Are prenuptial agreements acceptable where one's children need protecting?

[LilyM]

otjm:

Better you than me - I just practiced in divorce court. Trusts were out of my wheelhouse.

I loathed divorce court.

We could’t simply announce, “Your honor, you would be nuts to let either of these monsters take care of the children!” . . .

My criminals were much nicer people . . .

Now it’s almost all bankruptcy, some business law, and the occasional simplple trust or guardianship coming in from the church or KofC.

If you practiced in my state, I’d want you for my probate attorney. I had not thought of the scenario you describe.

thanks. I am a professional paranoid . . .

As a family lawyer, I am often tempted to say the same…
.

Mind you, I work with a bunch of criminal lawyers, and in their shoes would be even more likely to say “y’know what Your Honour? Just lock 'em all up! They’re guilty as sin!”

 

[AdamP88]

I would be on the side of saying that the idea of a pre-nup is somewhat counter to the idea of Catholic marriage.

In Ireland anyway, such documents are not generally legally binding in any substantial way and have been disregarded by courts on a number of occasions.

 

[dochawk]

Mind you, I work with a bunch of criminal lawyers,

No, we don’t have any criminal lawyers around here. They’ve all been acquitted . . .


Actually, we need to be far more specific than “the” criminal attorney. We had two television bankruptcy attorneys go to prison not far apart, that gal that poisoned her husband, and, err, well, plenty of them . . .

I actually had two criminal cases, decades ago, that actually didn’t do it. To the point I could show it. I was going to do the trials for free, as they were the last notches I needed to get on the referral panel. Oddly, they were scheduled for the same calendar (a stack)–andt he ratfink DA dropped both cases!

In one, he finally talked to his witness that was going to prove my client lived there (and found out that it was his witness, not my client, who lived there at the time, having taken his room), and in the other the pusher who had attacked my client and had hima arrested for battery for defending himself OD’d on his own product without having the decency to wait until the jury was empaneled . . .

 

[jeannetherese]

I would think that, as a marriage is joining two families, that assets would likely be equally distributed among the children which constitute the combined family.
In my mind, marrying a person with children is a package deal.

 

[otjm]

I would think that, as a marriage is joining two families, that assets would likely be equally distributed among the children which constitute the combined family.
In my mind, marrying a person with children is a package deal.

When the children are adults, matters are a bit different. Both were well into their 60’s, and my stepdad had inherited from his wife (who inherited from her parents) and he was “better off”; not rich, but he had a pension which was comfortable and I don’t think he ever tapped into the inheritance. None of us wanted what we felt was due his kids (and they did not seem to mind… :crazy_face. this was not some case where the kids were still in grade or high school.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

But does establishing a legal framework, to be more specific, the kind of framework described here, constitute “conditioning consent”? This only addresses the temporal situation, not the spiritual or sacramental one. I make no assertion here that a pre-nup in any way vitiates the intent of permanence and sacramental indissolubility.

It depends upon the text of the prenuptial agreement itself. On the questionnaire we send to someone seeking an annulment one of the first questions is, “did you sign a prenuptial agreement?” And if so, examining the document often brings compelling evidence to the case.

As I mentioned before, I have seen a couple that DID NOT conditional matrimonial consent, but most of them do.

I would be very surprised if this question were NOT asked.

For purposes of CAF - prenuptial agreements are almost always a bad idea; and if someone believes they have a specific case that warrants one they should speak to their lawyer, and, also their Tribunal.

Not sure I would go with the “almost always” part, but I agree, it would be a good thing to run it by the tribunal, to ask “would the nature of this agreement, which exists only to preserve property rights, rise to the level of invalidating the marriage?”.

Another thing that might be written into the pre-nup, is that “this agreement will in no way be admissible as evidence for validity or invalidity of a sacramental marriage in the Roman Catholic Church”.

I have also thought that, in a roundabout, ironic way, a pre-nup could also strengthen a marriage — a spouse who would have to face receiving less in the divorce settlement, than they otherwise would receive, might have more incentive to stick with the marriage. (That presumes that it is the “disadvantaged” partner who would be more likely to want a divorce, which might or might not be true.)

I don’t know. I can say, though, that many a prospective Catholic spouse, if presented with a pre-nup and asked to agree to it, would be mortally insulted and that would probably be the end of any marriage considerations. It wouldn’t bother me in the least — I would greatly admire a woman who wanted to ensure the interests of her children, and would understand entirely why she wanted such an agreement — but as in so many things Catholic, I have an unusually thick skin and pretty much nothing fazes me. I’ve stuck with Catholicism for 45 years in the face of more insults and unfairness than I can even fathom — at the hands of those who are supposed to be my fellow churchmen and churchwomen! — “wheat and tares”, they never tire of saying — and in all honesty, I’m beyond caring about it. I have to save my soul, and there is no other way to do that, than to accept with assent of mind and heart, and to adhere to each and every one of the Church’s teachings, and never to leave her. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!