Housemates, cheaters, serial datists, long term f&ck buddies, on and off again couples and even regular innocent couples… you’ve all been put on notice by the Australian Government. From today (March 1st) under the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures), if you’ been together for more then two years living in a defacto relationship, or you have kids fullstop, your partner (who you don’t even need to be romantically involved with) is now able to take you to the cleaners.

…or at least try to.

The big wildcard here is a baby;

I wonder if mobiles are assets...

For males, you could have a one night stand or a fling, never see the woman again and wind up being taken to court over your assets in a years time.

For females, if you accidentally fall pregnant sleeping around suddenly the prospect of keeping the baby isn’t so bad knowing you can go after the father’s assets as if you’d been married for years. There’s no baggage attached and no requirements to have the father involved in yours or the babies lives. Just see a lawyer and boom you’re on your way to easy street.

For kids, get your girlfriend knocked up or fall pregnant to your boyfriend and a whole can of worms is opened up in terms of being a dependant and the possibility of going after a parent’s assets.

This law just screams ‘headline precedents’!

Off the top of my head I can’t wait to see the first case involving a child where the cheater is completely unaware of the baby and all of a sudden his ‘full-time’ family is in a financially compromised position.

Or what about some opportunist flat/house mate taking their housing partner to court despite not even being in a relationship over the 2 year period…blackmail ahoy?

Or a husband/wife banging a couple of unknowns for a few years and all of a sudden they both want their share of booty (no pun intended).

“Or those people who claim they love the dog more than their partner, and have done for more than two years?” as Martin Andrew puts it.

I’m not the only one thinking about how this could have been handled differently, Tobias Ziegler writes;

Would this be a good time to point out that there was a much more straightforward legal amendment that would have avoided the “mistress problem”?

It is a bit of a mystery isn’t it, it just seems to obvious. You can’t help but wonder just how scenarios like this weren’t considered (or if they were considered, ignored) when drafting this law. I mean its got more holes in it then a cheater’s alibi story.

Deep down I can’t help but shrug the feeling that there’s a bit of hidden agenda perhaps going on here from the Christian and family lobbies. Certainly it can be seen that marriage and defacto relationships are legally asset wise no different from eachother after such a short time. I’m sure there are people out there who were holding off on marriage because of some form of doubt who now, with the financial risk being exactly the same, won’t see it as such a risk anymore.

Lot’s of marriage always looks good for religious and family groups.

One good thing about it though is it is a step towards recognising gay unions as it applies equally to gay defacto relationships in the same way it applies to hetrosexual relationships. I’m not sure if there’s a waiver or legal block on two lesbians having a child and then deciding to go after the donor’s assets if the donor is known to them, but I bloody well hope there is or that industry is going kaput.

The same grey area is there with gay dads wanting a child with a surrogate mother and don’t laugh, because it does happen.

To be fair though the surrogate kid isn’t just a gay issue, IVF treatment in Australia is booming. Sydney IVF made $45.9 million in revenue and Monash IVF clinic alone took home $39 million in 2007.

With such large numbers in play you’ve only got to wonder how soon it’ll be before someone somewhere cracks it and goes for the somebody elses throat.

I think now would be a good time to stock up on some popcorn and some patience, shouldn’t be too long now before the first headline case makes it into the news.

In the meantime I guess we can all heave a sigh of relief that at least Nadya Suleman, with fourteen mouths to feed, a 10 month unpaid house mortgage and whose father was just recently begging Oprah for help wasn’t Australian.

She must be screaming bloody murder over not getting her IVF done over here.