Mistresses to cash in on de facto laws

Family Law Act reforms entitling de facto partners of two years or longer to the same rights as married couples stipulate that such a relationship can exist even if one of the partners is already married, the Courier-Mail reports.

Family lawyer Paul Hopgood said living together was not a requirement to qualify under the new rules.

"You don't have to live in the same house and under the same roof to be a de facto," the Courier-Mail quoted him as saying.

"A lot of people are living in de facto relationships and don't think they are."

The new Act, passed Monday in the senate, defines a de facto relationship as a couple — regardless of sexual orientation — "living together on a genuine domestic basis".

But Mr Hopgood said courts would accept explanations like travel commitments as reasons for recognising de factos not living under the same roof.

Queensland Law Society chair Julie Harrington said the laws would also hit polygamists who had only one recognised marriage but multiple de facto partners who now had some rights under the Act.

She added that men who had been in a succession of monogamous relationships could also face paying maintenance support to multiple ex-partners.

But a spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland said people in this situation could show "just cause" to family courts for dropping any order.

MESSENGER

FACEBOOK

Blog on Spaces

Add to delicious

Add to Digg

Share on MySpace

Share, bookmark, and save your favourite ninemsn articles and features. Learn more.

User comments

A great friend of mine, married a "gold digger" and she wipped him out financially. She travelled a lot for work and had numerous affairs which a mutual friend informed me about. He is not a oil painting but his values and generosity are impeccable and he has away's been a loyal and steadfast friend. He has since had numerous break downs and has mutual custody of the children thank god! I warned him about her intentions as it was told to me by a mutual friend. He now hates most women and finds australian women too aggressive and independant and now has a beautiful girlfriend from Brazil who resides with him and could not be happier. May be it is time for Australian women to reassess their values??? Cheers Mark

These laws frustrate me on so many levels. How can the law tell two people what sort of relationship they are in? I live with my boyfriend out of convenience. We both had to move out of home, it was more convenient to live with each other than strangers. Under these laws I would be considered to be in a defacto relationship at 20 just because i have been living with someone for over two years. How dare anyone tell me or him that half of what we have could be the others? I have no intention of marrying him, do not know if this will be my life partner, and we keep our finances seperate. Yet if we broke up half of what one of us has could be the others. How is this fair?

Men have preyed on women for a long time- not quite commiting themselves but keeping them in a holding pattern and having the best of both worlds. Serve them right if they get caught up this way! Of course in a truely equal society this type of law would not be necessary...think about it.

this is the most ridiculous thing ever.

Lets take all this mish mash of laws and groups clamouring for legal recognition and victims rights to equality to its natural conclusion...alow polygamy.. for all...gay lesbian transgender bi sexual and my own new category...TRISEXUAL ..where you can be in a committed relationship with two or more people, say two lesbians who have your children or two bisexual women or heaven forbid, straight people..there are plenty of other cultures some of which are judged to be less enlightened than ours who allow a man to have more than one wife ....why not us.....lets all share the love PS lets also train more solicitors and judges for the ensueing (sic) S..tfight.

what a crock my wife cheated on me got the house the cars the boat and the kids, when is it going to work both ways. there seems to be a hell of alot of groups and goverment departments to help the females "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN"

The law must be changed to protect the formal family. I know we will now need a bunch of lawyers to define formal family. To allow an innocent party, inclusive of young children, to be financially hit this way is utter madness. As to the mistress she has now another reason to continue the relationship and as a matter of contingency have a few others on the sly. As an afterthought this would also include gay and bi partnerships as well. Any other permutaions here? Maybe we should stop people earning a wage and take out our expenses from a communial pot - now that is communism by stealth.

Surely this is an April fool's storey?

I dont know much about this law that's been past except for the articles pasted all over sites about Cheating Husbands to watch out. I'm the wife of a jerk cheating husband and when I found out, in one foul swoop I lost my husband, my family and became "part time" mum to my little girl. If this law was past 18 months ago, I'd also have lost more of my entitlement to our assets because I'd have had to share them with the desperate *** who couldnt find a man that wasnt married with a family (and no he didnt trade for a better model - double my size, half my height, living at home with her parents... need I go on?). His issues cost me enough. I had to share more than enough with her already unknowingly and she had no input financially into our properties etc so what right would she have to them??? Stupid rule, stupid law. I hope the courts process decisions accurately and appropriately. This law is going to cause alot of anguish for a lot of people who dont deserve it.

If mistresses are used for "n the side sex" and can now claim maintenance payments doesn't that mean that they are preforming sexual acts for money. And if thats the case doesnt that them make them sex workers? If so do they have to register with police and have regular health screens and do they pay tax on their earnings? Because the way i see it under the law proposed...Mistress = ***? and Toyboy = Giggalo?......um please explain?

Most popular

Demi furious at Photoshop claimsDemi Moore has reacted with fury at allegations her body was badly 'enhanced' by a fashion magazine.

One dead as Miley Cyrus tour bus crashesThe driver of a Miley Cyrus tour bus has died and one passenger has been injured after the vehicle veered off the road and flipped over in Virginia.

Spears' ex-boyfriend sentenced to jailBritney Spears' ex-boyfriend Adnan Ghalib is being sent to jail for 45 days for leaving the scene of an accident.

British poll reveals sexual ignoranceMore than one in 10 British people don't realise that a woman can still get pregnant if she has sex standing up, according to a poll on Friday.

Departing Oprah problem for TV stationsOprah Winfrey will leave a huge void for broadcast TV in 2011, even as she raises the possibility of more Oprah than ever when she starts her own cable network.

Kim Watkins' future at Ten uncertainThe future career of morning television host Kim Watkins is uncertain, with Network Ten unable to say if she'll return in 2010.

Norfolk pilot 'flew without enough fuel'The pilot hailed a hero for ditching his plane safely off Norfolk Island this week may have been dangerously negligent after reportedly making the journey without enough fuel.

Judge dismisses Cyrus 'slant eyes' suitA US judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Miley Cyrus which accused her of discriminating against Asians after she was photographed making "slant eyes".

Barmaid claims she had sex with SA premierA former parliament house barmaid has come forward claiming she had a sexual relationship with South Australian Premier Mike Rann.

Fire threat eases in the southern statesThe bushfire threat in the southern states has eased as rain and cooler weather sweep through the fire-affected areas.