Saturday, August 06, 2005

Classic New York City Bait and Switch Scheme: Mother Moving in with Someone

We can see that as more men refuse to marry and just prefer live-in relationships, that the mothers who chose to take the leap of faith and move in with them could be setting themselves, as well as their children up, for a potential fall.

The article below demonstrates how any legal agreements drawn up basically just appears to protect financial assets (and men still generally make more then women so this favors them) but as far as child custody, visitation and support issues (which children are what women contribute to marriages still) well these issues are left out in the cold to be decided by a Judge AFTER the fact.

Thus, mothers who go into these arrangements risk the possibility of having some gender-neutralized, child-free, feminist Judge in charge of what will happen to your children in the event of separation and as we saw with the Bridget Marks situation, this can't be good.

"Forbes.com

Financial Planning
Living Together Makes More Sense Than Marriage
Scott Reeves, 08.03.05,
6:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - Kids change everything. Adding children to an unmarried domestic relationship makes life richer--and more complex--than your first live-in relationship back in your graduate school days. If children are part of your life, they need to be part of your financial planning, too.

Unlike most graduate students living together, middle-aged couples have assets, including savings, mutual funds and retirement accounts as well as a house and a car. Like their younger counterparts, it's generally wise for middle-aged couples to keep assets separate in an unmarried relationship. But think about life insurance to help your partner, and the kids, if you die prematurely.

Seven reasons middle-aged couples might not want to marry.

"If one partner is not the legal parent, the best thing to do is to draft a co-parenting agreement," says Sheryl Garrett, a certified financial planner and co-author of Money Without Matrimony: The Unmarried Couple's Guide to Financial Security. "Like a domestic living agreement for younger couples, it spells out duties for each partner and how things will be handled if the relationship ends."

Such an agreement can guide the domestic-partnership relationship, but may not stand up in court if the couple splits. In general, the courts determine what's best for the child when ruling on visitation."

So basically as I understand it what they are saying is draft a c0-parenting agreement BUT it probably won’t be honored in court anyway.

"Garrett says the level of complexity kids add to an unmarried domestic relationship takes drafting an agreement out of the do-it-yourself realm that can work well for younger couples. She therefore recommends getting legal advice. A good starting place for background information to help define the issues is www.nolo.com or www.lawdepot.com.

In some respects, the parenting agreement is similar to working out the details of joint home ownership. In both cases, the couple must decide who is responsible for what, how much, when and how. The possibility of a split must be considered in both instances: Who retains the house? If the house is sold, how are the proceeds split? Does one partner have the option to buy out the other's interest and remain in the house? How soon does one partner have to vacate the house? What about relocation expenses? What about child visitation? Medical bills? Or even custody?

Blended families--"yours" and "mine"--are difficult enough to manage, but adding "our" children to an unmarried relationship requires careful planning. Children of unmarried couples are no longer classified as "illegitimate." But Garrett, who wrote the book with Debra A. Neiman, says a child of an unmarried couple may face difficulties later in life when seeking disability benefits, death benefits or inheritance from an estranged biological parent.

The situation becomes more complicated if an estranged father dies without a will and the child has no proof of paternity. Without such proof, the mother has little leverage if the father decides not to support the child after a split. Garrett therefore recommends that both parents sign a declaration of paternity and get it notarized to avoid future problems. The statement can simply include the child's full name, date of birth, sex and place of birth. Both parents provide their full names, Social Security number, place of birth and address at the time of the child's birth.

Garrett says listing the father's name on the birth certificate doesn't necessarily obligate him to provide future financial support for the child. But a notarized declaration of paternity signed by both parents will ensure child support if the couple later splits. However, the declaration of paternity doesn't automatically guarantee visitation rights."

So again, what is the point of drawing up these things as they appear to guarantee nothing except the financial aspects of a relationship.

Everything involving the children; however (which will be the primary concern of mothers) is left up in the air. So again what do women get out of the deal? Men, who still generally make more income and have more assets then women get their income and assets protected through drawing up these agreements, but women get nothing tangible vis-a-vis the children.

"Garrett says male partners in unmarried relationships should be cautious before declaring paternity if they're not the biological father. Doing so makes the male partner liable for child support until the child turns 18, even if the relationship dissolves.

It's time to think about insurance when you're young and healthy. This is especially important for unmarried couples because they don't receive many of the legal protections afforded married couples. Unmarried partners who don't provide for each other in the event of death leave the survivor on his or her own. Remember that, in general, only spouses are eligible to receive Social Security survivor's benefits and pensions.

Garrett says life insurance can be the key to providing for your partner. If you die, it can replace lost income for your partner and family. The survivor's benefit isn't subject to the gift tax. Life insurance can also help offset inheritance and estate taxes.

Domestic benefits are becoming more common, but are far from universal. The U.S. Census Bureau says the number of unmarried couples living together increased 72% between 1990 and 2000. But in 2004, only 34% of employers offered some type of domestic partner benefits to opposite-sex partners. Unmarried partners generally aren't covered by inheritance tax laws. In most states, when an individual dies and the partner is listed as the estate's primary beneficiary, the assets are hit by an inheritance tax because the partner isn't the legal spouse. The maximum tax, amount subject to the tax and possible exemptions vary by state.

Accurate record keeping is basic to developing a sound financial plan and critical to unmarried couples, especially at tax time. Save all canceled checks and credit-card receipts, and key them to a log listing all payments in chronological order. This will help establish your eligibility for tax deductions. At some point, it may be simpler to get married--especially if children are involved.

But there's one major benefit to remaining unmarried: You don't have to assume your partner's debt, including credit cards issued by major banks such as JPMorgan Chase (nyse: JPM - news - people ), Wells Fargo (nyse: WFC - news - people ) and Bank of America (nyse: BAC - news - people ), and cards issued by major oil companies such as Exxon Mobil (nyse: XOM - news - people ) or Chevron (nyse: CVX - news - people ). That's not the way it works for married couples--when you tie the knot, you've married the other person's debt.

No matter how devoted you are to your partner, remember this basic point: If you're not careful, risk and liability will overwhelm love."

So basically this whole living-together and drawing up legal documents appears to be a variation of the classic New York City "Bait and Switch" scheme, at least as far as mothers are concerned. It functions BEST to protect the financial assets of men (and that's probably WHY men like it so much) as it's easier to work the system and not have to pay anything to a faithful partner, no matter the duration of the live in relationship.

As always women as mothers must be particularly careful NOT to be taken in by one of these situations without careful consideration especially vis-a-vis her children now or any she might have in the future.

As she's guaranteed nothing in this situation, nothing, not even custody of her children.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"So basically as I understand it what they are saying is draft a c0-parenting agreement BUT it probably won’t be honored in court anyway."

Just like it's currently happening with pre-nups.

"So again, what is the point of drawing up these things as they appear to guarantee nothing except the financial aspects of a relationship."

Perhaps because the financial aspects are the main source of disagreement when a couple splits?

"Everything involving the children; however (which will be the primary concern of mothers) is left up in the air. So again what do women get out of the deal? "

Perhaps they should have thought about it "before" agreeing to live together without being married.

"Men, who still generally make more income and have more assets then women get their income and assets protected through drawing up these agreements, but women get nothing tangible vis-a-vis the children."

Men make more and have more because they WORK more. Nothing bad about wanting to protect the work of his life from a possible gold-digger, even if she's a mother.

"So basically this whole living-together and drawing up legal documents appears to be a variation of the classic New York City "Bait and Switch" scheme, at least as far as mothers are concerned. It functions BEST to protect the financial assets of men (and that's probably WHY men like it so much) as it's easier to work the system and not have to pay anything to a faithful partner, no matter the duration of the live in relationship."

Just tell me: Why do men have to pay to a faithful woman, more than a woman has to pay to a faithful man?

"As always women as mothers must be particularly careful NOT to be taken in by one of these situations without careful consideration especially vis-a-vis her children now or any she might have in the future."

There is a simple solution for this: MARRIAGE.

"As she's guaranteed nothing in this situation, nothing, not even custody of her children."
Why should her? After all, she's choosing to live in an inherently unstable status-quo, and if she's old enough to make that choice, she's old enough to cope with the consequences if it fails.

NYMOM said...

"Perhaps because the financial aspects are the main source of disagreement when a couple splits?"

No. Custody of children is the main source of disagreements when couples split as today EVERY separation/divorce involving children is dragged into court. It's rare that couples agree on these things anymore.

But then again you could be right as before the 70s when child support, in theory, could be awarded but rarely was people rarely fought a custody war. But instead generally BOTH agreed that the mother should continue the role AFTER the marriage that she had BEFORE, which was as primary caretaker of the couple's children.

So perhaps today all these custody wars only APPEAR on the surface to be about children. When in fact they are really about control of financial assets which care, custody and control of children gives to the custodian.



"As she's guaranteed nothing in this situation, nothing, not even custody of her children."
Why should her? After all, she's choosing to live in an inherently unstable status-quo, and if she's old enough to make that choice, she's old enough to cope with the consequences if it fails."

Well since many more women then men usually WANT to be married, some women feel living together is a good way to get a foothold in a man's life to eventually negotiate a marriage.

AND many men encourage them to think this, so women will move in w/o marriage.

Just as many women get pregnant to try to negotiate a marriage proposal.

AND many men encourage women to believe this as well, so women will have sex w/o commitment.

As how many women would have sex with a man if he was truthful and told them he had no real interest in them, other then their boob job or something like that.

This is very common.

One of the reasons this blog exists is to show women, in their role as mothers, how changes in the various laws, rules, public polices and social mores could impact their lives in ways they weren't aware of.

It's not to argue with people, who disagree with every single thing I say everytime I post something.

I felt the article was significant since it appeared to falsely imply to women that NOT only finances could be protected in these living-in situations, but their children as well. AND after reviewing the article this did NOT appear to be the case.

So I thought it important to point out to mothers that there is NO PROTECTION for them whatsoever in these living in situations. Mothers could carelessly sign away financial rights they weren't even aware they had or might need in the future (since custody battles could cost upwards of $30,000 to $250,000 depending upon the situation).

They could do this THINKING they had an agreement that guaranteed them nothing else; but at least custody of their children (as the article implied women might just not be eligible to get child support, it never mentioned they might not even get custody of the children). This was an important point the article never mentioned.

Basically if their live in boyfriend gets tired of them, these mothers could wind up being homeless (if they signed away any rights to the house) and be forced to walk away with nothing including their children (even if they were a stay-at-home mother who never worked for years).

This article did NOT appear to give women this important factoid.

So I felt it important that this fact be stressed.

I didn't post the article to argue with someone over the how or the why of the whole thing. I don't care about every little factoid in the article, I'm just concerned with the overall tone of it and the overall false picture it painted to mothers.

Okay.

As my blog states this is a site for like-minded people to discuss ways to ASSIST women in their role as mothers. NOT to argue with people who don't appear very interested in them.

So you should probably keep looking and find another site more to your liking.

Anonymous said...

Of the living together couples I know, the man almost always owns the house, exclusively in his name. So the woman doesn't even have the nominal rights that a wife would have. Yet she is guaranteed nothing in terms of the children she bore either. It really does benefit men.

NYMOM said...

"Of the living together couples I know, the man almost always owns the house, exclusively in his name. So the woman doesn't even have the nominal rights that a wife would have. Yet she is guaranteed nothing in terms of the children she bore either. It really does benefit men."

Exactly.

That's why men support these arrangements. They benefit men and just because on the SURFACE they appear similar to a married couples' situation, women cannot allow themselves to be fooled.

A lot of women don't even REALIZE that if they are NOT married, as soon as that man wants them OUT of HIS HOUSE, they are homeless. It's that simple. Even getting their own clothing and jewelry is a matter of negotiation which could take MONTHS to settle and a number of women have told me that their live-in just threw their stuff in the garbage and gave their jewelry to the next girlfriend.

They left with the clothes on their back. One woman not even that, a blanket was what she was throwned out with, a blanket...AND if you have kids forget about it.

YOU might simply be tossed out in the street and who knows if or when you'll see your kids again since that is NOT a given, no. It's something you have to fight in court for and you need money to do that.

A woman I know who posts here sometimes, Birdie, her name is...just spent $30,000 last year on just getting her visitation reinstated -- $30,000 dollars.

You know I keep repeating that figure, all the time because I just can't believe it. It's that astounding. AND if she could NOT raise that money, who knows if she EVER would have seen her children again. Who knows.

Her ex-husband just up and for TWO YEARS refused to obey the court order allowing her to visit her kids. Just quit obeying the court order. So she has to raise $30,000 herself, ALL while still paying the ex child support btw, so she could go BACK to court and get the visitation enforced.

$30,000 for VISITATION, not even CUSTODY...

AND guess what happened to her ex for this mockery of justice and expense on the taxpayers of Tennessee to finance this charade: NOTHING...not a thing...

AND a six year old girl not seeing her mother for two years.

That article didn't even TOUCH on that possibility happening to mothers who lived with someone, didn't even touch on it. Just acted like the only problem they might have is not getting child support if the father's name wasn't on the birth certificate.

NEVER even mentioned that there was more at state for mothers then this.

That's why this blog has to analyze and explain those articles to mothers since they just don't understand how things have changed. I always hear them say, well he won't pay child support then, I can handle that I'll just get a job.

Well it's not JUST that, not by a long shot.

Anyway thanks for your comments. I generally get negative imput from people so it's nice to see that someone else recognizes what I'm trying to do here and the need for it.

I sometimes feel like a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness here.

So thanks.

Anonymous said...

We live in an environment where utmost care should be exercised when caring for our children. As Garrett said, legal advise is now essential. One example is when children go on a trip whether with school, family friends etc. obtaining a travel legal authorization form or a temporary guardianship form for other purposes is prudent for the protection of children. These can be obtained anywhere on the internet. Some examples include http://www.legalmessenger.com and http://www.lawdepot.com as Garrett recommended.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what to make of some of the stuff said here ( I kinda feel bashed on as a male).. I have a 2 year old from my girlfriend that got pregnant 2 weeks before we broke up, and ever since I been fighting for time with my daughter.. I came across this site when I did a search for "Mothers using kid as bait". I pay my x 10K a month and a 3 bedroom house to live in, I get my daughter 2 nights a week sleep over, and one full day..I been begging for one extra night with my daughter. I have done everything in my power to get a little more time with my girl, I have cut my work hours down, I broke up with my new girlfriend, I have even tried to be friends with her, im also taking parenting classes and I even said NO REDUCTION IN CHILD SUPPORT. what else can I do? why do people automatically think because someone is a women she can be a better parent? I cook for my daughter, I clean, I bath her, I watch her, I change her, I shop for her..I do everything a mother would do (if not more) how are good dads and good moms protected ? where can I go? what can I do? I have no chose but to take the legal route and spend easy over 30K (just the retainer was 20K) to get one extra day with my daughter.. I don't even care for the money. I just want more time with my little girl. confused-need help

NYMOM said...

Well isn't it obvious that this site is just for mothers????

If you feel 'bashed' you put yourself in that situation by posting on a site for mothers...

Anonymous said...

WOW.. I was trying to get some positive input from a women's point of view. Thanks for your team work comment and advice, isn't the point that parents should work together and communicate, what is this site good for if it's one sided.. shouldn't a good site have the bad and good of parents in general ? should i go to a father site and just bash women ? this is exactly my point.. you sound like my angry X - good luck NYMOM