Ladies, will you consider signing the following prenuptial agreement?

kja63

I'm 44.

There is nothing "fair" about what you wrote and it certainly wasn't written by anyone professing to "love" another human being. So only an idiot would sign it. Even then, it wouldn't be binding in a court of law. It's an illegal agreement that cannot stand up in court.

I'm with Stupid.

Are you serious!?!?!?!??!? That sounds like he doesn't give a damn about the kids either way! I'm hoping that you're not serious.

Nancy Kay

not the man for me...

1 Love

22 years old.

No I wouldn't. ...only reason is:

"You can have the kids (no visits wanted by the father) but if you can't support the kids, then give them to the father, he will support them, but you will not see them ever again until they are adults."

I feel no matter what - both parents should be involved the childs' life. That is wrong to deprive them of that.

Good luck.

freedom34_2000

Ahhh Hell No, I wouldn't sign that!
By the way, I'm 42 and married for 20 years.

CeciliaM

Nope. That prenup wreaks of callous and coldness. If I knew the guy really loved me, there would be no need for a prenup. I'm in my 30's, and happily married.

rlk0405

Are you kidding? Who in their right mind would agree to something like this?

Antonia

adult HUMAN females? There are other kinds? No, I wouldn't sign it...its idiotic to separate the child till adulthood from ANY parents. Whether the mother or father cares for it the other one must be in their life and you'd think they want to take care of them too.

yyyyyy

I am a male but I will naswer anyway

there is no sense in signing that agreement because the woman does not get anything out of the contract that makes her better off than not signing it

the only reason people sign something is so that they can get what they need or want from a situation, but you are offering nothing

Never Never Never NEVER
that's horrible
im 21

ruin1114

I'm 24....and if I read that I would leave your *** on the spot.

ndnqt1966

Hell no! I am 41

Naggler

I would have said yes up untill I read the no child support or visits wanted by the father. Why should children have to suffer because their parents are divorced? They should get money from each parent and see each parent equally. And if the guy "really loved you" he would want to see his children.

Kaynell

Absolutely not. I am 26.

momrfg2003

No way - early 40's. You both brought these kids into the world and you BOTH support them.

pounce

I wouldn't sign it sorry. i'm 18

litl m

The problem I would have is that the worst happened and the couple divorced the poor children would have a parent ripped out of their life. So NO I would not sign this, some love.

Ms. GTO

Not only no, but HELL NO!!!!

Marriage is a contract, but it is also the blending of two lives. What is yours should be hers, and vice versa. If you want to keep everything seperate, then remain single!!

angeldionta

I am 25 years old and no i wouldn't sign that because of the kids part......we both made the kids therefore we both should support them not just one person should suffer on that part

HUh?!?

No way in Hell...Im 27!! It's not the kids fault and their future in spending time with both parents shouldn't be predecided for them!!

No. The part about supporting the kids is especially heinous and no attorney would let their client sign it in good conscience. Come on, did the custodial parent create those kids all by themselves? This is a silly "agreement". I am 25.

Grey Person

I'm an adult human female who knows better than to give out personal information such as age, and I also know that you cannot put anything about who gets the kids in a prenup. That can only be hammered out in a custody agreement after they are born. If a man approached me with such a ludicrous set of papers such as what you're proposing, I'd kick him from here to Charleston. Someone needs to seriously, seriously grow up before he gets married. You're treating your future children and wife as pawns for manipulation. Not a loving bone in your body in those words!

Julia D

no.

1. You only get what you earn and what is in your name, AND HALF OF WHATEVER THE TWO OF YOU WORK FOR AND OBTAIN TOGETHER.

2. Both parents created the kids, therefore both parents provide for their support. One by helping to put a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food on their table PLUS physically in person taking care of their day to day lives, and the other by providing financial support.

3. The mother can have the kids, and in the case of no visits wanted by the father (yuck, what an awful father), the kids will go and live with grandparents or other relatives in the case that the mother cannot support them. The kids should not be forced to go and live with a man who doesn't even care enough about them to see them otherwise.

4. If for some reason the kids do end up with the father who didn't even care enough to visit them otherwise, if this father furthermore cares SO little about the kid's feelings that he would rip away their mother from ever being able to see them, this father should not have custody of them in the first place.

ALL of this also applies if the situation is reversed. If the mother tried to do that to the father.

In either case, the parents are completely failing to put the needs (both emotional and physical) of their children FIRST and are intent on using the children as pawns in their game of "I can hurt you worse than you can hurt me". This is despicable.

I'm 48 years old. Female.

kvcar2

I am 45 and just got married. And no, I would not sign a pre-nup like that (or of any kind). Child support, by the way, generally falls outside the parameters of a pre-nup. If you are the father you are legally bound to support them - no ifs, ands or buts. If a court determines that visitation with either of the parent is in the best interest of the child (and they usually do) you'd be hard pressed to use a signed pre-nup to restrict visitation with a parent who wants visitation. If you are seriously asking this question for yourself, I'd suggest you consider a vasectomy. I'd also suggest woman who would seriously consider signing such a pre-nup get her head examined.

sarah W

No, I'm 23 and married and not only would i not accept that prenup I'd dump the guy.

Jimmy's Wife

Absolutely not. I am 29.

To me, the problem is not the money. It is the kids and the conditions set for their support/care in this question.

Audie

I would NOT sign that prenup. I'm 20

sparrowszealot

I am 29 and I would not sign that. I would never sign a prenup anyway unless I someone who was a well-known wealthy celeb. The whole thing with the children seems extremely unfair. What if the children want to see the other parent? What if the parent who has the children comes upon hard times? What if the parent who has the children can't work to support them?

carol c

hell no i will never sigh that

Crystal

Maybe....but I would feel hurt that he wanted me to sign a prenuptial. It's almost like he doesn't feel like we wouldn't make it.

loriloriloriloriv

hell no! and pre-nup or not, there are laws regarding child support...37

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: