Legal precedent suggests that, in the UK, children are primarily considered 'hers' rather than 'his'. Insofar as contested custody goes to the mother the vast majority of the time.

Jon

But if he had kids from a former marriage? Individual cases will vary and if it is considered that she gave up a promising career to bring up his kids then that will be taken into consideration. Who knows the prenup might actually include such provisions especially of he already had kids prior to marriage.

This is about time IMHO

It does not have to be about money grabbing either
Take me and SHMBO – I came into the relationship with more assets so paid a great amount for the house deposit. We agreed that if we split that I would get that deposit back and then share any increase in the house value. This is possible as we just live together but not if we married. With binding Pre-nups we could do this

In fact its (generally speaking) a horrendously lopsided situation. In the UK the view is definitely that the woman does 'give up a career to care for the children' (even when she doesn't) and yet also the vast majority of the time get custody of the children. Thus the mother gets to claim bringing up children is a task or burden which she should be compensated for, yet also that bringing up and caring for children is her right which the father does not have equal say in. So as far as the father is concerned it's head you lose, tails she wins. It's quite hard to explain to someone who hasn't looked into in any detail how utterly inequitous the UK divorce system is. It's considered a scandalous system by most of the rest of europe.

I've said in another thread if you are a man in the UK and you have any assets at all (including any significant mortgage equity on a property for example) you would be utterly mental to get married marriage without some level of protection from the system. Whether you love your wife to be or (and vice versa) not is irrelevant; if you end up getting a divorce and you aren't protected, the system will rip you to shreds. Prenups being legally viable is merely a minimal way to attempt to redress a massively unbalanced and partial mechanism.

I do agree and it applies to rich women just as much.It is a sensible thing. Personally I would not mind signing a prenup but would have one of my own as well. It is well worth it in the end because while a divorce is expensive an ugly one is way more expensive. The legal bill for Paul McCartney was more than most divorce settlements.

Any sensible pre-nup would outline the responsibilities and benefits allowed to both parties in the event of a divorce, not just one. if it's done properly you don't need one each.

My girlfriend wanted me to sign a sort of pre-nup, before we moved in together - saying that everything that I brought into the relationship was mine and she had no right to it...

I refused.

A healthy dollop of respect for the both of you in that case. That's the way it should be.

I agree in an ideal world.

While I “hope” ( for want of a better word) that this relationship will last until one of us shuffles off this mortal coil I am also old enough to know that people / circumstances change. Where this is a financial disparity between the two parties then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have a pre-nup

In awarding custody sure. But at the moment if the wife can demonstrate she gave up her life/career to live at home and play "mum", she gets a very large reward indeed. I would hate for a pre-nuptial agreement to destroy that.

I think it would be fair to protect what you bring to a relationship, but that everything thereafter becomes shared.

Yes but pre-nups would stop the Heather Mills of the world. Though considering that the bulk of his income was as a result of his past achievements should she really have got anywhere near as much? What about the "for poorer" aspect of the wedding vows. It all seems one sided to me.