactly that, a lifelong commitment.
- If one or other partner wanted a lifelong commitment and the other didn't there could be a ultimatum
- If they got married, then it lasted either for ever, or till divorce
Much more complicated now because the law, which isn't all that definitive says that a person MAY be in a defacto relationship depending on factors including:
- How long together. 2 years is bandied about a bit.
- If sexual relationship relationship. If not then how would court know they were 'married' as opposed to friends... I've shared houses with heaps of people. And vehicles. And bills.
- If living together, but apparently not completely necessary...?
- Mutual commitment, which clearly does not exist if parties are separating...
- Apparently can be married AND having a defacto relationship with another party. Which makes no sense as there surely can't be mutual commitment to multiple parties, this would be defacto bigamy?
- Financial dependency.
- Shared property
- Public aspects of relationship, reputation, i.e. his or her friends say 'Oh yes, they are definitely a couple'
- Care and support of children, seems quite reasonable if living together for 5 years and have 5 kids to call it a 'marriage'
Certainly I can see some benefits on defacto law. Otherwise (commonly) a man could stall his fiance on marriage, have five kids, accumulate a stack of super but no house, and then leave her with nothing, other than child support.
On the other hand I have met quite a few people who have lived with other persons in some manner of relationship for a relatively short period of time, and lost a relatively large amount of money. Both men and women affected pretty much equally. And often these people were happy to be in the relationships they were in, but did not in any way consider themselves to be married, at least until after the breakup.
So, assuming that two people are either FWB, or GF and BF, or BF and BF, or GF and GF, and are quite content with this situation, and do NOT want to be fiances or married or 'married' or defacto at present, what can they do?
Would it be enough to:
- Both have jobs, or be studying, i.e. doing something other than being dependent
- Both have separate residences, even if they stay over regularly
- Not share bank accounts or bills or vehicles
- Pay cash for any gifts or other considerations so no paper trail
- Not have kids
- Possibly make regular statements on Facebook as to the precise nature of the relationship?
One would hope so, otherwise heaps of high school students who have been in two year relationships would already be defacto... But I fear this is too logical?
My second question concerns when it would be appropriate to ask the other party for a BFA. Assuming that it is not possible to have a FWB, BF, or GF for more than a short time without the court potentially deciding it is a defacto relationship. Clearly one week after meeting might be too soon, but possibly one year could be stretching the bounds of safety?
Thanks for everyone's thoughts. If there's heaps of good info I may do a summary at the end.
This isn't a men are better or women are better kind of post. Perhaps a little bit of 'the law is an ass kind of post'. Just curious as to whether its even possible for a person who is not a family court Judge to:
1. Enjoy a friend with benefits, girlfriend, boyfriend, partner, or fiance for as long as they both wanted, without becoming defacto. On the assumption that if they wanted to get married, then they would actually get married.
2. Predict when would be a safe but not apparently paranoid time to ask their variably significant other for a binding financial agreement. I.e. soon enough to prevent major property loss if things didn't work out. Which seems to happen quite often.
Many years ago but still within my lifetime things seemed simpler, although whether fairer could still probably be argued either way:
- A friend with benefits was pretty much that, although probably more benefit than friend, no legal significance unless kids resulted
- A boyfriend or girlfriend meant one person who was a closer than average friend, and whom one had sex with, unless religious views prevented this, in which case it must have been a closer than average friend who was being considered as fiance/husband/wife material
- If BF or GF lived rent free for example at the others house they were considered to be getting a benefit, i.e. free rent, rather than the provider of free rent taking on a lifelong liability
- A husband or wife was exactly that, a lifelong commitment.
- If one or other partner wanted a lifelong commitment and the other didn't there could be a ultimatum
- If they got married, then it lasted either for ever, or till divorce
Much more complicated now because the law, which isn't all that definitive says that a person MAY be in a defacto relationship depending on factors including:
- How long together. 2 years is bandied about a bit.
- If sexual relationship relationship. If not then how would court know they were 'married' as opposed to friends... I've shared houses with heaps of people. And vehicles. And bills.
- If living together, but apparently not completely necessary...?
- Mutual commitment, which clearly does not exist if parties are separating...
- Apparently can be married AND having a defacto relationship with another party. Which makes no sense as there surely can't be mutual commitment to multiple parties, this would be defacto bigamy?
- Financial dependency.
- Shared property
- Public aspects of relationship, reputation, i.e. his or her friends say 'Oh yes, they are definitely a couple'
- Care and support of children, seems quite reasonable if living together for 5 years and have 5 kids to call it a 'marriage'
Certainly I can see some benefits on defacto law. Otherwise (commonly) a man could stall his fiance on marriage, have five kids, accumulate a stack of super but no house, and then leave her with nothing, other than child support.
On the other hand I have met quite a few people who have lived with other persons in some manner of relationship for a relatively short period of time, and lost a relatively large amount of money. Both men and women affected pretty much equally. And often these people were happy to be in the relationships they were in, but did not in any way consider themselves to be married, at least until after the breakup.
So, assuming that two people are either FWB, or GF and BF, or BF and BF, or GF and GF, and are quite content with this situation, and do NOT want to be fiances or married or 'married' or defacto at present, what can they do?
Would it be enough to:
- Both have jobs, or be studying, i.e. doing something other than being dependent
- Both have separate residences, even if they stay over regularly
- Not share bank accounts or bills or vehicles
- Pay cash for any gifts or other considerations so no paper trail
- Not have kids
- Possibly make regular statements on Facebook as to the precise nature of the relationship?
One would hope so, otherwise heaps of high school students who have been in two year relationships would already be defacto... But I fear this is too logical?
My second question concerns when it would be appropriate to ask the other party for a BFA. Assuming that it is not possible to have a FWB, BF, or GF for more than a short time without the court potentially deciding it is a defacto relationship. Clearly one week after meeting might be too soon, but possibly one year could be stretching the bounds of safety?
Thanks for everyone's thoughts. If there's heaps of good info I may do a summary at the end.