This is just an awful can of worms and a money machine for the lawyers.

Someone owns a house and an opposite sex friend moves in as a lodger. The owner has an accident and dies, the friend then claims that they were in a relationship with the deceased and demands part of their estate.

One half of a relationship dies and then the family and the surviving partner go to war over when they couple entered into a relationship. Was it 5 years and one month ago or a year later? "You were just living there as a friend!" "That's because we kept our relationship secret for the first year!"

And so on.

The only way for this sort of thing to work is for people to enter into a legal agreement that takes obvious and binding effect from some set point in time.

That might be marriage or it might be wills and contracts.

Just because a few people are foolish and have children or enter into domestic arrangements without consideration as to what would happen if things went wrong doesn't mean that the rest of us should be forced into legal agreements and be used as cash points for the lawyers.

If you want the legal protections of marriage don't just bleat about it, either get married, consult a lawyer or buy one of those cheap will packs from WH Smiths. It's not hard.

It's more nannying from the state. If you want to take care of your loved ones when you are gone, then get a will and a life insurance policy. If you don't want to do that or have inheritance tax issues that this won't solve, then get married or civil partnered. If you are too lazy/feckless/stupid to do any of these things, then the state deserves your money under the intestacy rules.

Maintenance payments are not the same as assets; it is a seperate issue.

Oblomov, I am not in this situation as I am married.

I used to work in homelessness and I have seen a lot of women in this predicament.

I don't think that it is because men and women are different or that men are worse than women. People just sometimes act badly when there is an imbalance of control and power in a relationship; men can act badly over assets when they have made the greatest contribution and women can act badly over access to children, as they often have residency as the primary carer.

Many women do stay in abusive relationships because of the poverty their children would end up in if they left; the fact that they can be denied assets exacerbates this.

I expect that it is because the Government has talked to Women's Aid, homelessness charities and child poverty groups that this kind of change in the law has come about.

If marriage is special then it is special for reasons other than giving people certain legal rights. It is certainly morally dubious to want to deny rights to often very vulnerable people simply to make marriage more important.

I admit though that I have gone off topic as the OP wanted to talk about wills.

Oh please the CSA is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

In some ways I do think this is a good thing. In effect, what it will do is to force a couple living together, to be married. Obviously the removal of choice is a Bad Thing, but I think for many women, the choice is a Bad Thing - it leads to relationship drift.

Many people move in together because it's convenient and they vaguely think they might want to make a commitment in future. Ten years later they wake up finding that they've spent their youth with someone that actually, they're not that keen on, or who actually, is not that keen on them. If they'd had to make a commitment to move in with them, that relationship drift would not have happened. And that relationship drift, because of the menopause, is inevitably more in men's interest than in that of women.

The result of this legislation if it happens, will be that couples won't move in together. Or if they do, they'll move out pretty damn sharpish when they realise that to all intents and purposes, they are
married and they don't really want to be. Unfortunately there are going to be casualties, as there are with the current status quo. And as with the current situation, the casualties are going to be those idiots who don't bother to find out what their legal position is before they adopt a certain domestic set up. Either way I suppose you'll get people who will come a cropper - it's just whether the cropper is worse under the current legislation than it would be under this proposed stuff.

"So how do we currently stop men from walking away from unmarried SAHM or low paid working mums and their children, leaving them with no assets or meagre assets?"

Isn't the Child Support Agency there to ensure maintenance payments are made after a separation, whether the parents are married or not?

Anyway, my point was more to do with wills and what happens if one of a couple pass away, as the proposed change in the law is to do with that, rather than separation. The workable ways in which couples and chilren can be protected is by making wills or getting a legal marriage certificate as well.

I know for a fact that we would have been in and even worse financial situation had my parents not been married, because when my father died, he'd been made redunant, and my mother was a SAHM. Fortunately, she was able to recieve Widowed mother's allowance, and then a Widow's pension when we were older. Unmarried parents don't receive this benefit (nor the bereavement benefit).

MillyR, I think you and I have very different views of men and women.
I don't have a problem if someone doesn't want to get married.
Most women I know are very strong. Informed. They enter relationships very carefully, if they have children already. And if they choose to stay, then that is o.k.
And yes some men are lying toe-rags. some women are too.
But they go in aware.
Have you been hurt in theis way ? have many of your friends ?
I think I have a less cynical view of people. oh don't get me wrong. I have seen divorced couples do the most attrocious things to eachother. lying. so its not that I am totally naieve.

And I don't think men don't get married because of the expense of the day or the dislike of the day. Some of them don't get married because living with and having children with a woman who they can walk away from and leave with no assets in the future if they change their mind about her is a good option for men. Many women get into this situation because they believe all the misinformation about 'common law marriage' or they just get pregnant by mistake or don't insist on a marriage before having kids, thinking that it will happen later.

Women being in relationships with men who will not get married is not unusual. Children living in poverty as a result of relationship breakdown is not unusual.

good hope they bring it in!

married people are always moaning about people who choose not to marry. some people just don't want to.

Okay, so what workable ways are there to protect the children? Haivng gone to the link posted, it does say that when an unmarried couple seperates they each take away the assets they contributed. This is totally different to the situation that would happen with a married couple.

So how do we currently stop men from walking away from unmarried SAHM or low paid working mums and their children, leaving them with no assets or meagre assets?

Here is a quick legal overview of the differences between the rights of married/civil partnership and cohabiting couples.

I find it odd that a man would refuse to marry his partner (even though she wants to). Like many others have said, a legal marriage doesn't have to start off with a hugely expensive wedding day if you don't like all that romantic stuff (I do though ) It could be like going to a solicitor's when you buy a house, just a contractual agreement. I can't see why the law should be changed in this way when there are already perfectly fine workable ways in which couples and children are protected.