Marriage in today's society: is it worth it for men?

Stheno

Seriously? wrote: »

"100% of maintenance orders were made in favour of the wife; where the husband was the primary carer no application came before the court for maintenance from the liable wife."

That said with the male education crisis, in future it is likely that women will be increasingly be the breadwinner for the household. It will be interesting to see how divorce settlement in terms of custody of the kids (if mums working will the father be more likely to get custody and maintenance) will be handled in the future ?

Yes I agree, I'd also wonder if there is an element of men either not knowing that they are entitled to seek maintenance or are too "proud" to be seen to needing it. The three examples I mentioned were all through mediated agreements and then processed into seperation/divorce papers.

Pawwed Rig

Stheno wrote: »

Yes I agree, I'd also wonder if there is an element of men either not knowing that they are entitled to seek maintenance or are too "proud" to be seen to needing it. The three examples I mentioned were all through mediated agreements and then processed into seperation/divorce papers.

Maybe if it was 70-80% but 100% screams that there is a problem somewhere.

Stheno wrote: »

Significant tax benefits can be achieved both through PAYE and the likes of inheritance tax.

PAYE benefits are fairly minimal at this stage.

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

PAYE benefits are fairly minimal at this stage.

Paye benefits are only worth mentioning if one spouse isn't working, or is part-time or low wages. The other person then gets the tax credits. Both people working... No difference at all. Used to be, but not anymore.

Stheno

pwurple wrote: »

Paye benefits are only worth mentioning if one spouse isn't working, or is part-time or low wages. The other person then gets the tax credits. Both people working... No difference at all. Used to be, but not anymore.

That's assuming both earn in excess of 32.8k per annum. If not then at most they could be up to 300e a month better off if they share credits under joint assessment.

Call me a miser, but I'd not sniff at talking home an extra 3600e per month just because I was married and a student/low paid and my partner could bring that in as a benefit.

I know in my current relationship we'd benefit, not quite to that much, but enough that it would be foolish not to consider it.

Stheno

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Maybe if it was 70-80% but 100% screams that there is a problem somewhere.

Repeated studies in the US have shown that the more financially independant women/wives are, the more they are likely to initiate divorce.

In all three cases I know of where the women ended up paying maintenance, this was the case, and all three used it as a bargaining cheap to progress getting an agreement in place.

I'd imagine it's not an unusual scenario, especially if like the three I know, there were no children involved.

I remember one other poster on here also posting a similar experience.

Anyway interesting article from Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/06/20/not-your-mothers-divorce-three-21st-century-trends/

the evasion_kid

Stheno wrote: »

Repeated studies in the US have shown that the more financially independant women/wives are, the more they are likely to initiate divorce.

In all three cases I know of where the women ended up paying maintenance, this was the case, and all three used it as a bargaining cheap to progress getting an agreement in place.

I'd imagine it's not an unusual scenario, especially if like the three I know, there were no children involved.

I remember one other poster on here also posting a similar experience.

Anyway interesting article from Forbes

Sounds like a plug for his book which he has linked to at the bottom

Stheno

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Sounds like a plug for his book which he has linked to at the bottom

If you bothered to google, you'll find links to studies in the US, the Uk and Amsterdam backing up his research

the evasion_kid

Stheno wrote: »

If you bothered to google, you'll find links to studies in the US, the Uk and Amsterdam backing up his research

I took one look at his site...and it told me everything I needed to know

skallywag

I do not believe that in this day and age being married provides any more stability or security to a child. The days of folk looking down their noses at couples with children out of wedlock are long gone. For a child the most important thing is a happy home irrespective of marital status.

If the day ever comes that I feel that I need to leave then I am going to do it regardless of whether I am married or not, i.e. the efforts which I make to try and repair things will have no correlation to my marital status.

Pawwed Rig

Stheno wrote: »

That's assuming both earn in excess of 32.8k per annum. If not then at most they could be up to 300e a month better off if they share credits under joint assessment.

Call me a miser, but I'd not sniff at talking home an extra 3600e per month just because I was married and a student/low paid and my partner could bring that in as a benefit.

Not sure where those figures are coming from but the most that can be gained is €1,890 per annum

constance tench

skallywag wrote: »

I do not believe that in this day and age being married provides any more stability or security to a child. The days of folk looking down their noses at couples with children out of wedlock are long gone. For a child the most important thing is a happy home irrespective of marital status.

If the day ever comes that I feel that I need to leave then I am going to do it regardless of whether I am married or not, i.e. the efforts which I make to try and repair things will have no correlation to my marital status.

It really doesn't matter what you believe. A child has no absolute right to a father if a couple are not married.

skallywag

constance tench wrote: »

A child has no absolute right to a father if a couple are not married.

I don't get you point, can you elaborate?

constance tench

Take for instance a family where the mother may be violent with her partner with a risk
she may become violent with her children also,the courts will not readily afford the child the protection their father if the couple are not married.

...or if a fathers name is not on the birth-cert and he wishes to play an active role
in the child's life, he has to apply to be a guardian with the agreement of the mother...

...Then there are issues around inheritance rights and next of kin if the mother dies.

In law, marriage is extra security for the child.

eviltwin

constance tench wrote: »

Take for instance a family where the mother may be violent with her partner with a risk
she may become violent with her children also,the courts will not readily afford the child the protection their father if the couple are not married.

...or if a fathers name is not on the birth-cert and he wishes to play an active role
in the child's life, he has to apply to be a guardian with the agreement of the mother...

...Then there are issues around inheritance rights and next of kin if the mother dies.

In law, marriage is extra security for the child.

A mother can't veto guardianship without a good reason. Its up to the father to apply, she can object but unless she can prove its not in the best interest of the child she won't get very far. An unmarried father who has guardianship has the same rights - in theory - as the married father. I spent a bit of time working in the family law courts and met many couples, some married and some not and personally didn't see any evidence that unmarried dads with guardianship were being treated as less important than married ones.

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

A mother can't veto guardianship without a good reason. Its up to the father to apply, she can object but unless she can prove its not in the best interest of the child she won't get very far. An unmarried father who has guardianship has the same rights - in theory - as the married father. I spent a bit of time working in the family law courts and met many couples, some married and some not and personally didn't see any evidence that unmarried dads with guardianship were being treated as less important than married ones.

...care to address my other points?

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

A mother can't veto guardianship without a good reason. Its up to the father to apply, she can object but unless she can prove its not in the best interest of the child she won't get very far. An unmarried father who has guardianship has the same rights - in theory - as the married father. I spent a bit of time working in the family law courts and met many couples, some married and some not and personally didn't see any evidence that unmarried dads with guardianship were being treated as less important than married ones.

Yes, as I stated no absolute rights.

A a guardian does not have the same constitutional rights.

skallywag

constance tench wrote: »

...or if a fathers name is not on the birth-cert and he wishes to play an active role
in the child's life, he has to apply to be a guardian with the agreement of the mother...

The topic currently under discussion is the possible advantage that a child may take from the parents being married. I don't see how the above point is relevant at all? i.e. I am not married to my child's mother, but am still named on the birth cert. So the point is not valid as long as one is named on the birth cert, regardless of marital status.

constance tench

skallywag wrote: »

The topic currently under discussion is the possible advantage that a child may take from the parents being married. I don't see how the above point is relevant at all? i.e. I am not married to my child's mother, but am still named on the birth cert.

I am very well aware of that and gave you examples here...

constance tench wrote: »

Take for instance a family where the mother may be violent with her partner with a risk
she may become violent with her children also,the courts will not readily afford the child the protection their father if the couple are not married.

...or if a fathers name is not on the birth-cert and he wishes to play an active role
in the child's life, he has to apply to be a guardian with the agreement of the mother...

...Then there are issues around inheritance rights and next of kin if the mother dies.

In law, marriage is extra security for the child.

skallywag

constance tench wrote: »

I am very well aware of that and gave you examples here...

Your second point is not applicable as long as the father is indeed named on the birth cert. I'm reasonably confident your response will be simply to state that not all unmarried fathers are named on the birth cert ...

Concerning inheritance rights & next of kin, where would you see issues? My assumption would be that in the case of the mother dying, then the child will be next of kin and will have the inheritance rights. Is this incorrect?

constance tench

skallywag wrote: »

Your second point is not applicable as long as the father is indeed named on the birth cert. I'm reasonably confident your response will be simply to state that not all unmarried fathers are named on the birth cert ...

Concerning inheritance rights & next of kin, where would you see issues? My assumption would be that in the case of the mother dying, then the child will be next of kin and will have the inheritance rights. Is this incorrect?

Yes, as I stated, the child has no absolute right to a father if the couple are not married.

A child is not automatically entitled to an inheritance from an unmarried father.

My point about next of kin was not related to inheritance.

I see my point about domestic abuse is being ignored.

skallywag

constance tench wrote: »

A child is not automatically entitled to an inheritance from an unmarried father.

I was under the impression that if an unmarried father dies then his estate would be inherited by his child by default (let's assume the father has just the one child for the sake of discussion).

Am I mistaken on that?

constance tench

skallywag wrote: »

I was under the impression that if an unmarried father dies then his estate would be inherited by his child by default (let's assume the father has just the one child for the sake of discussion).

Am I mistaken on that?

Yes you are.

Just because an unmarried fathers name is on the birth cert, it does not automatically make him a guardian of the child who then has inheritance rights.

aquestionortwo

I'd just like to point out to constance_tench that your writing is not at all clear or easy to understand, so forgive skallywag for not immediately getting your point.

With regards to inheritance, surely if the parents aren't getting married they should arrange inheritance issues by other means? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that marriage is not a necessity for any inheritance issues - so it's not really a valid argument for marriage.

constance tench

aquestionortwo wrote: »

I'd just like to point out to constance_tench that your writing is not at all clear or easy to understand, so forgive skallywag for not immediately getting your point.

With regards to inheritance, surely if the parents aren't getting married they should arrange inheritance issues by other means? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that marriage is not a necessity for any inheritance issues - so it's not really a valid argument for marriage.

My writing is perfectly clear.

I doubt Skallywag holds a grudge against me, so there is nothing to forgive.

aquestionortwo

constance tench wrote: »

My writing is perfectly clear.

I doubt Skallywag holds a grudge against me, so there is nothing to forgive.

Well, I'm glad you think so.
I also wrote 'and you sound very angry' in the original post but deleted in fear that it might provoke backlash, but I see now that was unavoidable anyway.

Back to the point ..

skallywag

constance tench wrote: »

Just because an unmarried fathers name is on the birth cert, it does not automatically make him a guardian of the child who then has inheritance rights.

That's interesting.

How can an unmarried father best put in place a means by which his child will inherit his estate?

Pawwed Rig

skallywag wrote: »

That's interesting.

How can an unmarried father best put in place a means by which his child will inherit his estate?

A will would be the best way.

skallywag

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A will would be the best way.

I am still curious as to what would happen if the poor chap was to expire before having a will drawn up. As mentioned I had been (in error) under the impression that the child would inherit the estate by default.

As this is not the case, what would the exact process be on the father's demise?

B0jangles

skallywag wrote: »

I am still curious as to what would happen if the poor chap was to expire before having a will drawn up. As mentioned I had been (in error) under the impression that the child would inherit the estate by default.

As this is not the case, what would the exact process be on the father's demise?

Had a quick google and it looks like the kids would be fine, but might possibly have to prove paternity before inheriting:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/married_couples/marital_status_and_inheritance.html

However it looks like the surviving partner gets nothing if there is no will and the couple were not married/in a civil partnership.

skallywag

B0jangles wrote: »

Had a quick google and it looks like the kids would be fine, but might possibly have to prove paternity before inheriting...

This is exactly what I had thought myself, but Constance Tench's comment had led me to believe that I was mistaken on this.

Constance Tench, can you please clarify for us?

constance tench

skallywag wrote: »

This is exactly what I had thought myself, but Constance Tench's comment had led me to believe that I was mistaken on this.

Constance Tench, can you please clarify for us?

The father would need to apply for guardianship, with the consent of the mother in order for the child to receive inheritance automatically on the death of the father.

constance tench

aquestionortwo wrote: »

Well, I'm glad you think so.
I also wrote 'and you sound very angry' in the original post but deleted in fear that it might provoke backlash, but I see now that was unavoidable anyway.

Back to the point ..

Look, this is just debate... I don't think it should make a difference
to the child or the father/mother if they are married or not...but in 'real life' it does!

Dial Hard

Seriously? wrote: »

If you remove kids from the equation then there is absolutely no reason for a guy to get married. It may be the romantic thing to do, but that's rarely a good reason to sign yourself to getting fleeced at a later point.

If you remove kids from the equation there's absolutely no reason to assume you'll automatically be "fleeced" if things go tits up.

My marriage ended almost three years ago and my ex isn't a single penny out of pocket. In fact, he got the house, the contents and our dogs.

I fcuking hate this assumption (in fact it's given and taken as gospel in TGC) that marital break-up is an automatic butt-sexing for the man, regardless of the circumstances.

skallywag

Dial Hard wrote: »

I fcuking hate this assumption (in fact it's given and taken as gospel in TGC) that marital break-up is an automatic butt-sexing for the man, regardless of the circumstances.

Why don't you actually have a read through the thread instead of jumping to wild conclusions? It has indeed been pointed out already on this thread that the woman can also be the one to lose out.

Dial Hard

skallywag wrote: »

Why don't you actually have a read through the thread instead of jumping to wild conclusions? It has indeed been pointed out already on this thread that the woman can also be the one to lose out.

I have read the thread and you'll note that my comment was about TGC in general. Anyone who's spent any amount of time in TGC over the past year or so will know what I'm talking about.

Pawwed Rig

Dial Hard wrote: »

I have read the thread and you'll note that my comment was about TGC in general. Anyone who's spent any amount of time in TGC over the past year or so will know what I'm talking about.

So argue against it. That is what forums are for after all.

Mod note - If you want to leave feedback about the forum there is a feedback thread open. This is not the place for it.

Potatoeman

Dial Hard wrote: »

I have read the thread and you'll note that my comment was about TGC in general. Anyone who's spent any amount of time in TGC over the past year or so will know what I'm talking about.

Dial HardRegistered: 07/07/2014????

Dial Hard

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So argue against it. That is what forums are for after all.

That's precisely what my post previous to that was doing.

Potatoeman wrote: »

Dial HardRegistered: 07/07/2014????

I'm a re-reg.

eviltwin

constance tench wrote: »

The father would need to apply for guardianship, with the consent of the mother in order for the child to receive inheritance automatically on the death of the father.

The father doesn't need the mothers consent to apply for guardianship. This misinformation is not doing men any service, a father does not need the mothers consent to apply, she can refuse of course but the onus is on her to prove why he should not be guardian rather than on him to prove he should.

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

The father doesn't need the mothers consent to apply for guardianship. This misinformation is not doing men any service, a father does not need the mothers consent to apply, she can refuse of course but the onus is on her to prove why he should not be guardian rather than on him to prove he should.

Your right...not to apply...[a mistake I noted..thank you] still requires the mothers consent or an Order from the court..so the general point stands.

eviltwin

constance tench wrote: »

Your right...not to apply...[I mistake I noted..thank you] still requires the mothers consent or an Order from the court.

No, not so. If the mother objects to him being granted guardianship she has to say why and she needs to have a good case. Saying "I don't want him to be guardian" isn't enough. If she agrees its very straightforward, he will have to go to court if she objects but its a simple enough procedure.

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

No, not so. If the mother objects to him being granted guardianship she has to say why and she needs to have a good case. Saying "I don't want him to be guardian" isn't enough. If she agrees its very straightforward, he will have to go to court if she objects but its a simple enough procedure.

That's what I just stated. '...or an Order from the court.'

eviltwin

constance tench wrote: »

That's what I just stated. '...or an Order from the court.'

In most cases he will get it, its a pain to go to that trouble but lets not forget these laws were originally put in place to protect men, times have changed and the laws have to catch up. Hopefully automatic guardianship isn't long off.

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

In most cases he will get it, its a pain to go to that trouble but lets not forget these laws were originally put in place to protect men, times have changed and the laws have to catch up. Hopefully automatic guardianship isn't long off.

They were not put in place to protect men.
They were put in place because the child has a right to a relationship with a caring father.

Yes, hopefully automatic guardianship isn't long off.

eviltwin

constance tench wrote: »

They were not put in place to protect men.
They were put in place because the child has a right to a relationship with a caring father.

Yes, hopefully automatic guardianship isn't long off.

They were put in place to protect the fathers of children born out of wedlock, it protected a man who might have fathered a child with a woman who wasn't marriage material or a married man who might have had a child as a result of an affair. It meant that the mothers had no rights to seek maintenance or to put his name on a birth cert. This isn't some feminist conspiracy to deny fathers the rights to their children

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

They were put in place to protect the fathers of children born out of wedlock, it protected a man who might have fathered a child with a woman who wasn't marriage material or a married man who might have had a child as a result of an affair. It meant that the mothers had no rights to seek maintenance or to put his name on a birth cert. This isn't some feminist conspiracy to deny fathers the rights to their children

That is a common misconception.
A court will judge what is 'in best interest of the child'.
...not on the rights of the father.

Stheno

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not sure where those figures are coming from but the most that can be gained is €1,890 per annum

I put my salary which is in the 42% rate range into a tax calculator and there was a difference of €3540 if I was single and being taxed, or if I was married and we were on one income.

If both were working and one was underneath the 20% threshold then the 1,890 applies, still enough to build up over time.

Lux23

So what are the benefits for women then?

ancapailldorcha

Lux23 wrote: »

So what are the benefits for women then?

Beyond the scope of this thread and this sub-forum don't you think. The Ladies' Lounge is for women's issues while The Gentlemens' Club caters for men.

Lux23

Fair point.