Fact check: Are de facto relationships more unstable than marriages?

Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews claims de facto relationships are less stable than marriages.

“The data shows there is a higher incidence of de facto relationships breaking up,” Mr Andrews told News Corp Australia.

Mr Andrews is currently overseeing the trial of a program that gives counselling vouchers to married and de facto couples, in an attempt to help curb separation rates.

ABC Fact Check takes a look at the success and failure of marriage and de facto partnerships.

more…

um

Don’t people choose de facto so they get out of the relationship easily, if their partner is unsuitable?

Id would say they are not more unstable, people can choose to leave without the chains of marriage

I don’t think defacto relationships are any easier to get out of. There’s still a lot of shared paperwork and often children involved as well.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Id would say they are not more unstable, people can choose to leave without the chains of marriage

there is very little difference legally between a defacto relationship and a recognized civil union/marriage.

Should be obvious. If you are uncertain about someone, you are less likely to marry them.

The converse (that marriage will make a relationship more stable) does not apply, of course.

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think defacto relationships are any easier to get out of. There’s still a lot of shared paperwork and often children involved as well.

but there is less paperwork than marriages

yes, children can be involved

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think defacto relationships are any easier to get out of. There’s still a lot of shared paperwork and often children involved as well.

And I think in law after a certain time (2 years? might be less), the chains are the same as a formal marriage anyway.

buffy said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think defacto relationships are any easier to get out of. There’s still a lot of shared paperwork and often children involved as well.

And I think in law after a certain time (2 years? might be less), the chains are the same as a formal marriage anyway.

half a decade is the law.

<>half a decade is the law.<<

I think it’s less than that, by quite a bit. I don’t know for sure.

Dropbear said:

buffy said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think defacto relationships are any easier to get out of. There’s still a lot of shared paperwork and often children involved as well.

And I think in law after a certain time (2 years? might be less), the chains are the same as a formal marriage anyway.

half a decade is the law.

You get less for manslaughter.

CrazyNeutrino said:

but there is less paperwork than marriages

yes, children can be involved

Is there? I have a mortgage with both mine and Mr Mutant’s names on it, we have a joint bank account… Our names are on all our paperwork and would take a lot of effort to change if we broke up. Just because we’re not married and have different last names doesn’t mean it would be any easier to get all that changed.

And soon there will be a child involved.

so is de facto easier to get out of or is it about the same?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think defacto relationships are any easier to get out of. There’s still a lot of shared paperwork and often children involved as well.

but there is less paperwork than marriages

yes, children can be involved

there is very little paper work involved in a marriage itself…

the tricky bits are the shared assets and kiddlewinks

Divine Angel said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

but there is less paperwork than marriages

yes, children can be involved

Is there? I have a mortgage with both mine and Mr Mutant’s names on it, we have a joint bank account… Our names are on all our paperwork and would take a lot of effort to change if we broke up. Just because we’re not married and have different last names doesn’t mean it would be any easier to get all that changed.

And soon there will be a child involved.

in fairness… there is a child involved now…

Everything you might not need to know:

http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/Pages/DeFactoPropertyRegime.aspx

I haven’t read it.

buffy said:

<>half a decade is the law.<<

I think it’s less than that, by quite a bit. I don’t know for sure.

It’s half a decade…

And more here.

http://australia.gov.au/topics/family-home-and-community/relationships/de-facto

Dropbear said:

buffy said:

<>half a decade is the law.<<

I think it’s less than that, by quite a bit. I don’t know for sure.

It’s half a decade…

You sure? I thought it was more like 60 months.

CrazyNeutrino said:

so is de facto easier to get out of or is it about the same?

what do you mean by ‘get out of’? both typically involve formal legal negotiations that I imagine would vary significantly depending on the people involved and the complexity of their joint arrangements.

dv said:

Dropbear said:

buffy said:

<>half a decade is the law.<<

I think it’s less than that, by quite a bit. I don’t know for sure.

It’s half a decade…

You sure? I thought it was more like 60 months.

nah… it’s 5 years

dv said:

Dropbear said:

buffy said:

<>half a decade is the law.<<

I think it’s less than that, by quite a bit. I don’t know for sure.

It’s half a decade…

You sure? I thought it was more like 60 months.

Sorry, I was wrong, it’s 5 years

diddly-squat said:

in fairness… there is a child involved now…

Still at the point where I get to make all the decisions. For example, the other day at the antenatal appt I was asked to give consent for the baby to have a Hep C vax before s/he leaves the hospital. That’s not something that requires Mr Mutant’s consent or signature.

But painting the kid’s room… whoa.

It’s two years…..from the link I gave:

The Family Law Courts can make these orders if satisfied of one of the following:
• the period (or the total of the periods) of the de facto relationship is at least 2 years
• there is a child of the de facto relationship
• one of the partners made substantial financial or non-financial contributions to their property or as a homemaker or parent and serious injustice to that partner would result if the order was not made, or
the de facto relationship has been registered in a State or Territory with laws for the registration of relationships

Divine Angel said:

diddly-squat said:

in fairness… there is a child involved now…

Still at the point where I get to make all the decisions. For example, the other day at the antenatal appt I was asked to give consent for the baby to have a Hep C vax before s/he leaves the hospital. That’s not something that requires Mr Mutant’s consent or signature.

But painting the kid’s room… whoa.

it’s not something that ever involves his consent or signature – irrespective of your relationship with him.

That is for all states except WA.

FAQ

The Family Law Courts can make these orders if satisfied of one of the following:

the period (or the total of the periods) of the de facto relationship is at least 2 years

hhmmm..

Maybe the law should be changed so that no consideration is made of marriage or de facto status, so that people are treated the same regardless of what kind of relationship they are in.

In 5 years you’re considered fully invested in the relationship in that it doesn’t matter how much your partner brought in vs you. It’s divided up equally.

Dropbear said:

In 5 years you’re considered fully invested in the relationship in that it doesn’t matter how much your partner brought in vs you. It’s divided up equally.

unless of course there is some form of prenuptial agreement

Howard changed the Marriage Act to read: “Marriage shall be taken to mean the union of one conservative-voting man and one conservative-voting woman, to the exclusion of all others”

If you need any more clarification you can talk to my lawyer, Brooke, from Slapper & Gordons

• unless of course there is some form of prenuptial agreement

What if you were in a defacto relationship for five years before you got married?

Bubblecar said:

Howard changed the Marriage Act to read: “Marriage shall be taken to mean the union of one conservative-voting man and one conservative-voting woman, to the exclusion of all others”

It should read “Anyone can marry anyone else regardless of sex, colour, religion, ethnicity, artificial, etc and be as fucking miserable as a man and women”

Dropbear said:

In 5 years you’re considered fully invested in the relationship in that it doesn’t matter how much your partner brought in vs you. It’s divided up equally.

A relative of mine received a large inheritance, then left his gf of 10 years. What would have happened in his case?

Dropbear said:

If you need any more clarification you can talk to my lawyer, Brooke, from Slapper & Gordons

and of course references can also be sought by the 50% co-shareholder in Droppy’s former assets

Speedy said:

Dropbear said:

In 5 years you’re considered fully invested in the relationship in that it doesn’t matter how much your partner brought in vs you. It’s divided up equally.

A relative of mine received a large inheritance, then left his gf of 10 years. What would have happened in his case?

Were they cohabiting & sharing finances and possessions etc?

Divine Angel said:

For example, the other day at the antenatal appt I was asked to give consent for the baby to have a Hep C vax before s/he leaves the hospital. That’s not something that requires Mr Mutant’s consent or signature.

I think medical procedures only require consent from one parent / guardian.

Speedy said:

Dropbear said:

In 5 years you’re considered fully invested in the relationship in that it doesn’t matter how much your partner brought in vs you. It’s divided up equally.

A relative of mine received a large inheritance, then left his gf of 10 years. What would have happened in his case?

If they were in a legally recognised defacto relationship when he got the windfall then she would be entitled to a share, I imagine, but I am not a lawyer

Bubblecar said:

Speedy said:

Dropbear said:

In 5 years you’re considered fully invested in the relationship in that it doesn’t matter how much your partner brought in vs you. It’s divided up equally.

A relative of mine received a large inheritance, then left his gf of 10 years. What would have happened in his case?

Were they cohabiting & sharing finances and possessions etc?

Yes, they were living in a house bought by both of them. I’m not sure what their other financial arrangements were.

Speedy said:

Bubblecar said:

Speedy said:

A relative of mine received a large inheritance, then left his gf of 10 years. What would have happened in his case?

Were they cohabiting & sharing finances and possessions etc?

Yes, they were living in a house bought by both of them. I’m not sure what their other financial arrangements were.

I think the important thing in these sorts of cases is that the there are great many ways the assets can be divvied up depending on the details of the relationship and existence of dependents.

Things like earning potential and custody rights can play a large role in how the pie is carved up.

diddly-squat said:

Speedy said:

Bubblecar said:

Were they cohabiting & sharing finances and possessions etc?

Yes, they were living in a house bought by both of them. I’m not sure what their other financial arrangements were.

I think the important thing in these sorts of cases is that the there are great many ways the assets can be divvied up depending on the details of the relationship and existence of dependents.

Things like earning potential and custody rights can play a large role in how the pie is carved up.

Yes. Thankfully there were no kids in his case, so it would have been less complicated.

Actually, the inheritance was mostly real estate, which was not liquidated until some time/years after they separated.

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

stay single.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

Yeah.

- Live separate lives
- Stay single
- Become widowed

If you’re to believe Rick Lake et al, plenty of women get married just to have a wedding and do that princess shit. They’re completely unprepared for married life and, unsurprisingly, have very short marriages.

And if you’re a celebrity you’re pretty much guaranteed a short marriage.

There was an interesting case reported in the media the other day.. one partner won the lotto six months after the relationship split. The other partner was paying the winning partner some money for something (I can’t remember) and tried to sue the winning partner for a share of the winnings because he said he had partly provided the means for the ticket to be bought.

The case was unsuccessful ;)

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

Well. same-sex relationships are not recognised as either, so yeah.

Tim Burton and Helena Bonham-Carter are married and live in separate houses.

Speedy said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

Yeah.

- Live separate lives
- Stay single
- Become widowed

Big Love

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

In all seriousness though, yes, maintain separate financial lives and domicile in different locations…

Don’t get “joint” accounts in anyway and then the courts would have a hard time determining that a defacto relationship was in existence.

Rule 303 said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

Well. same-sex relationships are not recognised as either, so yeah.

Group marriage for financial benefits

Dropbear said:

There was an interesting case reported in the media the other day.. one partner won the lotto six months after the relationship split. The other partner was paying the winning partner some money for something (I can’t remember) and tried to sue the winning partner for a share of the winnings because he said he had partly provided the means for the ticket to be bought.

The case was unsuccessful ;)

roffle… and rightly so…

Divine Angel said:

If you’re to believe Rick Lake

and who doesn’t

Divine Angel said:

Tim Burton and Helena Bonham-Carter are married and live in separate houses.

And he has some weird relationship with Johnny Depp

Rule 303 said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

Well. same-sex relationships are not recognised as either, so yeah.

I think same sex relationships carry de facto status

Dropbear said:

Divine Angel said:

If you’re to believe Rick Lake

and who doesn’t

Non lobotomised people

WhoTF is Rick Lake

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are there any other alternatives to Marriage and De Facto?

In all seriousness though, yes, maintain separate financial lives and domicile in different locations…

Don’t get “joint” accounts in anyway and then the courts would have a hard time determining that a defacto relationship was in existence.

Centrelink defines it as sharing a bed for a certain number of nights per week. So do it on the couch :p
(They also ask if your friends would define you and partner as being in a relationship)

dv said:

WhoTF is Rick Lake

Soz, Ricki Lake.

Rule 303 said:

Divine Angel said:

For example, the other day at the antenatal appt I was asked to give consent for the baby to have a Hep C vax before s/he leaves the hospital. That’s not something that requires Mr Mutant’s consent or signature.

I think medical procedures only require consent from one parent / guardian.

That can be a point of contention if the relationship breaks up and there are family court orders in place.. in situations like that, it is common to require permission from both parents before medical procedures can be sought.

dv said:

WhoTF is Rick Lake

if you don’t you can always go on Ricky Lake..

Dropbear said:

Rule 303 said:

Divine Angel said:

For example, the other day at the antenatal appt I was asked to give consent for the baby to have a Hep C vax before s/he leaves the hospital. That’s not something that requires Mr Mutant’s consent or signature.

I think medical procedures only require consent from one parent / guardian.

That can be a point of contention if the relationship breaks up and there are family court orders in place.. in situations like that, it is common to require permission from both parents before medical procedures can be sought.

Luckily, we share the pro-vaccination stance :p

Not sure I’d want to go on Ricki Lake, let alone her TV show.

“Centrelink defines it as sharing a bed for a certain number of nights per week. “

That’s flamin’ ridiculous.

Divine Angel said:

Dropbear said:

Rule 303 said:

I think medical procedures only require consent from one parent / guardian.

That can be a point of contention if the relationship breaks up and there are family court orders in place.. in situations like that, it is common to require permission from both parents before medical procedures can be sought.

Luckily, we share the pro-vaccination stance :p

I wouldn’t fk anyone that didn;t …

except Salma Hayek..

Funnily enough, it wasn’t on my mind to ask before it started….

“How do you feel about vaccination?”
“All for it”
“Sweet, here’s the bed”

Hayek is anti-vax? FMD

dv said:

Not sure I’d want to go on Ricki Lake, let alone her TV show.

Heard a joke about Ellen DeGeneres being found drowned, face down in Ricky Lake.

Nope, I didn’t think it was that funny, either.

Kevin Andrews is a god botherer by the way

dv said:

Hayek is anti-vax? FMD

No, I’m just saying I’d overlook it …

Divine Angel said:

Funnily enough, it wasn’t on my mind to ask before it started….

“How do you feel about vaccination?”
“All for it”
“Sweet, here’s the bed”

Yeh that’s pretty much the way I work too…

Dropbear said:

Divine Angel said:

Funnily enough, it wasn’t on my mind to ask before it started….

“How do you feel about vaccination?”
“All for it”
“Sweet, here’s the bed”

Yeh that’s pretty much the way I work too…

“Got a physiological injection for you right here darlin’”

dv said:

Dropbear said:

Divine Angel said:

Funnily enough, it wasn’t on my mind to ask before it started….

“How do you feel about vaccination?”
“All for it”
“Sweet, here’s the bed”

Yeh that’s pretty much the way I work too…

“Got a physiological injection for you right here darlin’”

Its only a small prick

CrazyNeutrino said:

um

Don’t people choose de facto so they get out of the relationship easily, if their partner is unsuitable?

No, people do not choose defacto relationships, they are entered into by default. And when you consider that the majority of marriages (both successful and otherwise) start life as a defacto relationship, then I suggest the stats are being misinterpreted.

Classy thread.

This question is a classic case of poor thinking about causality, or at least it is when people use it to imply that a decision to get married will make a particular couple more stable. The two groups married couples and defacto couples are not otherwise equal.

The set of defacto couples includes for example:
Many couples who have only recently started a relationship
Couples who have thought about it and considered their chances of staying together low.

Both of these groups are far more likely than average to split up.

MartinB said:

Classy thread.

This question is a classic case of poor thinking about causality, or at least it is when people use it to imply that a decision to get married will make a particular couple more stable. The two groups married couples and defacto couples are not otherwise equal.

The set of defacto couples includes for example:
Many couples who have only recently started a relationship
Couples who have thought about it and considered their chances of staying together low.

Both of these groups are far more likely than average to split up.

And don’t forget those in same sex relationships who can’t get married.

And the set of married people includes successful defacto relationships.

THE OP said:

Mr Andrews is currently overseeing the trial of a program that gives counselling vouchers to married and de facto couples, in an attempt to help curb separation rates.

Why is it assumed that couples staying together is the best outcome?

I think ‘successful’ is a bit normative but yes, the point is that on average most long-term (heterosexual) couples can get married early enough in the relationship such that, on average, a long-term relationship is more likely to be a married one than a de-facto one without there being anything strongly causative about the decision point.

What kind of ‘punk’ band apologises for injuring someone…

sorry, missed chat by that much…

Rafael Epstein was discussing this topic on ABC Radio yesterday afternoon. As part of the discussion, he asserted that “one in three marriages end in divorce” (without providing any reference, as though it were well known fact).

Knowing damn well that no such statistics exist (and that the actual numbers are no-where near 1/3) I E-mailed the show asking for a ref.

Nothing yet…

Interesting side-note: Of all our family friends (and most family members), only the married couples are having kids. Some of Mrs. Rule’s friends (who are now in their late 30s) are really starting to hit the panic button.

MartinB said:

I think ‘successful’ is a bit normative but yes, the point is that on average most long-term (heterosexual) couples can get married early enough in the relationship such that, on average, a long-term relationship is more likely to be a married one than a de-facto one without there being anything strongly causative about the decision point.

I was pointing out a hole in their statistics – the conclusion as presented was based on the assumption that defacto relationships ended in either the couple breaking up (Unsuccessful) or death (“Successful”).

In reality, there is a third not insignificant outcome – marriage – that should be classed as “Successful” as it did not fail.

Rule 303 said:

Interesting side-note: Of all our family friends (and most family members), only the married couples are having kids. Some of Mrs. Rule’s friends (who are now in their late 30s) are really starting to hit the panic button.

we were the only ones in our friendship group to have children out of wedlock – little bastards

I progressed from de facto to married. Recognised defacto in the military takes some considerable evidence as it allows you access to married quarters and other benefits.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

MartinB said:

I think ‘successful’ is a bit normative but yes, the point is that on average most long-term (heterosexual) couples can get married early enough in the relationship such that, on average, a long-term relationship is more likely to be a married one than a de-facto one without there being anything strongly causative about the decision point.

I was pointing out a hole in their statistics – the conclusion as presented was based on the assumption that defacto relationships ended in either the couple breaking up (Unsuccessful) or death (“Successful”).

In reality, there is a third not insignificant outcome – marriage – that should be classed as “Successful” as it did not fail.

IKR… I would suggest that most all relationships are ‘successful’, until they aren’t

Married couples have a far higher divorce rate than unmarried couples.

diddly-squat said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

MartinB said:

I think ‘successful’ is a bit normative but yes, the point is that on average most long-term (heterosexual) couples can get married early enough in the relationship such that, on average, a long-term relationship is more likely to be a married one than a de-facto one without there being anything strongly causative about the decision point.

I was pointing out a hole in their statistics – the conclusion as presented was based on the assumption that defacto relationships ended in either the couple breaking up (Unsuccessful) or death (“Successful”).

In reality, there is a third not insignificant outcome – marriage – that should be classed as “Successful” as it did not fail.

IKR… I would suggest that most all relationships are ‘successful’, until they aren’t

Death wouldn’t be successful if it were caused by one partner murdering the other.

JFTR, the best current data we’ve got says the children of un-married couples are twice as likely to see them separate as the children of married couples.

Separation of cohabiting couples. Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children said:

The trends in divorce discussed above do not capture the extent to which cohabiting relationships break down. Analysis of data from Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), indicates that children living with cohabiting parents are more likely than those living with married parents to experience parental separation.

Of infants who were living with two natural married parents in 2004, 12% were living with one natural parent by 2010. In contrast, among infants who were living with two natural parents in a cohabiting relationship in 2004, 27% were living with one natural parent by 2010. This pattern is consistent with prior research findings that cohabiting relationships are more likely than married relationships to separate (e.g., Qu & Weston, 2008b).

From Here

>children living with cohabiting parents are more likely than those living with married parents to experience parental separation.

Might reflect the tendency of more conservative parents to remain together even if it means the kids having to endure a nightmarish home environment.

Bubblecar said:

Might reflect the tendency of more conservative parents to remain together even if it means the kids having to endure a nightmarish home environment.

Sheesh… Talk it up, Car.

;-)

Dropbear said:

There was an interesting case reported in the media the other day.. one partner won the lotto six months after the relationship split. The other partner was paying the winning partner some money for something (I can’t remember) and tried to sue the winning partner for a share of the winnings because he said he had partly provided the means for the ticket to be bought.

The case was unsuccessful ;)

If it a woman making the claim they would have got the lot

If you are a man that has come into money you are better off transferring it all beyond the grasp of Australian lawyers