So, as a paralegal, I'll come across some off the beaten path kind of tings. And here's one that took me aback:
There's a couple that is doing a pre-nup. First marriages for both of them and neither of them have kids. They're in their early 30s and both have worked on their careers since college. The future wife wants it stipulated in the pre-nup that when she takes time off from her career when they have children (and she's envisioning it to be at least 5 years per kid), she wants to be immediately compensated for that time off. Her reasoning is that her career will suffer adversely because she won't be able to advance, get raises, etc. So therefore, she should get a little something from her future husband to put into her own savings and investments so in case they do split up, she's still on the same monetary footing that she should have been if she never took time off to have kids in the first place.
The husband and attorneys' stance is "that's what spousal support and equitable division of assets are for." And I tend to agree with that.
But it did make me think. Women nowadays are waiting longer to get married, to finish their education, establish their careers, buy their own home, build their investments/savings. They definitely need to protect themselves, but is this going too far?
My take on it is, what if the husband becomes the stay-at-home dad instead of the wife? By all accounts, he should be the one compensated.
What about other similar situations where there should be compensation? They go back to college, switch careers, etc.?
Personally, trying to draft a pre-nup for every conceivable situation is neurotically insane to do. I'm getting a headache.