Financial responibility of a future spouses welfare and social services question

[Boethius]

We know many guys who marry foreign women. What they do to protect their assets is marry and live in a third country where neither is a citizen. Only sure way to protect yourself I am told.

It would depend on the country.  Third world, probably true.  Somewhere in the West, not so much.

[dragonkid]

It would depend on the country.  Third world, probably true.  Somewhere in the West, not so much.

Wouldn't the woman be able to file for divorce back home? I think alex is talking about couples where they get married in countries where the marriage isn't reconised back home. I had a ex gf where her father did this, he had substantial assets to protect.

[Boethius]

Most Western jurisdictions will recognize foreign marriages, if they are legal marriages in that jurisdiction. 

[ML]

A judge may also have taken into account the man's ability to generate more income in the future, vs the woman's.

Well doesn't this hedge against your claim that most often there is a fairly accounted 50/50 split of existing marital assets?

[Boethius]

It is, in essence, a 50/50 split.


One thing I have learned from structuring divestments in matrimonial splits, is that both sides think they are being screwed financially.  But in general, what I have observed is that the man, a decade later, often less than that, is almost always financially ahead.  My theory is that men generally take more risks. 

[Trenchcoat]

Wouldn't the woman be able to file for divorce back home? I think alex is talking about couples where they get married in countries where the marriage isn't reconised back home. I had a ex gf where her father did this, he had substantial assets to protect.

Would the girl still not need a marriage in a country recognised by US/UK if she wanted to live there though.

[Trenchcoat]

It is, in essence, a 50/50 split.


One thing I have learned from structuring divestments in matrimonial splits, is that both sides think they are being screwed financially.  But in general, what I have observed is that the man, a decade later, often less than that, is almost always financially ahead.  My theory is that men generally take more risks.

I've seen it on TV where the guy is literally tossed out into the streets living homeless as a result of the woman getting it all - i.e she was married & had kids so she got the house, pretty much the lot then the guy still gets chased for CSA (Child Support Allowance) payments. I know of guys that have had this done to them though not quite homeless as they managed to rent accommodation and keep there job but still no fun on the guy to say the least.

[alex330]

It would depend on the country.  Third world, probably true.  Somewhere in the West, not so much.

Costa Rica specifically. These are men worth quite a bit back in the US and with large properties and multiple homes, yachts, etc in Costa Rica. The properties are held in shelf corps as well.

The woman cannot file for divorce in her home country of Colombia, Russia, or Thailand as I understand it as no marriage ever took place. The man and his wife are not citizens so she has no claim to his properties or assets in host country or in the US.

[Boethius]

If a marriage took place in Costa Rica, i.e., according to Costa Rican domestic law, then the woman can indeed file for divorce in her home country, and eventually, that would be recognized in Costa Rica.


I assume property would be subject to Costa Rican law.

[Jumper]

I understand you are just looking into this, but you really have the



486,000 kilometers ahead of the

[alex330]

If a marriage took place in Costa Rica, i.e., according to Costa Rican domestic law, then the woman can indeed file for divorce in her home country, and eventually, that would be recognized in Costa Rica.

I assume property would be subject to Costa Rican law.

I did send a quick email to my attorney down there and I have to admit I was wrong...It is the shelf corps or prior ownership that protect the assets.

"The laws in this country state that you can be common law marriage after 2 years of living with a woman , marriage can eventually be recognized but you do need to go through some paperwork, and as far as property is concerned a wife has no access to any assets you owned prior to marriage"

Even foreign women are entitled to the same rights. 

[Jumper]

 52topps-
If you do any decent degree of due diligence, the odds are astronomically slim that you will find a compatible woman ,that you truly love,
 in a given *X* or *Y* country ,city, or region, and that she , in return adores you and wants to relocate,just because you decided to look there. Human relationships and love are a bit more messy and random ,than calculated?

 So , if you get that far,and are that lucky,
 the odds you will need to sweat these details are both slim, and rather straight forward to sort out with the women, and financial advisers/attorneys for both parties at that time?(at least initially)

The reality ?
Asking these hypothetical questions ,about what some random woman will think of a prenup, without knowing the extent of the relationship at that moment, etc seems pointless.
 It also seems rather pointless to go over how valid any prenup might be without knowing the details of finances /holdings,the laws of  what state or country,  the length of the marriage m, the perspective and character of the *soon to be ex*, and a million other details that could come into play in the case of some future divorce , to someone you've yet to meet.

  This was said long ago by a fairly typical feisty, spirited, RW on a long forgotten forum.

If you want a guarantee , buy a toaster.

 


 The maneuvering to protect yourself ,and your children, is understandable. (but not to the exclusion of what would be truly fair to a wife in case of a future divorce)
If  what you set up and feel is fair and rational, then you may find a women who shares your view of it.

There is however no guarantee that feelings on both sides might change in the case of a divorce, or that you could land in a costly, lengthy, legal battle.

I'll readily admit I'm much more cavalier about such things than most.
1. I don't have that much I suppose.
2. I value other things besides shear assets or holdings/property etc.
 I'm generally a positive happy person, and am fine with some basics, which I can easily gain in most any situation,even starting from zero.
3.I adore my wife, and I'm reasonably certain she'd follow me into exhile, like a Decembrists. Part of why she might feel that way, is because she knows i'd give her whatever I have,and be glad she has it.

It's not a one way street ,nor a business transaction.
 I've said for years on these forums its likely easier for an average joe to deal with this, as he doesn't have the complications of the wealthy. 

[dragonkid]

I'll readily admit I'm much more cavalier about such things than most.
1. I don't have that much I suppose.
2. I value other things besides shear assets or holdings/property etc.
 I'm generally a positive happy person, and am fine with some basics, which I can easily gain in most any situation,even starting from zero.
3.I adore my wife, and I'm reasonably certain she'd follow me into exhile, like a Decembrists. Part of why she might feel that way, is because she knows i'd give her whatever I have,and be glad she has it.

It's not a one way street ,nor a business transaction.
 I've said for years on these forums its likely easier for an average joe to deal with this, as he doesn't have the complications of the wealthy. 

[Lily]

I am under the impression that I bring a woman back to the USA with the intent to get married. I am responsible for all of her welfare and social services if she needs help from the government. I think the limit is $16,000 a year.

#1  IS this only during the time up to the point she becomes a USA citizen?

#2 what happens after she becomes a USA citizen.


Need some input. Thanks

In Canada, to my knowledge, anyone who lawfully resides in Canada permanently (including refugee claimants since they expressed a wish to stay in the country permanently) can receive social assistance if they meet the criteria of being in financial need. It does not matter whether they are citizens or permanent residents. Not sure what the rules are in the U.S. but my guess would be that they might be pretty much the same.

[Boethius]

I believe what the OP is asking, Lily, is his obligation to repay any of the social services the woman would use, if he sponsored her.   There is an obligation on the US sponsor to repay any social services expended.  I believe it is 10 years, unless the immigrant is a US citizen, but I could be wrong on that.  In Canada, it used to be 10 years, now, it varies, depending on the sponsor/immigrant relationship.  Citizenship in Canada is irrelevant to the sponsorship obligation.

[Lily]

That's right Boethius. I read the Mavi case of 2011 where eight sponsors began their sponsorship as early as in 1995, and received bills up to nearly $100,000 from governments after their sponsored family members received welfare. The personal circumstances were different, one sponsored his mother and later lost his job and resorted to welfare himself, etc.

It was decided that government can defer (but not forgive) a sponsorship debt, and provincial and federal governments owe sponsors a duty of procedural fairness when enforcing sponsorship debts, meaning informing the sponsors, allowing them to explain their situations, etc.

But, again, this is Canada.

[redking11]

It's funny that when a man tries to keep his assets safe that he is shamed!! I'm greedy, a loser, deep seeded hate, or that I hate kids and I would make a bad husband. 

Why am I not allowed to protect my assets. I have talked with a lawyer already. A trust will protect my home cars, Roth IRA, 401K and any other asset I add to the trust. The trust will be created soon probably a year before I go on my trip. But the Trust must be created before marriage.

It's actually the court system that does the dirty work for women. This does not mean I am a woman hater because I want to keep my money/hardwork/ years of labor at a job.   If some of you men want to let a woman just take your money and your balls then by all means give them all your money. I will try and protect my assets so if she leaves me I am not living in a van down by the river.

Prenups if done correctly will hold up in court.....in every court on the planet...NO but it will help protect my assets that I have taken 43 years to accumulate.

Most people who get a prenup do things in the wrong order.  You can't get a prenup after you are engaged.  You must have her sign it before you get engaged. Then you ask her. Then she comes to the USA.

My lawyer said a trust will protect my assets if done before I get married. Also the woman will need to sign a document that she is aware of the Trust as part of the prenup.  I am also having my two kids get a Trust set up and signed when they turned 18 which will hold their Roth IRA.

I don't mind sharing money with the woman in my life. I just don't want her to use me as an ATM card and then leave me.
Your right I need to add some stipulations into the prenup that give her more stuff as time moves on in our relationship, like if we are married 15 years, 20, 30 years.  I just don't know how to do that and would like input.

I can have all these safeguards and then leave whoever I want my assets in a Will.

Being protective doesn't make me a bad person. I am loving, caring and raising two kids.

That's like saying using a condom makes me a self centered jerk.

52, I'm with you. You have to realize that many (not all) of these guys don't have sufficient assets to worry about losing, many don't have to worry about a woman pretending to love them for their money. Many of these guys don't understand that a woman can and will convincingly put on a charade of love for years so they can retire off your dime. A beautiful foreign bride, is nothing more than a fantasy and delusion for a lot of these guys (once again, not all). Lastly, many of the guys on here are probably so pathetic and fat that a woman would be entitled to 1/2 of everything for putting up with them.

A woman doesn't automatically deserve a 6 figure income for the rest and remainder of her life because she tricked me into being married to her for 5-10 years. And no for the guys that are going to attack me for this, I do not believe that I can with 100% certainty know that a woman isn't going to marry me for money with plans to leave me.  Sorry, a pretty face and skinny waist is nice but its not sufficient to entitle a woman to a retirement she didn't work for. Seriously, why should a women get a nice life when she didn't work? 8 years of school, 4 years of residency 30 hour long shifts, night shifts, on call ect. and she gets half for simply saying I do? Bullshit, protect your money it is your. Marriage does not have to be am equal partnership monetarily. Do not be tricked into believing that you must accept someone else's definition of "marriage"

Lastly, here is something many do not consider. I have friends with prenups, even on where the woman asked the man to sign one. In many cases it improves teh marriage. People know where they stand, they know its not about the money, the wondering and the resentment, the doubt is gone.

[redking11]

The maneuvering to protect yourself ,and your children, is understandable. (but not to the exclusion of what would be truly fair to a wife in case of a future divorce) [

Ahhh that's really the question isn't it? What is fair? There are so many ways and angles to view that pickle. Some will say 50% of the assets that you accumulate while married is the only fair thing. Others will view it by what did this woman gain and lose by entering into this failed marriage? That gets more tricky. She gained much. An AM probably gave her a much improved lifestyle during their years of marriage, not only monetarily but emotionally and socially. What is that worth? What did the woman lose? retirement savings?, educational training, job experience = earning potential.

In my view, and I admit I know almost nothing of the educational and employment opportunities in the Ukraine, most of these women won't have lost much earning potential or retirement savings during 10 years of marriage to an AM and I would think about $45,000 - $60,000 should be sufficient (depending on her education and work experience a woman with a professional degree would have lost more than a gas station attendant). Hate me all you want but I do not believe that a woman should be entitled to 1/2 of all of a man's assets for saying "I do". The outcomes would be unfair not only for the man but for other women. First the man's pre-marriage work/education is what allows him to earn his income in the first place. So the income is a result of pre-marriage investment (which a woman isn't normally entitled to, yet our courts ignore the fact that earning potential is often a product of pre-marriage investments).  Second, why should one women married to a millionaire get so much more than a woman married to an average joe? Is the millionaire wife's 10 years worth more than average joe's life? and how many of these Ukrainian women are not calculating and intentional? How many do not measure their looks, their age, their brains and calculate what quality of man in terms of attractiveness and wealth they can secure? I think these women see it as more of a business transaction that many of the men on here realize.

[Jumper]

In the US,in these type of cases,  basically a US citizen is petitioning
their government to allow a foreign alien to immigrate
based on family ties. They are agreeing to take financial responsibility
 for that person,  so that the intended immigrant does not become a burden on other US citizens.

Seems completely fair to me.
 
From the USCIS website.

http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/affidavit-support

An affidavit of support is a document an individual signs to accept financial responsibility for another person, usually a relative, who is coming to the United States to live permanently.  The person who signs the affidavit of support becomes the sponsor of the relative (or other individual) coming to live in the United States.  The sponsor is usually the petitioner of an immigrant petition for a family member.


An affidavit of support is legally enforceable; the sponsor's responsibility usually lasts until the family member or other individual either becomes a U.S. citizen, or can be credited with 40 quarters of work (usually 10 years).

Responsibilities as a Sponsor

When you sign the affidavit of support, you accept legal responsibility for financially supporting the sponsored immigrant(s) generally until they become U.S. citizens or can be credited with 40 quarters of work. Your obligation also ends if you or the individual sponsored dies or if the individual sponsored ceases to be a permanent resident and departs the United States.

Note: Divorce does NOT end the sponsorship obligation.


If the individual you sponsored receives any "means-tested public benefits," you are responsible for repaying the cost of those benefits to the agency that provided them.
   If you do not repay the debt, the agency can sue you in court to get the money owed. Any joint sponsors or household members whose income is used to meet the minimum income requirements are also legally responsible for financially supporting the sponsored immigrant.


*************

To me the OP is fretting issues  way ahead of the game
that are rather small  in the the big picture. It's ok, and questions are good to ask.
 There are exceptions to every rule, and all that can be given here is general advice - I live in a city of millions of immigrants.
Generally  FSU women are not going to immigrate to the US , to get divorced and be on some  welfare program.
One thing I could see as a possibly large liability , is health care , if the petitioner made no provisions for such and basically tried to *dump* the immigrant.

None of these scenarios would seemingly apply to the OP ,
or what might happen if he eventually divorced in his position.
He'd be more likely to get hit by lightning IMHO ,
 than that she'd actually end up on welfare, or state supported health care, and that the government would then also chase him down over the initial AOS.

I advise to fret working on his own relationship skills, and in the overall search and due diligence of finding someone compatible,  regardless country, and spending significant time knowing who they really are.
 Not worrying over far removed particulars unlikely to ever come into play in his life.

[Jumper]

My above post is directed only to the issue of the affidavit of support.


Not to prenups , which have been bantered about on the various forums for going on 20 years

[Boethius]

Ahhh that's really the question isn't it? What is fair? There are so many ways and angles to view that pickle. Some will say 50% of the assets that you accumulate while married is the only fair thing. Others will view it by what did this woman gain and lose by entering into this failed marriage? That gets more tricky. She gained much. An AM probably gave her a much improved lifestyle during their years of marriage, not only monetarily but emotionally and socially. What is that worth? What did the woman lose? retirement savings?, educational training, job experience = earning potential.


In my view, and I admit I know almost nothing of the educational and employment opportunities in the Ukraine, most of these women won't have lost much earning potential or retirement savings during 10 years of marriage to an AM and I would think about $45,000 - $60,000 should be sufficient (depending on her education and work experience a woman with a professional degree would have lost more than a gas station attendant). Hate me all you want but I do not believe that a woman should be entitled to 1/2 of all of a man's assets for saying "I do". The outcomes would be unfair not only for the man but for other women. First the man's pre-marriage work/education is what allows him to earn his income in the first place. So the income is a result of pre-marriage investment (which a woman isn't normally entitled to, yet our courts ignore the fact that earning potential is often a product of pre-marriage investments).  Second, why should one women married to a millionaire get so much more than a woman married to an average joe? Is the millionaire wife's 10 years worth more than average joe's life? and how many of these Ukrainian women are not calculating and intentional? How many do not measure their looks, their age, their brains and calculate what quality of man in terms of attractiveness and wealth they can secure? I think these women see it as more of a business transaction that many of the men on here realize.

If a man is as concerned with preserving his assets as you are, no, he likely did not give her much emotionally and socially during the marriage.  What did she lose?  She lost seeing the rocks in her life - her family and friends - on a daily basis.

I agree anything acquired before the marriage should be exempt from matrimonial claims.  I also could go for any appreciation on those assets being exempt, though in the absence of a pre nup, the law will divide that growth 50/50.  But you dismiss the fact that having a wife also brings value to your life, value which also means you can go out and earn a good income and increase your asset base.  That includes, usually, having someone cook and clean for you, raise your children, and make your life generally function more efficiently.   

Marriage is about building a life together.  Going into a marriage with the premise that you are providing all the benefits, and your imported wife is just receiving those benefits because she comes from a poor country is arrogant.  It commodifies Ukrainian women.  It is something my husband has said is the impetus for many AM going to Ukraine, to "buy the cheapest product", and why he finds it distasteful.   

With your mindset, you may be better off hiring domestic help to deal with your home, a psychologist to deal with your emotional needs,  and a prostitute to deal with your sexual needs.  That way, you can be assured that you preserve your assets to their maximum growth potential.

[dragonkid]

Ahhh that's really the question isn't it? What is fair? There are so many ways and angles to view that pickle. Some will say 50% of the assets that you accumulate while married is the only fair thing. Others will view it by what did this woman gain and lose by entering into this failed marriage? That gets more tricky. She gained much. An AM probably gave her a much improved lifestyle during their years of marriage, not only monetarily but emotionally and socially. What is that worth? What did the woman lose? retirement savings?, educational training, job experience = earning potential.

In my view, and I admit I know almost nothing of the educational and employment opportunities in the Ukraine, most of these women won't have lost much earning potential or retirement savings during 10 years of marriage to an AM and I would think about $45,000 - $60,000 should be sufficient (depending on her education and work experience a woman with a professional degree would have lost more than a gas station attendant). Hate me all you want but I do not believe that a woman should be entitled to 1/2 of all of a man's assets for saying "I do". The outcomes would be unfair not only for the man but for other women. First the man's pre-marriage work/education is what allows him to earn his income in the first place. So the income is a result of pre-marriage investment (which a woman isn't normally entitled to, yet our courts ignore the fact that earning potential is often a product of pre-marriage investments).  Second, why should one women married to a millionaire get so much more than a woman married to an average joe? Is the millionaire wife's 10 years worth more than average joe's life? and how many of these Ukrainian women are not calculating and intentional? How many do not measure their looks, their age, their brains and calculate what quality of man in terms of attractiveness and wealth they can secure? I think these women see it as more of a business transaction that many of the men on here realize.

You misunderstood most of us (or just me). I am a big fan of a prenup, but my only issue is when someone does not want to give $50k to his ex wife. I would do that, even if it was less than a year, i don't plan on getting married, but if i did, i will learn my lesson by the 3rd time, and call it quits. Some of the ones who don't want to give away a small slice are not broke, simply they just don't want to share anything like OP, which is why i gave him grief.

A good woman makes you feel good, makes you feel confident in life, go after things you wouldn't think about before. That is value you should give her some sort of reward for. I feel bad for the women that move, fuck a man they have no sexual desire for, and are left with nothing, OP is that sort of guy that would make a woman go through that whole sort of process. Yes, nobody is putting a gun to the womans head, but sometimes in life you need to be just nice, and show some compassion, especially if you married the woman.

you can assured that you preserve your assets to their maximum growth potential.[/font]

A good woman i would say makes a man stronger , some have told me this. You don't focus on chasing skirt, you have a woman beside you , supporting you, encouraging you to face your fears a persevere. She tends to your emotional needs, both of you share intense love and compassion, that is maybe what a lot of guys will feel till they meet a genuine woman.

[Jumper]

I think these women see it as more of a business transaction that many of the men on here realize.

redking11
Don't take this reply personally at all, it's just thinking out loud about what i've seen posted on this subject for 18 years? I'm also around RW a lot..lol


So, I'd say what you posted is a pretty big generalization. Hey it may, or may not, be accurate? right?
(likely more accurate in the specific MOB context , as it would lend itself that direction )

What I can assure you, is that if  I actually felt that it was generally accurate there,(and i've lived in the FSU)
I would simply not look in those countries for a wife.
It isn't a requirement, it's a choice after all.
( I have been married to 2 RW, one painless no contest divorce after 7 years, and currently married about 5 years, so I have some points of reference)

  Now , I'm certain that it is accurate for  given percentage of women in any country, it's not like wealthy men(or women) are not used in this fashion by people of their own nationality.
In fact its down right common, the term gold digger and other monikers are out there in everyday usage. So again I do not see any security blanket for the wealthy in this regard?  If they choose to  get married foreign or domestic, they take financial risks, period.
 A prenup may or may not protect their assets, as there are too many factors that play into any individual case , including length of marriage ,exact wording of the prenup, the financials etc etc .
  While it doesn't hurt to ask about them, I doubt anyone that truly needs one, would  take the advice from a RWforum on the subject. I'm fairly certain they have better expert opinion in their state to ask,and that would always be my advice.
 If you have the assets that would require a prenup, you'd need to speak with proper local financial and legal counsel on such matters.

 I certainly never implied 50% for *x* years of marriage was fair , or not. Not for me to decide. Way too many factors involved.
I know my state is generally quite fair regarding family law matters. 
Other states may not be.

  As you mentioned some of us don't have that concern for whatever reason,but a charming ,intelligent, and  beautiful FSU wife is not just some fantasy.
I do know my wife gave up far more than income , or retirement.
 She gave up seeing her friends and family daily, her culture and
familiar way of life. She lived in a home in the suburbs of a decent sized city, and had decent income and all the normal things people of
the west have in life.   You may think there was some huge improvement in her life moving here, she would assure you
that's true , and that it would be,:::::::::: drum roll:::::: me. 
 The reality is that sure there are things that are better here,
the general stability, opportunity for children etc, are large ,and hard to put
an exact value on.
Similarly i'm not sure I'd want to, or can, put a value on what she gave up in the family and friends daily interaction and face time.
 can you?

It's very easy for me to say, as i'm one of the ones that have very few cares in the world.. and nothing of substance to lose, that i value.
but I see this general mentality in the wealthy to boil things down to nickle and cents. A whats this  woman really giving up? living in a third world economy mentality?
  Sorry , I find it very hard to relate.
1.Because someone with the wealth of that nature should be able to both protect it, and be able to reasonably take care of someone they cared enough to marry if things went south.
2.If that's a huge concern,  then I would suggest men simply not use their economic advantage to look in such places.
 
 I'm fully aware that the perceived stability  and opportunity of the west,  plays some role in most of these marriages ,including my own.
I never hide from that fact ,nor does it bother me in the least.
I certainly make no excuses for it, I absolutely own it.
So I'd think a guy with some sizable assets can as well.

and I'd only imagine, that a man of wealth needing protecting,  would actually  be accustomed to that being at least a part, or factor,  of relationships in general as well.So ,not sure why they'd struggle a bit in coming to grips with it being a part of a cross cultural marriage as well.
Why jump to the conclusion she'd be any more likely to *use* them than a local woman?
 To me it *seems* that this often boils down to they just don't want to take the real face time needed to do the due diligence on a women that lives further way. Odd since they have more means than others to do so ?
  Anyway, ultimately it's not her fault that he choose to look in her country, nor her fault the logistics make it more difficult for him to get to know her well.
It's not exactly her fault he has assets he'd like to cover his ass on either,because she may actually love him.
 (that's on him to figure out)
  If she really loves him, for him(which is what most men want , wealthy or not) then why would a man worry about a future  prenup that was drawn up fairly?
As odds are she wouldn't?  if it was explained well, brought up in proper time /place / context,  and they were truly compatible .(compatibility certainly  includes mentality and life outlooks after all)

 Sure some women would have an issue with it (both foreign and domestic)
Does that mean the man wouldn't date locally until he found out if generally women were for or against a prenup?

That's the root of this isn't it?
It comes across as an attempt to cheap out before even getting on the plane, as they prefer to not lose that time and money  dating so far away, if she *might* be put off by a prenup.

Locally that would be *ok* to date first and find out at the proper time if a prenup  mattered,
so its back to simple logistics , the implied costs,
and the general negative stereotyping of a foreign bride (or groom)
 
 So in my opinion it's more the entire mindset of before even dating or getting on a plane of already looking ahead about *money* and *possible* loss of it,  that would  be the real issue with FSU women (or any woman) than the actual prenup document or marriage agreement.
(they are familiar with the term)

[2tallbill]

How many do not measure their looks, their age, their brains and calculate what quality of man in terms of attractiveness and wealth they can secure? I think these women see it as more of a business transaction that many of the men on here realize.

I think you are being far too simplistic about a complicated subject possibly which could
be it's own thread.

How much does a mans ability to provide for them and their children (current or future)
affect an FSUW choices on marriage? How pragmatic are FSUW when making choices
about marriage? What are the factors?

I think very, very few FSUW go into a marriage with a foreign man with the idea that
they will rake it in during divorce court.

[dragonkid]

I think very, very few FSUW go into a marriage with a foreign man with the idea that
they will rake it in during divorce court.

Exactly, russian women know nothing about how our divorce courts work. You say prenup, she thinks to herself, "i don't care, i will make this work". she has no idea if a prenup could not hold up in court.Does that mean there is no desire for a better life? No, it is a range of factors, your personality, looks, and wallet, if you are talking to a gold digger,  than your wallet will be a bigger factor than the other two.