Aussie Family Law moves forward

[starrkers]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/love-cheats-may-pay-for-affairs/2008/11/12/1226318695493.html
The guts of this story is about five or six pars in, after the "cheating husbands beware" crap.
Changes to the Family Law Act in Australia passed through the Senate yesterday.

Improved benefits are available to opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples under the newly amended law.

Mr McClelland said the Bill introduced significant reforms to allow opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples to access the federal family law courts on property and spouse maintenance matters relating to relationship breakdown.

"The Bill is long overdue," he said. "[It] gives effect to an agreement between Commonwealth states and territories made as far back as 2002."

The changes give more protection to separating de facto couples and simplify the laws governing them.

They will also bring all family law issues faced by families on relationship breakdown within the federal family law regime.

"The Bill is consistent with the Government's policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexuality."

I find it mildly amusing that the cheating husbands required to pay mistresses angle is the one being used by all the media stories I've seen so far. The same-sex relationships stuff is buried.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Probably just as well!

 

[starrkers]

Probably just as well!

I don't know. If same-sex relationships were thought to be a big deal, the articles would be trumpeting that change up high, particularly theTelegraph and NineMSN. But the Tele has completely ignored it and Nine gives it about the same coverage as the article I quoted.

Maybe the implications haven't sunk in yet, but I'm rather hoping it's because it's just common sense to have the law catch up with social realities.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

If it does, it will be a first! Any halfway decent handyman with a well-stocked garage is light years ahead of your average idiotic legislator with a law degree. Look at California's 'Assault Weapon' law. Sheesh!

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't really understand this. Does it say if somebody breaks up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, that person may be liable?

 

[Safe_Bet]

I don't know. If same-sex relationships were thought to be a big deal, the articles would be trumpeting that change up high, particularly theTelegraph and NineMSN. But the Tele has completely ignored it and Nine gives it about the same coverage as the article I quoted.

Maybe the implications haven't sunk in yet, but I'm rather hoping it's because it's just common sense to have the law catch up with social realities.

Ahoy Columbus, I've sighted civilization at last!

 

[starrkers]

I don't really understand this. Does it say if somebody breaks up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, that person may be liable?

If they've been living together for two years or more and one partner needs support (usually because of children), yes.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I don't really understand this. Does it say if somebody breaks up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, that person may be liable?

If they've been living together for two years or more and one partner needs support (usually because of children), yes.

That's interesting, and doesn't really seem fair. If you have a single mother and she's living with her boyfriend, who is not the father, and they split up, would he be liable for the support of those children? If he is the father, that would be another matter, but if he is not, why should they be his responsibility? Especially if she broke off the relationship? In the US, she would just be out of luck, unless he was the father.

 

[starrkers]

No, he wouldn't be liable for another man's children (unless he'd adopted them). The father of them would be providing for them.

But he would be liable for supporting the woman, if she had given up all work to support him in his endeavours.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, he wouldn't be liable for another man's children (unless he'd adopted them). The father of them would be providing for them.

But he would be liable for supporting the woman, if she had given up all work to support him in his endeavours.

In the US, he wouldn't be liable for anything, unless it was some kind of breach of promise thing. Which is an example of the difference between living together and being married.

If they were registered domestic partners, that might make a difference. In some places, domestic partners, gay or straight, have some kinds of rights, but not as many as spouses have.

 

[starrkers]

Here, if you are in a de facto relationship for two years or more it carries pretty much the same rights and responsibilities legally as marriage.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Here, if you are in a de facto relationship for two years or more it carries pretty much the same rights and responsibilities legally as marriage.

True. I lived with my wife for 3 years before I married her, and the routine stayed basically the same afterward.

As for palimony, well, that all depends on whether the woman really supported and helped the guy or not. In a world where the woman often doesn't stay home, palimony is less of a danger for guys than it used to be. So there are some benefits to equality, after all.

 

[starrkers]

Yep, I lived with my now husband for 8 years before our marriage. An old credit card default came back to bite him about three years in and my furniture was itemised for seizure to cover the debt.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here, if you are in a de facto relationship for two years or more it carries pretty much the same rights and responsibilities legally as marriage.

Would that apply even if one of the partners was married to somebody else? That would mean there could be no marriage to the live-in.

As for palimony, that was in a famous case, Marvin vs. Marvin and Triolo, the woman who contended she was entitled to half the earnings of Lee Marvin, basically lost the case. She was awarded a relatively small amount, compared to the millions of income Lee Marvin received during the relationship. That was actually a contract law dispute. She claimed they had an agreement that half his income was hers. He claimed that no such agreement existed. Of course, she took considerable jewelry and other expensive property from the relationship also.