All Communities > Debating Mums! > New laws give mistresses the same right as women in...

New laws give mistresses the same right as women in defacto relationships

Charlie - posted on 11/09/2009 ( 27 moms have responded )

11,203

111

Cheating husbands will be open to divorce-style litigation from their mistresses under new laws.

News Ltd says mistresses can now claim income maintenance, property and even superannuation funds under the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures), dubbed the "mistress laws", which were passed by the Senate last November and came into effect on Sunday.

The main objective is to remove same-sex discrimination from the Family Court system, but they have left the door open for a raft of de facto relationship claims.

The laws declare that de facto couples who satisfy basic criteria - such as being in the relationship for at least two years - will be treated in the Family Court in the same way as a married couple. It also applies to same-sex couples.

The laws will change the way property is divided by enabling the court to consider the "future needs" of partners, as it does for married couples.

Men or women who have a second relationship outside a marriage are now liable to legal action in the Family Court should the second partner decide he or she deserves income support or a share of assets. This is particularly the case if a child is involved.

As a result A CHEATING husband has paid his ex-lover more than $100,000 under Australia's new "mistress laws".

In the first known case of its kind in Australia, the Melbourne businessman was sued under changes to the Family Law Act which give rights to people in de facto relationships and same-sex marriages.

Legal experts say the case, prompted by the end of an affair of more than 20 years, will strike fear into the hearts of philanderers nationwide.

The woman, who has not been named for legal reasons, said not only did she deserve the money, but others should follow her lead.
A mistress wanting maintenance or a payout had to prove they had a long-term relationship, a sexual relationship, financial dependency, a commitment and a public recognition of the relationship.

Join Circle of Moms

27 Comments

View replies by

Dana - posted on 11/11/2009

11,264

Quoting Esther:

I think that's a terrible thing. I'm with Sharon all the way. I think any child that comes out of an affair is entitled to be supported by his/her father, but that's separate from alimony. I think a woman who knowingly gets involved with a married man is entitled to nada. Zilch. Not even a part of the husband's cut in any divorce from his wife because ultimately that just means it's money out of the pocket of any kids born from that marriage. If he's handed it over to his mistress, he can't hand it over to his kids. Sorry, I have no sympathy. My husband cheated on me too (before we were married). It was a one weekend stand, and I'm totally over it, and she is so inconsequential to me that over the years I have even forgotten her name (it wasn't anyone I knew) but I'll be damned if I was going to fork over any money to her. Screw that. I also think that the court procedings that would have to take place to get this settled would just drag out an already painful situation for the wife. I don't care what I did wrong in my marriage (and I did do things wrong) - I am human. My husband should have addressed those issues with me, not turned to another woman. And another woman should respect a man's marriage and tell him to come see her when he is officially divorced, but not a minute sooner. If you hook up with him anyway, tough shit.

Rock on, my sister!

Esther - posted on 11/11/2009

3,511

I think that's a terrible thing. I'm with Sharon all the way. I think any child that comes out of an affair is entitled to be supported by his/her father, but that's separate from alimony. I think a woman who knowingly gets involved with a married man is entitled to nada. Zilch. Not even a part of the husband's cut in any divorce from his wife because ultimately that just means it's money out of the pocket of any kids born from that marriage. If he's handed it over to his mistress, he can't hand it over to his kids. Sorry, I have no sympathy. My husband cheated on me too (before we were married). It was a one weekend stand, and I'm totally over it, and she is so inconsequential to me that over the years I have even forgotten her name (it wasn't anyone I knew) but I'll be damned if I was going to fork over any money to her. Screw that. I also think that the court procedings that would have to take place to get this settled would just drag out an already painful situation for the wife. I don't care what I did wrong in my marriage (and I did do things wrong) - I am human. My husband should have addressed those issues with me, not turned to another woman. And another woman should respect a man's marriage and tell him to come see her when he is officially divorced, but not a minute sooner. If you hook up with him anyway, tough shit.

Dana - posted on 11/11/2009

11,264

Men cheat and it's not ALWAYS the fault of the wife. Some men are just assholes, some women are too. I think the law sucks. Unless, like Laura said, the wife gets hers first and then the two cheating assholes can divvy up the rest.

On the plus side, maybe men will think twice about having a mistress.

Disclaimer~ this statement isn't driven by some personal experience, I just think it's a stupid law.

Erin - posted on 11/11/2009

6,569

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, provided there is a genuine definition of what constitutes an 'affair' and a 'mistress', and it can't apply to the mole Jimmy picked up while on a week away for work. The 'two year rule' should go a long way towards solving that problem. The idea that the wife would lose-out financially is difficult, but, as Amie said, if her husband has been seeing someone else for TWO WHOLE YEARS and she hasn't done anything about it, then it's kind of hard for me to be sympathetic.

Diana - posted on 11/10/2009

936

I think that's a better system of doing things...Unless a child is formally adopted by a stepfather (as my brother did with my niece). In that case, I don't think the system should continue to make a bio dad pay child support.

And in practice, our child support system stinks, too. It's often difficult to get the man into court to pay up, and the courts don't always require enough from the dad.

Jodi - posted on 11/10/2009

20,670

Quoting Diana:

It's that way here, too. If there is a question of legitimacy the court will order a DNA test, but if that DNA test says that the child in question does indeed belong to the man in question, then he has to pay child support unless he signs away his parental rights.

Men here cannot decide to sign away their rights and get out of child support. Child support is totally separate from custody and rights :). In actual fact, a father who chooses to have nothing to do with his child will pay more, because when a father has their child 2 nights a fortnight (alternate weekends), he automatically receives pretty much a 50% reduction in his child support in recognition of the fact that he has expenses he pays for this children too. In theory it's a good idea, in practice, my ex pays for shit when he has his son. Flawed system.

Jodi - posted on 11/10/2009

20,670

Quoting Laura:

I don't know who knows this, so I will fill you all in...Here, ALL children, regardless of how they came to be, receive a specific percentage of their non-custodial parent. This case it moot here...did they not used to give child support to children of non-married couples in Australia? I think the article is more about "spousal support" than child support.

Laura, you are absolutely right, all children are entitled to child support, regardless of the marital status of the parents. HOWEVER, I'll be honest, our child support system is totally flawed. I wouldn't call $165 a month from my ex, which they can't even enforce, a shitload of money......

This law, is, indeed, a form of spousal support, not child support.

Diana - posted on 11/10/2009

936

It's that way here, too. If there is a question of legitimacy the court will order a DNA test, but if that DNA test says that the child in question does indeed belong to the man in question, then he has to pay child support unless he signs away his parental rights.

Sara - posted on 11/10/2009

9,313

Is there room in Canada for one more family? Where's a good place to live? How can I become a citizen? :)

Isobel - posted on 11/10/2009

9,849

I don't know who knows this, so I will fill you all in...Here, ALL children, regardless of how they came to be, receive a specific percentage of their non-custodial parent. This case it moot here...did they not used to give child support to children of non-married couples in Australia? I think the article is more about "spousal support" than child support.

Amie - posted on 11/09/2009

6,596

I'm sure people will try. I'm sure there are some loopholes that will need to be closed. I can't say much as I don't have the exact wording.

But with the onus being the mistress (whether male or female) has to prove they have had a relationship lasting at least 2 years I'd say that's a good beginning to it not being abused. At the very least a lot may try but without the proper proof it won't go far.

Diana - posted on 11/09/2009

936

No, I noticed it...I'm just talking specifically about the potential of abuse of this law.As I noted, I think that when there's a child in question or shared assets there should be no question about whether the mistress is entitled to money-she absolutely is. Otherwise I say no, she's not. (Or he. Whichever is the case-the law doesn't specify gender, although I just noticed that I have been in my posts.)

Amie - posted on 11/09/2009

6,596

**This is particularly the case if a child is involved.**

I think a lot of you seemed to miss this sentence. If not then I don't know what to say. While it can happen it is more likely to happen if children are involved. Whether that child is because of an affair or not I'm not going to make it's life harder by my own issues. If that means I get 1/3 less of the assets so be it. It's going to help a child, a child that is a sibling to my own children. I'd rather my children see me be the bigger person and that monetary issues mean nothing in the face of children, no matter how that child came about.

Also they have to have proof and have been together at least 2 years. This is not stepping out the house once in awhile to grab some tail. This is setting up a home and life with someone else. Again I will repeat.. if you didn't notice that, you are just as much to blame.

Diana - posted on 11/09/2009

936

Yeah, but shouldn't the wife get the cash first?

Ava - posted on 11/09/2009

307

Maybe women will take advantage of it, but I think as long as there is sufficient documentation of their relationship / affair, I like the idea. I think it helps deter men from cheating on their wives in a round-about way. Because I gaurantee that 'mistress' divorce would probably lead to a real divorce as well (a lot of missing money and court dates would raise any woman's suspicions, and I'm sure no sensible woman would stand for that behavior), meaning he'd be left with about a third of his own cash or less. Haha.

Diana - posted on 11/09/2009

936

Rarely do I think that a law aimed at equalizing the sexes makes things worse-but this is just awful. The cheater deserves the punishment-but suddenly the family will also be punished by not only having money taken away but by having their name dragged though a court case. There will be no question of keeping things personal if a particularly vindictive woman decides deserves monetary compensation after the break up. If there's a child involved then there should be no question-but if not, and there was no consolidation of assets or joint property between the two people, then they should just plain and simply break up.

Jodi - posted on 11/09/2009

20,670

I agree with Laura, that half of the marital assets should come out of the equation first. How PISSED would you be if your husband had a mistress claim against him.

However, having said that, from what I gather of the new laws, the mistress does actually have to prove that she relied on him to some degree. For instance, if he lived in one city, and travelled regularly to another, and paid for her apartment so they could be together when he was there, etc, then she is the type of mistress who is entitled. On the other hand, if a mistress is someone you just visit and have sex with once every two months for 2 years, there is no way of proving a relationship of reliance, etc. There really are checks and balances to ensure that there is a true relationship there before the courts can award that the mistress is entitled to a settlement of some sort. And really, if you don't know your husband is off sharing it with another woman for 2 years, including financially forking out in some way, there is something REALLY wrong.

I think this law will go through many tests before it finds its true targets. bUt it does have its merits.

Remember, it will also work the other way around!! It's not just mistresses. The toy boys could also now have to be paid by the cougars :)

Isobel - posted on 11/09/2009

9,849

Hmmm, my ex cheated because he was, is, and always will be a cheater. While at first I wanted to hate her, in the end it came down to the simple fact that she didn't know me, she believed whatever lies that loser spewed out about me, she made no promises to me. My husband did. It was his job to remain faithful, not hers. Here's my solution to the money issue (cause I do agree with Sharon on that one)...Take my half of the marital assets out of the equation first. Then let her sue the asshole for whatever's left. :)

Charlie - posted on 11/09/2009

11,203

111

I kind of agree with both of you in the way that i believe each circumstance of cheating is different and not all done for the same reason .
I can see where cheating evolves out of the failure of a relationship and that is where ( correct me if i am wrong ) Amie is coming from and people should own up to that and take responsibility .

THEN i also see where Sharon is coming from men ( not all ) but some are weak and sometimes all it takes is a hot , young thing to bat her lashes and and a suggestive oops i brushed past your groin to get a guy excited , it shouldn't happen but it does and as i read on young mums with a mother who is dealing with her cheating husband , there are woman who prey on married men .
I actually had a friends confess to me that she didn't know why but she couldn't help but have the hots for married and coupled men which made me see her a little differently .

Amie - posted on 11/09/2009

6,596

Like working out of town? Ya that's how my ex managed to father another daughter in between our two. I still found out. I still left. I still don't need anything from him.

I do agree both are guilty, especially since the precedent has been set that they need to be together at least two years. That's a long friggin time! But if you haven't been able to figure it out within two years, it's your fault just as much theirs.

Sharon - posted on 11/09/2009

11,585

I disagree. If she knows he's married then she is committing a crime. And I've heard some stories about very clever men and job situations that make it impossible for a wife to know. Nope, guilty parties - husband and slut should be punished.

Amie - posted on 11/09/2009

6,596

I don't agree Sharon. The only way a mistress is a major influence in a ruined relationship is if a person is deluded enough to not recognize and accept that things were wrong long before that. It's just the last step. It's nowhere near the first.

Sharon - posted on 11/09/2009

11,585

I want to point out I don't feel much rage at all when thinking about my husband cheating..... just a small urge to cause lots of pain...

Sharon - posted on 11/09/2009

11,585

I'm sorry but what about protecting the wife?? Honestly? I feel this murderous rage build up when I think of some woman getting MY assets after umpteen years of marriage and all the crap we've gone through. She gets fucked on the side and has no responsibility and is a MAJOR contributor to the failure of the marriage and gets rewarded for it???

I don't think so.

Here... some states allow you to sue the mistress!

Amie - posted on 11/09/2009

6,596

I don't see it as a bad thing. If their gonna cheat they should be taken to court. If it means they end up bankrupt instead of just getting by having to pay two alimony payments and possibly two child support checks GOOD. Bastards.

It's not such a happy family if either or is cheating anyway. If it was there would be no reason to cheat. I've been there. It takes two, I know what I did wrong as much as I know what my partner did wrong. I have no qualms about owning up to my failing relationship with my oldest two's father.

That being said I never did go after him for any money in the first or last place. I really don't need it and didn't care. Money isn't everything. With some it is. It's obvious what ones those are, if the men are still stupid enough to be with them it's their problem. Keep your pecker in your pants and get a divorce. Then start screwing around.

Charlie - posted on 11/09/2009

11,203

111

I feel bad for families who have to go through this ( not the cheater ! ) it would be horrible BUUUT on the other hand maybe it will deter at least a few people from having affairs (hopefully).

?? - posted on 11/09/2009

4,974

Wow... there's gonna be some greedy bitches taking advantage of that, and just as many 'happy families' broken up because of that too. I feel bad for the children of either relationship...

Cheaters suck !