comment: >
  
  Why we got a prenup: 
  Scenario: one party stays home to take care of the kids at the sacrifice of their career and the other works hard at building a career (because the other spouse has stayed home to run the household). 
  Fast forward 25 years: kids are grown and the marriage has fallen apart. Because of any of the following: cheating, been lazy, been rude, simply drifted apart, one realized they were gay, etc etc etc. 
  The stay at home parent has: no career history, no pension, no savings/emergency fund. Other than shared assets (home, cars) the stay at home parent is now 45-60 and has no financial security. They will divorce and hopefully some of the working spouses money will be split equitably - but sometimes this does not happen. Depending on local laws any company retirement meat solely be theirs. Maybe they have other ways of “hiding” assets. 
  Having a prenup agreeing that the working spouse is required to pay them alimony or other “allowances/protections” to ensure that the stay at home spouse is not destitute. 
  A colleague of mine recently divorced. After lawyer fees she ended up with $5K to her name. She is living on her own with her 2 kids (shared custody) with no alimony. At 47 she is back in the work force for… ever probably. Hopefully her kids will be successful enough for her to live with them in her old age.
  Edit to add: if you have a good lawyer make your prenup, it should NOT be rendered useless. In my country they definitely hold up.
context: /u/sqeeky_wheelz (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Legally, they're two different things.
  A prenup is designed to protect past assets i.e. pre-matrimonial assets.
  A paternity test is just whether you pay child maintenance or not. Bear in mind I'm English law based so if you can show the kid isn't yours you don't have to pay. It doesn't determine anything else. 
  When it comes to validity of prenups, if there's no mention/provision for the kid (or child of the family, if not bio kid) then the pre nup may come up for challenge. >
  
  My post isn’t that they are the same. My point is that 1) everyone should have a prenup 2) every child should have factually proven paternity. 
  If the assumed father is not the biological father 2 things should happen 1) the biological father should have a right to their child’s life. 2) the assumed father should not be held liable for child support (unless they so choose to support/care for the child) >
  
  The existence of divorce laws renders prenups useless and a waste of money for the vast majority of first marriages where neither party has a pot to piss in. 
  Why the hell should everybody get a prenup when most people do not have assets until long after they are married?