Consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets when they break up

I would be in favour of that: people still think CPs are only if you are a same-sex couple, and that marriage has to be a big party. It's so rare to do a paper marriage i.e. down the registrar's office at lunchtime in your jeans, even though it's sensible. Women want a big proposal and an even bigger dress (or they don't want to be "part of an outdated institution" or "some man's property", and men think marriage will "tie them down" (which mainly seems to mean not having affairs/not going on stag nights, rather than actually being part of a family), and they don't think children do that because they think children are the woman's.

A colleague of DH's had changed her name by deed poll to be that of her partner/children which seemed so pointless, it didn't give her any additional rights or responsibilities, nor her partner, but she didn't want to get married. I think there are still a lot of people like that. CPs haven't caught on for whatever reason, but there needs to be something.

Legally there are no real differences though between CP and marriage. In some jurisdictions CP is not recognised.

I really don't know why CPs haven't caught on, they could be with being better publicised maybe. I got a CP and it was perfect for some like me who wanted things sorted legally but isn't drawn to a traditional marriage at all, we specifically didn't want to do vows for example.

I would be in favour of that: people still think CPs are only if you are a same-sex couple, and that marriage has to be a big party. It's so rare to do a paper marriage i.e. down the registrar's office at lunchtime in your jeans, even though it's sensible. Women want a big proposal and an even bigger dress (or they don't want to be "part of an outdated institution" or "some man's property", and men think marriage will "tie them down" (which mainly seems to mean not having affairs/not going on stag nights, rather than actually being part of a family), and they don't think children do that because they think children are the woman's.

A colleague of DH's had changed her name by deed poll to be that of her partner/children which seemed so pointless, it didn't give her any additional rights or responsibilities, nor her partner, but she didn't want to get married. I think there are still a lot of people like that. CPs haven't caught on for whatever reason, but there needs to be something.

But then if it's a case of opting in consciously how is this any different to the status quo where marriage or CP is this way of "opting in". The whole proposal seems to be based around the does that people don't need conciously do anything.

This seems topsy-turvy to me.

If we agree that many people are irrational head-in-the-sand uninformed uncomprehending fools for love (who can't even get their heads around the long-established and relatively simple-to-achieve protections of marriage or civil partnerships), it sounds even more crazy to deliberately engineer a situation where those very people will find themselves slip-sliding by default into massive legal and financial obligations without ever having explicitly consented to them!

It might not achieve the purported aim of this proposal, but the best way to retain rights etc. is to opt IN. If you don't bother, then things stay as they are and property/inheritances are protected.

It follows that a public information campaign would be needed to inform people of the merits and disadvantages of opting in.

If one party wants to opt in, and the other doesn't, back off immediately!

I am absolutely sure there are major flaws in my thoughts. Be good to hear them, because opting OUT appears to be very legalistic. Maybe it has to be.

Forgive my ignorance, I'm thinking out loud.

I really think there are a lot of people on this thread who are hopelessly overestimating both men's and women's powers of reasoning.

Many, many studies of the social effects of this, that and the other policy have shown that rationality rarely comes into everyday reasoning. Whether it's about what to buy at the supermarket, or whether to move in with someone; even highly educated women (and men) make decisions with irrational parts of their brains.

Call it nanny state, call it patronising, but we have lots of laws about things that people should be able to decide for themselves or their children (gambling, drink driving, seat belts, psychoactive drugs, whether children need educating, whether parents get to decide if their child can get a tattoo/go into the army/vote).

Even on the "she'll have half my assets so I won't move in" side I doubt most men can think that rationally. Given many, many adults don't understand that the house always wins in gambling, or alternatively they do understand it but emotion wins over, they aren't going to be deciding based on "what is best for me and my assets" or "what is best for my children and their outcomes" but rather "what feels good". We see this all the time with women who stay with abusive partners "because he loves me" and the kids get either put into care if someone spots how bad it is, or silently living lives of misery.

It might not achieve the purported aim of this proposal, but the best way to retain rights etc. is to opt IN. If you don't bother, then things stay as they are and property/inheritances are protected.

It follows that a public information campaign would be needed to inform people of the merits and disadvantages of opting in.

If one party wants to opt in, and the other doesn't, back off immediately!

I am absolutely sure there are major flaws in my thoughts. Be good to hear them, because opting OUT appears to be very legalistic. Maybe it has to be.

Forgive my ignorance, I'm thinking out loud.

Agreed. Also these days 'the bank of Mum and Dad' is involved much more than in the past, in property purchases of first time buyers. These adults will not want 'their family money' (often from their pension funds) going to a cohabitee after 3 years, if they split.

You'd be surprised how rational people can be if something they've worked their asses off and suffered to acquire is at stake.

The examples you give don't involve any effort on the individual's part to achieve if that makes sense.

Even if you're right, so what?
The sensible should suffer for those that don't think clearly?
Is that what you're saying?
No offence against you personally but f* that line of thought.

I really think there are a lot of people on this thread who are hopelessly overestimating both men's and women's powers of reasoning.

Many, many studies of the social effects of this, that and the other policy have shown that rationality rarely comes into everyday reasoning. Whether it's about what to buy at the supermarket, or whether to move in with someone; even highly educated women (and men) make decisions with irrational parts of their brains.

Call it nanny state, call it patronising, but we have lots of laws about things that people should be able to decide for themselves or their children (gambling, drink driving, seat belts, psychoactive drugs, whether children need educating, whether parents get to decide if their child can get a tattoo/go into the army/vote).

Even on the "she'll have half my assets so I won't move in" side I doubt most men can think that rationally. Given many, many adults don't understand that the house always wins in gambling, or alternatively they do understand it but emotion wins over, they aren't going to be deciding based on "what is best for me and my assets" or "what is best for my children and their outcomes" but rather "what feels good". We see this all the time with women who stay with abusive partners "because he loves me" and the kids get either put into care if someone spots how bad it is, or silently living lives of misery.

I really think there are a lot of people on this thread who are hopelessly overestimating both men's and women's powers of reasoning.

Many, many studies of the social effects of this, that and the other policy have shown that rationality rarely comes into everyday reasoning. Whether it's about what to buy at the supermarket, or whether to move in with someone; even highly educated women (and men) make decisions with irrational parts of their brains.

Call it nanny state, call it patronising, but we have lots of laws about things that people should be able to decide for themselves or their children (gambling, drink driving, seat belts, psychoactive drugs, whether children need educating, whether parents get to decide if their child can get a tattoo/go into the army/vote).

Even on the "she'll have half my assets so I won't move in" side I doubt most men can think that rationally. Given many, many adults don't understand that the house always wins in gambling, or alternatively they do understand it but emotion wins over, they aren't going to be deciding based on "what is best for me and my assets" or "what is best for my children and their outcomes" but rather "what feels good". We see this all the time with women who stay with abusive partners "because he loves me" and the kids get either put into care if someone spots how bad it is, or silently living lives of misery.

I really think there are a lot of people on this thread who are hopelessly overestimating both men's and women's powers of reasoning.

Many, many studies of the social effects of this, that and the other policy have shown that rationality rarely comes into everyday reasoning. Whether it's about what to buy at the supermarket, or whether to move in with someone; even highly educated women (and men) make decisions with irrational parts of their brains.

Call it nanny state, call it patronising, but we have lots of laws about things that people should be able to decide for themselves or their children (gambling, drink driving, seat belts, psychoactive drugs, whether children need educating, whether parents get to decide if their child can get a tattoo/go into the army/vote).

Even on the "she'll have half my assets so I won't move in" side I doubt most men can think that rationally. Given many, many adults don't understand that the house always wins in gambling, or alternatively they do understand it but emotion wins over, they aren't going to be deciding based on "what is best for me and my assets" or "what is best for my children and their outcomes" but rather "what feels good". We see this all the time with women who stay with abusive partners "because he loves me" and the kids get either put into care if someone spots how bad it is, or silently living lives of misery.

Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister would have gloriously have pointed out all the negatives and inconsistencies and correctly nothing would go forward. 😁

It looks like another manifestation of the Politician's Syllogism from Yes, Minister.

1: We must do something.
2: This is something.
Conclusion: Therefore, we must do this.

They've been highlighting this for at least two decades. I'm astonished anyone still believes in it. Google is a thing. Chat GPT is a thing. If people are too thick or lazy to bother finding out what their legal status is, that is on them. Its not for the rest of us to have to live alone or be forced into an obligation we have not consented to.

Far better to have a campaign highlighting the non existence of common law marriage, and also overhauling child maintenance so that absent fathers actually pay for their children.

I hate the idea that you could effectively be married without your consent! It is definitely something you should do knowingly. I'm married but I did it knowingly and on purpose.

I think it is a good idea, maybe with some tweaking, as it gets around the Sharia court system creeping into the UK, where muslim couples are only married religiously and not legally, thus affording none of the hard won legal protections, that previous generations of women have fought hard for, to Muslim women living in the UK.

We can not have a parallel legal system being allowed to run in the UK and this is a step in the right direction to ending it.