Property rights before marriage remain the property of the owner after divorce

These new laws certainly stirred up some of the young ladies that I mix with in education circles; there were few complainants from a male perspective. In public classes we had some of them expressing their distaste and contempt for the law and the law-makers.

On the simple basis of how it is stated here I can see a few potential problems with it. Perhaps it should also be established that some kind of progressive precedent be regarded on a scale of the length of time spent together. For example, a sliding scale dividend of joint equity in property value increases from the time of marriage to the time of divorce and settlement, property improvement factors that are contributed by both parties should be equitably distributed as well etc.

The thing is that before the 80s private property was not permissive, so this a relatively inexperienced society when it comes to property settlement distribution. In today's China, it appears to be quite common that many parents dictate to their daughters that the male of the union must be able to provide a house and in some cases even a car. Although it is a good ideal, this demand as a prerequisite to marriage indicates a grossly materialistic society. Marriage has become a financial decision for many of them. I think think this is grossly unfair for a marriage union that should b based based on love and co-dependence between each other. I have heard many a young lady state that in their view if he or his family has no house to provide then there will be no marriage. On the converse though, I have met some absolutely amazing young ladies that require nothing but a true heart and a faithful commitment to a better future.

There are many variables when it comes to successful relationships and this is just one of them. One young man was terribly distressed about his future because he stated that neither he nor his family had the financial means to provide a house. He had little hope and as a result would not even consider any romance. Added to that, this was a very fine young man with great moral beliefs. I often advise young guys to build their future careers and don't worry about the pressures of being forced to provide. At the end of the day they can usually father a child well into their forties and beyond, so they need not fear a dominant demanding female or the pressures of her family. In my books, if she loves him she will accept him for who he is and be attracted to him for his moral values and heart attitudes, not for his bankroll.

One leading factor in this kind of law is that it sorts the sheep from the goats in terms of who really is marrying for love and who is marrying to get something. In my culture many couples now come into a marriage with prenuptial agreements and that is fine in an age where more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. It certainly has the means to sort out the "gold diggers" from those with a view to work together towards a better future.

Now here is one for controversy; I used to hold to the view that if a partner commits the act of adultery they sacrifice by law the rights to the marital estate. Pretty hard to prove and subject to corruption though. I came to this somewhat harsh conclusion as a result of the many marriages that ended on the rocks in a particular way.

First you have to understand that the leading cause of death for 25 to 45 year old males in Australia was by suicide. Many times the scenario existed whereby they also tragically took their kids with them. This was usually due to the injustices and inequitable laws through the family courts. Men were treated like nothing but mere pay packets. Many a man worked in remote locations to earn a higher income for the family's future. While they were away the cat would play. Eventually, many a woman decided she didn't need him as the court could settle in her favour. As soon as he got angry -- who wouldn't -- a court "restraining" order was written up banning him from coming anywhere near the house or the kids. Sometimes the woman had contributed little or nothing financially and it was frequently a person known to both of them who had run off with his missus whist he was working away.

Then the courts enforced maintenance orders like this: if one child maintenance was 18% before tax, two kids was 28% before tax, three was 34% before tax etc. The money was payable directly to her not the kids. She sometimes had shacked up in the family home with her new partner - the home he was banned from entering or going near - the home perhaps he had bought before she married him. Also she frequently took wonderful overseas holidays and lived it up.

So let's work on three kids shall we.

Here is a calculation.

100,00 a year income is the principle; minus 34% before tax; minus 42% tax from the principle = 76% from the principle. That left only 26% for the man. Then in some cases she had snared a guy who had a nice income as well. So she got the house, the kids, the family car, plus government allowances for the kids, plus 34k tax free and he was left with 26k to survive on. And then she frequently had the income of the new boyfriend as well. That was a pretty poor and inequitable state and many guys found it too much to bear and suicide was their choice in desperation for a system that was inequitable. It was not too bad really with 26k but the anguish of heart and soul was a deep wound and hard to bear. But look at this, on 50k he has 12k to survive, on 25k he has 6k, any less and that man is destitute and homeless - hence the suicide rate. What about if he wants to start a new life. he had to pay child maintenance to the ex-wife until the child or children reached 18-25 yrs, even if a 16yr old left school and had a full-time job. There was no consideration if he had a second child to a new marriage as well. For some guys, this was like a living hell and torment of soul was the result.

That kind of scenario was how I came to the conclusion that the adulterer should pay because I knew of countless guys who faced that kind of scenario. They were not bad guys either some of them. I also though mates and associates had met or known guys who had taken the ultimately selfish road to suicide.

The law is never perfect in marriage breakdowns, there will always be some kind of inequity. It is a very difficult situation to apply one law to cater for many possible variables. The Chinese family law in this case will not be perfect either but at least they are trying to stem the divorce rate instead of encouraging it like some laws do.