No spin. If a question makes you skeptical, that's exactly the one we want to answer properly.
No. A prenup is signed once, guesses a fixed number years in advance, and is easy to set aside under pressure at the moment it's actually needed. ForBothOfUs is always live — dormant for the whole relationship, tracking real verified income monthly, and only activating at separation. It adjusts to what actually happened, not what you guessed might happen.
It's not a prediction about your relationship — it's a seatbelt. You hope you never need it. It's triggered by a caregiving decision, not by doubt: the moment one partner steps back from income to raise a child, that's when it starts protecting the both of you.
Yes. It's a Binding Financial Agreement under Section 90B of the Family Law Act for married couples (Section 90UB for de facto couples) — the same legal instrument that underpins a prenup, just structured to activate correctly and stay current.
The duration and split are set at signing based on the real income and time actually given up, so a return to work doesn't void the agreement — it's already priced in. Income is verified monthly, so the picture stays accurate rather than needing to be renegotiated.
Nothing changes. The duration and split were chosen at signing to reflect what's fair for the time and income actually given up during the relationship — a repartnering clause isn't needed, because a new relationship doesn't undo the years already spent as a caregiver.
Through the ATO's Single Touch Payroll data, checked monthly. That's the same data your employer already reports for tax purposes, not a self-reported figure either partner could inflate or hide.
Through a direct debit mandate, the same BECS infrastructure banks already use for scheduled payments. No invoicing, no chasing — it moves automatically once the agreement is active.
Because family law was built to split assets at separation, not to protect income — and the caregiver income gap is an income problem, not an asset problem. Superannuation solved retirement savings the same way: it started as optional infrastructure and became standard because the gap it closed was too costly to leave open.
Still skeptical? Good — that's the right instinct. See the actual numbers behind it.
See the maths