People have done what your describing here and have had better success with the courts. The way its been done is to never call the relationship marriage in the memorialization (ie contract).
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Private marriage contracts
- Thread starter Paulsen
- Start date
People have done what your describing here and have had better success with the courts. The way its been done is to never call the relationship marriage in the memorialization (ie contract).
I've done a little bit of looking into this in the past, and found out that there is something called a Living Together Agreement, which is essentially exactly that.
In its Marvin case decision, the court announced what were to become the common legal principles governing the right of unmarried couples to make contracts. First, the court ruled that marital property laws do not apply to couples who are not legally married. Then, the court recognized that unmarried couples are here to stay. Finally, the court declared four contract principles:
- Unmarried couples may make written contracts.
- Unmarried couples may make oral contracts.
- If a couple hasn't made a written or oral contract, the court may examine the couple's actions to decide whether an "implied" contract exists.
- If a judge can't find an implied contract, she may presume that "the parties intend to deal fairly with each other" and find one partner indebted to the other by invoking well-established legal doctrines of equity and fairness.
They say to be the change you want to see in the world. It is one thing to complain that existing family law and state marriage licenses are unbiblical and biased against men (to say nothing of their incompatibility with polygamy), but it is another thing entirely to use the tools at hand to create a new structure that more closely approximates what a biblical marriage looks like. It appears that such tools are available, but are largely sitting idle.
I'm not really aware of anyone promoting doing this kind of thing, but it seems like it would be an easier sell to modern Christians (relative to polygamy) who are libertarian in outlook and who may have become disilllusioned with state marriage in the wake of decisions like Obergfell.
I'm not really aware of anyone promoting doing this kind of thing, but it seems like it would be an easier sell to modern Christians (relative to polygamy) who are libertarian in outlook and who may have become disilllusioned with state marriage in the wake of decisions like Obergfell.
@RonHiggins and I are planning to discuss this at the summer retreat, including presenting some sample or form documents suitable for plural families. @Verifyveritas76 has also done some interesting research into the use of trusts that we hope to incorporate as well. Stay tuned.
Important Note: No prenup or 'living together agreement' can predetermine child custody. The courts in every state have "the child's best interest" (as interpreted by the civil/secular regime, as interpreted by a host of expensive psychologists, counselors, financial analysts, and social workers) as the standard for making those decisions. We can make agreements to handle the accumulation and disposition of material wealth, but that's about it.
Important Note: No prenup or 'living together agreement' can predetermine child custody. The courts in every state have "the child's best interest" (as interpreted by the civil/secular regime, as interpreted by a host of expensive psychologists, counselors, financial analysts, and social workers) as the standard for making those decisions. We can make agreements to handle the accumulation and disposition of material wealth, but that's about it.
I think there might already be some discussion on this topic.
@Eristhophanes gave his thoughts here
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/for...t-of-mental-jousting.12172/page-3#post-142354
and then went into much greater detail on his blog... NSFW warning; his blog is probably best not viewed at work.
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/strategy-for-men-of-the-west-polygyny/
Also interesting are the subsequent comments discussing how it might not work out in practice as well as one might hope.
@Eristhophanes gave his thoughts here
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/for...t-of-mental-jousting.12172/page-3#post-142354
and then went into much greater detail on his blog... NSFW warning; his blog is probably best not viewed at work.
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/strategy-for-men-of-the-west-polygyny/
Also interesting are the subsequent comments discussing how it might not work out in practice as well as one might hope.
Yeah, Eristophanes makes a lot of conclusory statements that are untestable, and I agree with all the concerns that were raised in the comments to his diatribe. And his "you can tell it works because there aren't any court records" sounds suspiciously like the classic paranoia Catch-22 ("the fact that I don't have any evidence that 'they' are out to get me just shows how good they are at staying undercover"). If we're going to have a conversation in which propositions are advanced without evidence (or specifically in spite of a complete lack of evidence) we can claim pretty much whatever we want.
That will be true for just about any approach attempting to avoid the pitfalls of the modern legal system with it comes to divorce and child support. We don't have a lot of legal precedent to go on.
So a co-habitation agreement is kind of like legally structuring your marriage as roommates renting a house. Has anyone investigated legally structuring as an intentional community (i.e. commune, monastery, etc)?
In some ways it is a natural fit (non-related, unmarried adult Christians living together and doing ministry). It would could make things go easier upon dissolution of the relationship with respect to both in property disposition and child support (which has been turned into de facto alimony in some states). Especially if it involves a vow of poverty.
Again, you can make whatever agreement you want regarding child custody and support, and it simply won't matter to the court. The court is always free to find what it determines to be 'the best interest of the child', agreements of the parents back when they were in a good mood be damned.
That also goes for any vow of poverty. If your vow of poverty wasn't preceded by a vow of chastity, you're making a big mistake, because if the judge awards custody of your children to your baby mama, he will order you to pay whatever he determines to be appropriate child support and order you to get a job if you have to to pay it.
So back to the first point: We don't have a lot of legal precedent that supports novel, counter-cultural theories about how we'd like things to be. We do have legal precedent that tells us how the courts evaluate and determine these issues under the existing law-order.
If one of you guys wants to be a test case, go for it, but be sure you can afford the skilled and experienced legal representation you're going to need to take it all the way. Otherwise suss out the legal environment in your jurisdiction and plan and act accordingly.
Not giving anybody legal advice; submitted for educational purposes only.
That also goes for any vow of poverty. If your vow of poverty wasn't preceded by a vow of chastity, you're making a big mistake, because if the judge awards custody of your children to your baby mama, he will order you to pay whatever he determines to be appropriate child support and order you to get a job if you have to to pay it.
So back to the first point: We don't have a lot of legal precedent that supports novel, counter-cultural theories about how we'd like things to be. We do have legal precedent that tells us how the courts evaluate and determine these issues under the existing law-order.
If one of you guys wants to be a test case, go for it, but be sure you can afford the skilled and experienced legal representation you're going to need to take it all the way. Otherwise suss out the legal environment in your jurisdiction and plan and act accordingly.
Not giving anybody legal advice; submitted for educational purposes only.
I have copious amounts of deeply personal experience with the family courts and child support in particular. There is no getting around these people, mostly because they're interested in outcomes not processes.
All of these schemes and plans are processes that assume the system will constrain itself by its own rules. It won't. It cares nothing for it's rules. It cares only for its desired result of as many children raised by single mothers as possible. Nothing else matters.
I read a story recently about a man whose ex-wife forged his signature in order to use their frozen embryos and then sued him for child support. He had to pay. There is no justice for fathers. Assume you will bear the weight of the state.
All of these schemes and plans are processes that assume the system will constrain itself by its own rules. It won't. It cares nothing for it's rules. It cares only for its desired result of as many children raised by single mothers as possible. Nothing else matters.
I read a story recently about a man whose ex-wife forged his signature in order to use their frozen embryos and then sued him for child support. He had to pay. There is no justice for fathers. Assume you will bear the weight of the state.
I'm not a lawyer. The reader should assume everything I and everyone else here says is spectacularly bad advice. This are simply my uneducated observations.
Ignoring child support, it should still work very well on the property thing. Same for alimony too, which is often based on ones standard of living. The point of any strategy discussed here is to make what will happen predictable before hand and head off disputes and drama because the outcome is just and equitable.
You are correct, there is nothing you can do to get out of child support. Nor am I saying that you should, you have a kid to support. But I don't believe in fatalism and or that its completely out of our hands. Not every man gets the shaft. There are cases of men being awarded full custody and wives being ordered to pay alimony and child support. Not saying those aren't rare; but not every single divorce ends up with the man in prison after a judge assigned impossible amounts of child support. If we're to take a fatalistic view point then sign me up for MGTOW.
There is some precedent here for what I'm talking about. If you only receive a small stipend from the commune and have no recent outside work history you don't have much capacity to get high paying work and the adjudicated amount shouldn't be super high. From what I've seen of reports on these sorts of cases they'll often assign an amount based on an assumed earning capacity near minimum wage.
Which, btw, is still enough to feed, cloth and house a kid. But it won't be much incentive for her to torch the relationship and ruin the kid's life; which is what really matters here. Especially when there won't be any big windfall from splitting marital property.
Now there are ways this would backfire. Like if you recently quit work and took a vow in order to avoid child support. That won't work. And it has to be a legal legitimate community or they'll find for a higher amount based on the assets you control. Attempts to hide assets will not work.
Ignoring child support, it should still work very well on the property thing. Same for alimony too, which is often based on ones standard of living. The point of any strategy discussed here is to make what will happen predictable before hand and head off disputes and drama because the outcome is just and equitable.
You are correct, there is nothing you can do to get out of child support. Nor am I saying that you should, you have a kid to support. But I don't believe in fatalism and or that its completely out of our hands. Not every man gets the shaft. There are cases of men being awarded full custody and wives being ordered to pay alimony and child support. Not saying those aren't rare; but not every single divorce ends up with the man in prison after a judge assigned impossible amounts of child support. If we're to take a fatalistic view point then sign me up for MGTOW.
There is some precedent here for what I'm talking about. If you only receive a small stipend from the commune and have no recent outside work history you don't have much capacity to get high paying work and the adjudicated amount shouldn't be super high. From what I've seen of reports on these sorts of cases they'll often assign an amount based on an assumed earning capacity near minimum wage.
Which, btw, is still enough to feed, cloth and house a kid. But it won't be much incentive for her to torch the relationship and ruin the kid's life; which is what really matters here. Especially when there won't be any big windfall from splitting marital property.
Now there are ways this would backfire. Like if you recently quit work and took a vow in order to avoid child support. That won't work. And it has to be a legal legitimate community or they'll find for a higher amount based on the assets you control. Attempts to hide assets will not work.
So what you’re saying is if you don’t have skills or education and don’t earn much and can’t be expected to earn much then there won’t be much to fight about. I guess that’s a strategy....
Nobody’s being fatalistic; at least I’m not. It just is what it is.
Nobody’s being fatalistic; at least I’m not. It just is what it is.
In today's economy skills and education have little correlation to earning power.
Earn to what end? Communes still have to be economically successful. It is just the earning power of the monk goes towards things other than personal enrichment.
I agree that education has little correlation to earning power in today's economy. Skills on the other hand, if possess by a man with motivation and a "old school" work ethnic is now the key to economic success. I know plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and masons who far out earn many poor saps with bachelor and master degrees and a mountain of student loan debt. It depends directly on the drive of the man. There are certain skills that will always be in demand and even some of the more esoteric "lost arts" are having a resurgence due to the demand for quality hand made goods. Theses aid a man in being more self sufficient and when you don't have to pay a plumber $260 to show up at your house to switch out a leaky valve or an electrician $350 to install a 30 amp breaker and run one line and plug for a clothes dryer your skills actually save you money.
I for one am very interested in the trust idea not so much as for protecting what I have (a bonus) but as a way to have a system to provide for my wife/wives if it happens, children and grandchildren in a way that minimalizes possible in-fighting and familial strain should something happen to me. If there's a private marriage contract that may possibly help, to me, its something worth looking into. When it comes child support or alimony the best way to protect your self from it is to be diligent an use some discernment in finding a wife and not just adding to your household simply because you can or want to. Or if its something that your overly concerned about reevaluate your circumstances, motivations and convictions. If you find that the reason it concerns you is because you are incapable of fully trusting a woman or you question your own leadership abilities in the slightest then don't add to your house. Problem solved.
Last edited:
Yes and no. It greatly depends on what your skill-set is, the economy and your location. I know electricians and carpenters who couldn't get work despite working as hard as any because of the economic and labor situation. I know engineers and scientists who couldn't get work because of widespread discrimination in their fields. And then if they seek work outside their industry they have trouble getting employment because they're considered overqualified. 'Just work hard' isn't a silver bullet for everyones economic problem.
Trusts are a very valuable tool and highly recommended; especially if you own any significant amount of assets. Though I'm not quite sure how they are applicable in this situation. Would love to hear more on that.
I've known men who did as you say and were duped, or whose wife underwent a radical personality change late in life or who's wife simply just got bored.
50% of all marriages fail. That's a coin flip. Anyone looking to get married ought be greatly concerned about that.
I’ll just say on the topic of a trust, If you own nothing, and steward everything, there’s nothing for her to take and everything to provide for the beneficiaries. Her involvement becomes irrelevant to the money issue and her bread is buttered helping to steward the Rez rather than leaving with half of nothing.
So back to private marriage contracts. Based on my experience living in a multi-family community for 10 years, and what I've seen of the idea of community being kicked around for the past four years here at BF, I'd say we need to focus on getting our separate households sorted out first. From my pov that looks like a Cohabitation Agreement to lay out the operational ground rules and a Trust Agreement to accumulate wealth.
Even a guy without much accumulated capital can set up a trust that would be funded with life insurance proceeds and start setting something aside by paying insurance premiums. I'll be working with @Verifyveritas76 and @RonHiggins between now and August, and we will have something to roll out at the retreat.
Even a guy without much accumulated capital can set up a trust that would be funded with life insurance proceeds and start setting something aside by paying insurance premiums. I'll be working with @Verifyveritas76 and @RonHiggins between now and August, and we will have something to roll out at the retreat.
I agree that this may often be the courts approach, but only if they have jurisdiction. I have yet to see the court that has jurisdiction over children not registered with the state (SS# and birth certificate). Or anyone who is on record with the state as belonging to a private international entity.
If this sounds like gibberish feel free to PM me as discussions on private international contracts and entities are best conducted privately (ha).
I dont have a huge amount of assets, but I have a decent amount of life insurance and a trust for my children, in the event the Mrs. and I pass simultaneously. I named 4 potential executors to that children's trust, but the lawyer said not to take it too, too seriously because the court would appoint someone else if they deemed my choices to be inappropriate. I think he was speaking from years of court experience. Just my two pennies.
@Paulsen, have you seen any recorded opinion in which a court says it does not have jurisdiction over a child it would otherwise have personal jurisdiction over because either that child does not have a birth certificate (SSN is irrelevant) or because that child "belongs" to a private international entity?
Our advice at the retreat will be structured in terms of predictable results based on traditional legal theories. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (law in every state but Massachusetts) determines personal jurisdiction in child custody cases, so we'll start there.
Our advice at the retreat will be structured in terms of predictable results based on traditional legal theories. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (law in every state but Massachusetts) determines personal jurisdiction in child custody cases, so we'll start there.