I’m not arguing it wouldn’t be hard, I’m just arguing it could be made simpler in some small ways. And I’m not positing a ban on mingling assets, I’m positing a contract designed specifically with a very real risk of an end in sight, one that makes a couple consider how they are going to deal with assets and in-marriage income while the marriage exists and when it possibly ends. I cannot believe that it would be impossible to improve on the current model where people enter a marriage that’s supposed to last forever and then get divorced under laws made under completely different cultural norms.
So you want a couple, usually young and without much money, to prepare a detailed contract covering all possible contingencies. Do they need to hire s lawyer to set out the contract in writing? Do then each need a lawyer, so they each have independent legal advice? And then do they have to file that contract with s government agency to prove that they’re eligible for a five year marriage? How would it work?
And how is that simpler than the current system ?
I still don’t see what the problem is that the OP’s suggestion is supposed to be solving.
Olay, how? How would you make it simpler?
But that’s exactly what modern family property laws do. They provide in advance a set of rules for the fair distribution of property if the marriage comes to an end. It’s an off-the-shelf solution that doesn’t require any action by the couple. Instead you think each couple should sit down and personally design a system for property allocation, without any experience in this area, and better than the laws that been designed by experts in the field of property allocation in the vent of s split. How is that simpler?
What completely different cultural norms? Marriage is a contract with an indefinite term. Divorce is the way to end it.
What changes do you propose to make it simpler?
Also wondering what the problem is.
Divorce is legally easy. Just living together bears little stigma nowadays; some very traditional families might object, but they’d take a dim view of 5 year marriages, too.
I’ll admit to being thoroughly confused about what you are arguing. I said for these marriages to be simpler you’d either have to change people or require financial planning. You seemed to push back against that, but now you’re saying that they would require financial planning.
Naita, European and North American family law tries to put children first. For example, you mention Norway, where parental responsibility (the right and duty to make decisions for the child) are exercised in the best interests of the child, and where parental responsibility clauses about parental responsibility are void (meaning you can’t decide on custody or access in advance). This is the norm in European and North American family law. Kids come first.
By putting the best interests of children first, the financial aspects of separation and divorce are affected. Child support is based on the parenting arrangements. Spousal support is affected by child support. Through executions arising out of support, property can be affected. Depending on the jurisdiction, divorce itself (the legal termination of the marriage) can be blocked if support are not in place.
If you arbitrarily mandate divorce every five years, you are no longer putting the children first. That simply will not work.
The months or years leading up to separation, and the separation itself, are usually hard on children – sometimes brutally hard. Putting children in the position of worrying about whether or not their lives will fall apart every five years would be a bad thing – a very bad thing.
It’s really quite simple. Married people are capable of deciding for themselves if they wish to separate and divorce. There is no need for the government to force them to separate, and there is no need for the government to force them to give up parenting of their children.
Often there is a need for the government to provide support for people wishing to separate or trying not to separate: financial support (given that finances are a significant contribution to marriage failure), highly skilled professionals to provide counselling, mediation and treatment, a body of family law that sets out rights and responsibilities and a bar and judiciary that are highly skilled in balancing these rights and responsibilities. What is not needed is an iron fist that pushes people into divorce every five years.
Your position is extremely simplistic, for it deals primarily with property in isolation, rather than the much more complicated issue of parenting and the issues of child support and spousal support that are affected by parenting.
If you want simple, execute a marriage contract that specifies that all joint assets and debts shall be split down the middle, that there shall be no claims against the other’s sole assets, that there shall be no claims for indemnification of sole debts by a party made against the other party, and that there shall be no spousal support. Such contracts are easily and inexpensively made. Your five year plan does not add anything to this, for if a relationship has failed to the point of being ripe for separation and divorce, I can assure you that one or more of the parties is already giving a great deal of thought to whether or not they should divorce.
Please specify the advantages of your five year plan that are not already present in existing family law.
I also don’t see what problem this is trying to solve or what benefit it’s trying to bring, and you’re completely removing the option of a traditional marriage for those that want it.
I don’t see much of a problem with allowing limited term marriages if people want them, but forcing all marriages to a limited term appears to add a lot of complexity and risk without any kind of benefit. Though the OP is vague, it seems like this would require people to have lawyers and financial planners present and essentially plan out most of a divorce at the time of marriage, and it’s not clear if you’d be able to change the initial ‘split’ arrangements partway through the marriage or not. A major effect of this would be to either limit marriage to people rich enough to spend a few thousand dollars on lawyers, or for people to use default contracts which would end up contested at divorce time anyway. It also seems really bad for anyone on pension or social security benefits, because I would expect that anything providing lifetime benefits to a widow/widower now would instead cut off when the marriage terminates (there would be no way to renew the marriage since the other partner is dead).
Since you’re [that’s a general ‘you’] proposing a complete overhaul of a long-standing institution which is relevant to a lot of complicated law, I think the burden is on you to show what benefit there is to switching systems.
What’s interesting to me is how this echoes conversations about poly marriages. People blithely suggest that it’s no big deal if those who are getting married have to get lawyers and financial planners and write up everything, but it really is quite a big deal. And any change that forces everyone to have to go that route seems like a really bad idea to me.
People can do that now with a pre-nup
I found arguing against the idea that there would be no way to simplify divorce proceedings if marriage was assumed from the start to be likely to end to be an interesting intellectual exercise, but if all other participants are going to assume I think five year contracts are a good idea that will solve all the problems of dissolving a relationship I’m not going to bother.
Well, except to point out that this is a strawman even against the OPs idea.
I’m just trying to understand by what mechanism it would simplify things. Just saying it would isn’t really enough for understanding.
No way is this five-year marriage law a good idea.
I’d go broke with all the re-upping celebrations – “Oh, you’ve been married 15 years? Well, everyone knows you’re supposed to serve lobster at your fourth reception!”
Plus, I only have so much finger to spare. Adding on all those rings would just be tacky.
No, that’s what a five year term on a contract does. When five years is up, that’s the end of the contract. Maybe the parties will agree to enter into a new contract at the end of the five years, but there’s no guarantee for renewal.
The OP himself used the phrases “would only be married” and the “marriage would simply end” at the end of the five year term., unless both parties renewed.
Whether you call that a divorce or an end of the contractual term is a matter of semantics. The bottom line is that at the end of five years, that marriage is over.
No, by laws surrounding shared ownership. If I own my house, I can do with it whatever I want. If we own our house, we need to agree on what to do with it.
If you think renewal counts as divorce I would definitely win the “how would divorce be simpler”-argument. If you don’t, then I’m correct that “mandate divorce every five years” is a strawman. Which is it?
Gotcha. Not sure that’s a benefit, though.
One thing I don’t get about the proposal - what if a couple hates each other after four years? Are they stuck? Does the person who moves out get a penalty?
In Europe many jobs are on contracts. In the US most employment is at will. While not being laid off in the middle of a year might be good, it also means that you can’t move until your contract is up. My son-in-law had to stay in Germany an extra month for this very reason.
Divorce laws have been made simpler to let people who no longer want to be married get out. If you do want to stay married at five years, you just have to jump through a new hoop. The only way this helps is if everyone who wants to be divorced decides this at five year intervals.
Also, what is the default? Staying married or not staying married? If the default is to not be married, you’ll find a bunch of people officially divorced because they forgot the paperwork. And I’d suspect a big jump in divorce rate at the five year boundary, when you have to think of it.
These are some additional reasons why this is a bad idea.
Naita, I think you are confusing renewal with extension. Northern Piper, whom some say has more than an inkling of legal matters, is correct.
As far as a five year term marriage goes, please identify the benefit of a five year term that does not already exist with the present regime of parties being able to make and enforce marriage contracts and trigger the terms of those contracts at any time by simply separating without even having to divorce.