De facto relationships

We do need a lesson in school to the effect of:...

You also need to teach:

Married? Husband runs up credit card debt, you can be liable despite having no right of access to his account.

Married? Own your own property prior to marriage? He has a claim to that property

Give up your career to early in your marriage? Protection wont stand as it is considered a short marriage.

I do agree we need to be teaching it's a legal contract, but we need to be teaching all sides of it.

I agree Wines - whichever system you go for some people (and most of them will be women) get screwed over. And the root of that problem is that women's unpaid labour is invisible, uncompensated and leaves them extremely financially vulnerable.

Yes Cara.

I know that I seem to be going against the flow of the thread but there really are pluses and problems with both options.

At least with the automatic protection offered there is a safety net. By all means, have more education so that every Australian knows that it does need to be a considered choice moving in together.

Make sure that prior assets are protected where again it is by choice with future provisions made for all eventualities.

It was put there for protection for people who did not want to get married at the time when there was NO protection in place . It breaks my heart to see some of the posts about situations that Cara had posted. An attempt to provide for those contingencies, however clumsy/invasive it seems to others, does have merit in at least in its attempts. It also provided some protection for same sex relationships (not all the protections) well before marriage was legalized.

We should get rid of the whole mrs / miss, changing surnames, the 'virginal' white wedding dress and the corny vows.

We had no children and wills in each other's favour. When I realised that IHT would be due on the half of our home inherited from the other (SE, nothing special but still above the then £325k limit). reader I married him.

Country house weekend, registrar came to us. There was not a meringue dress, changed family name or corny vow in sight. I never did change my name and had never used either Miss or Mrs. Simples.

I am however an old gimmer who picked up knowledge about this stuff in the 1970's. I am very sorry that so many people still do jot seem to know about it fifty years later.

We do need a lesson in school to the effect of:

"Not married? He gets hit by a bus. It's his mum and dad who get to say when and if the medics pull the plug on his life support, not you. (Unless you and he went to the trouble of giving each other power of attorney)."

"Not married? Live in the SE? Own a house? He (or you) get hit by a bus. Congratulations, his half of the house is now liable for inheritance tax, and this may mean you have to sell up. (And this is the one that there is no other paperwork which will replicate the protections of being married)."

"Not married? Moved into his house? Spent 10 years paying half the mortgage because that's what felt fair? Had kids and gone part time, then set the childcare costs of the other half time against your salary (because you were the one that wanted to continue to work), rather than the joint income (even though the childcare and you being home half the week enabled him to go out to work)? Now you've split... congratulations, you get nothing. (You could have avoided this by getting put on the mortgage, becoming tenants in common and specifying who got what in the event of a split)"

"Not married? Gave up your career and got a part time pin money job to spend 20 years bring up your joint kids? He trades you in for a younger model just as you're nearing retirement age, a retirement you were planning on both of you enjoying with his occupational pension... Congrats, hope you can make it through to state pension age on universal credit, because you have no claim on his pension."

Kids need to be taught this stuff - repeatedly - in school.

Marriage is not about a pouffy white dress. It is not about "princess for a day". It's not even about leurve and happily ever after (though love should be a necessary precondition, and if you're not hoping for happily ever after, you probably shouldn't be getting married - or indeed staying in a long term relationship and having kids with someone).

It is first and foremost a legal contract.

That legal contract gives you rights, confers protections, and saddles you with obligations towards the other person. You need to think about all this.

And it does so within the context of a patriarchal, capitalist society which values paid employment outside the home and gives no brownie points and certainly no monetary compensation for women's unpaid caring labour within the family.

Default partnerships tinker with this shit round the edges. They are a sticking plaster which benefit some young women at the expense of older women who've made sensible financial decisions. They don't actually fix the way society screws over women because of their child-bearing capability.

Again, there are agreements to protect assets etc. It means it should be a conscious decision at all levels and that these decisions are discussed for all contingencies.

Hell no!!!

I dont want a man having a claim to my property because I choose to live with him for 2 years. Bloody depressing to think you couldn't have a relationship for longer than 2 years and safe guard my DCs home.

Marriage absolutely should be an active choice.

They have the same law in New Zealand and it's turned out to be a disaster for many woman I know. They've been tied up lost assets (as in their homes) to boyfriends they've cohabitated with. And not even had children with.

For example, while ago some people from work were getting their feathers flustered because they weren't happy at all with an article they'd seen in a tabloid. The piece said that people had complained that a supermarket was using a symbol of a women (skirt wearing symbol) to illustrate what to do with a trolley, instead of an unisex or man symbol. The complaint was that it was sexist as both men & women now shop for food. My young colleagues were saying that was ridiculous, over the top PC kind of stuff, and then dismissed it before saying 'what does it matter anyway'??? Well, it clearly matters because otherwise it wouldn't have stirred them up to disagree!!

If I remember rightly, before the 80s, in Australia there were no rights conferred to ‘common law’ relationships. At all. The De Facto laws came into being with the decline of popularity for marriage and the increase of living together becoming an option with out the stigma.

Remember in the 80s in Australia, there was a lot of stigma in some families about ‘living together’. Many families would refuse to accept de facto partners rights.

I have seen the both the pros and cons of this law actually. It does make people who decide to cohabitate make a conscious choice after a while, because it is not a new law, most people are now aware of the repercussions. There are less ‘trapped’ now that it has been in for so long. If not, then definitely an awareness campaign needs to be done to make sure people realise there is a legal implication to the arrangement. And it needs to be a conscious choice

For a period of time even after it came in, military people still had to get married to claim entitlements (such as living arrangements and moving allowances etc). It was only maybe mid 90s de facto relationships were treated equally in the forces. I think it was similar in other occupations where to keep you job you had to move where you were sent including teachers, police etc (there may be more flexibility offered now but there was none in the 80s).

It works well when the relationship ends acrimoniously or is abusive. And of course, there needs to be proof of the relationship.

It also takes into consideration superannuation which also become a guaranteed right in the 80s. (The government at the time told my generation not to expect a government pension as we needed to provide for ourselves through this compulsory super with our own contributions effectively).

Of course, splitting of assets is based on how long a couple have been together etc. just like a divorce. There is a lot of fear spread about it being 50/50 straight away but it has not been the case in the states I have lived in.

I have also seen it work when no wills have been left and the deceased family refuse to acknowledge the relationship. Even today, with the family siding with an ex and ignoring the partner of the last decade. Even for next of kin decisions in those situations.

I get the ‘forced decision’ argument, but having grown up with the law in place, I also have seen situations where it offers protection. I would also think there is now enough knowledge of the law domestically that people now work with it. I know my nieces recently have had to rely on the protections the laws offer while ‘saving up’ for their dream weddings, that keep being moved after the babies have been born, Because in their cases those glamour weddings are like a prize and no advice to the contrary was welcome.

Conversely, there are contracts (Binding Financial Agreement) where couples can consciously state how they want assets and finances to be treated at the time the relationship finishes. But, I don’t have any experience with them. I am sure there are plenty who can discuss if and how they work.

So, yes. You can move in together and still protect your assets and pension etc. It just means that is then the conscious decision you make, if you see what I mean.

Like any law though, if it is no longer applicable or it works in a way that undermines the intention, it needs changing to suit the current needs of the population.

It's this view of one party being the reluctant one.

We are unmarried. I own the house, he did have 2 and sold then so money in the bank, both gave good pensions. No kids so want our money to go to our respective nephews/nieces on our deaths.

Now we don't want to marry as that would screw up all that financial independence. The courts on a divorce could override any decision we make. Unlikely but within their power.

So no upside for marriage for us, just financial downside. But that shouldn't mean we should split after 2 years. We have discussed it many times. We both know where we stand.

The version where you sign up got tax benefits and agree support, don't we have the support side here anyway, I know I can't claim any benefits due to living together if I had no job, as his salary savings are too much. So that part is covered anyway.

That's a very interesting point, @MandalaYogaTapestry, but it doesn't strike me as a very good basis for such a significant legal relationship. It should be a conscious choice to enter into that contract, made freely by both parties, not something that one of them wants but can't persuade the other one into, but then it happens anyway by default. Can't see that being well received by the recalcitrant party.

I would be much happier if we went all out to educate young people, particularly girls, about the legal and practical significance of marriage vs cohabitation, especially when you have children, hand in hand with real efforts to make girls more assertive and aware of their right to have boundaries and to enforce them (in all sorts of areas). The Mills & Boon stuff of waiting passively to be proposed to, wasting spending years planning and saving up for The Big Day etc etc is not healthy.

@TheLoneRager, no problem with the overlap! (Great name, btw.)

I have been in the "no-one should just end up being in a legal contract, it should be actively consented to" camp. But this thread got me thinking.

If the absence of marriage represents a problem then it is a problem to just one party, the other one is happy with the situation. Otherwise they would get married or live unmarried willingly. So an imbalance of power takes place. The onus is on the interested party to be proactive, take steps, do the talk or leave if the marriage still doesn't happen. So they need to assess the relationship and decide whether it's worth the risk.

If however 2,3,5 years of living together ensured legal rights, then as the deadline approaches, it's the reluctant partly which will need to "wisen up" and either accept the impending financial obligations or lose the relationship. So now it's them who needs to be proactive, take steps and decide what is worth more for them.

Makes the whole relationship thing fairer on the face of it?

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Puddinger
I have no distaste for colonies. Their existence as former colonies is key to why and how these laws came about. As for the dates you list, those are simply the most recent versions currently in effect, that’s not when they were “invented”.

Common law marriage existed in England until the 1753 Marriages Act which specifically stated it did not apply to the colonies. So common law or de facto marriages have persisted in these colonies, and even when they gained independence and to this day. The 1753 Marriages Act also did apply to Wales but did not apply to Scotland and they recognised common law marriage until they abolished it in 2006.

Which is why English couples would elope to Gretna Green....[/quote]
English couples eloped to Scotland because you don't need parental consent in Scotland whereas in England you had to be 21. Gretna has nothing to do with de facto marriage. You can get married in Scotland aged 16 without parental consent.

We have the Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 in Ireland and it more or less ensures I'll never get to live with a partner again. I own my house, I plan to own it by myself for as long as I want. As it currently stands, I want my DS to inherit it in the event of my death. I can't imagine ever wanting anyone but my DS or any future children of his, to benefit from it's financial value. If I ever do want to change that, I want it to be my conscious decision.

I feel too unsure about whether or not a partner living in my house could claim ownership of part of it under the 2010 act. Even if they can't under that legislation, I don't feel confident that the law won't change to allow them those rights at a future point. And could you imagine the scenario where you and a partner are happily living together but you need to tell them move out because the law is about to give them rights over your house?

I know these laws are set up to protect people who have paid toward the ownership costs of a house and then end up with nothing. But if I ever moved someone into my house, they'd be getting to live here for free. They'd be in a privileged financial position of getting to live somewhere rent free and then as a bonus get to make a claim on it.

Tbf, reading Mumsnet, my own marriage experience, the experience of pretty much all of my friends, etc, makes me never want to live with a partner again anyway. But I shouldn't be afraid of my assets being at risk should I change my mind.

How would you test what constitutes a relationship?

I've lived with one housemate for 4 years (just us on our own), so twice as long as the Australian deemed relationship period. We're definitely not together!

Having children is no proof of a relationship either. All it proves is that you had sex at some point previously. It does not mean you are together now.

Having a child together and living together? On stronger ground here, but what time limits would you impose? What if the couple don't want to be legally tied? What if the relationship is in trouble or failing but then suddenly whoops it was our 2 year anniversary last week and in addition to having serious problems in our relationship we're now married.

What if there is abuse or violence in the relationship and you've just legally bound the victim to the abuser because they've lived together for two years? All that will do is make it harder and more traumatic for DV victims to detach themselves.

What if you go "on a break" and one person moves out? What if someone is in the military, for example, and is away for months and months each year?

And how would you define the starting point of the relationship which sets the clock on your two year limit? Your first date? First time you sleep together? Move in together? Does him staying over at yours 4 nights a week and you at his the other 3 constitute living together even though you both maintain seperate addresses?

There are as many variables as there are people.

It seems to me that in order for this system to work and people don't find themselves legally bound to friends / one night stands / someone they hate, you would need to get both parts of the couple to declare that they're in a relationship and wish it to be recognised legally... A bit like marriage...

What is needed is better education. Not defacto legal contracts.

Are you in uk?

@Puddinger
I have no distaste for colonies. Their existence as former colonies is key to why and how these laws came about. As for the dates you list, those are simply the most recent versions currently in effect, that’s not when they were “invented”.

Common law marriage existed in England until the 1753 Marriages Act which specifically stated it did not apply to the colonies. So common law or de facto marriages have persisted in these colonies, and even when they gained independence and to this day. The 1753 Marriages Act also did apply to Wales but did not apply to Scotland and they recognised common law marriage until they abolished it in 2006.

Which is why English couples would elope to Gretna Green....

Doesn’t make me sad on the least. Nor is it unfair. People need to avail self of information

I'm surprised that feminists are so in support of it but only people who live with a law can know its implications, I suppose
I don’t get what point you’re making here?

Why are you advocating for this?

My husband did almost all the organising for our wedding. I just picked my outfit. The venue came with a wedding planner who was very confused and kept calling DH to ask him to ask me things. Apparently it’s not usual for grooms to be making decisions re: table cloths and floral arrangements (in reality, neither he nor I were particularly bothered about any of it but he has a higher tolerance for making/answering phone calls 😂)

I agree with the comment posted previously about needing to separate the legal contract from the wedding gumph. I think this was probably clearer years ago when the ceremony and the party were always in two different venues (church or register office, then elsewhere for the party)

I would’ve quite happily had the very basic, smallest room package (literally an office with space for couple, two witnesses and registrar, takes less than 10 minutes) but it was booked up for absolutely ages! Anyway, there is clearly a demand for contract-only scenarios, despite what the wedding-industrial-complex magazines and shows want us to believe.

Interestingly the longest married couple I know had a basic registry wedding, handful of guests, pub afterwards. There are only two photos from the day and the bride has already taken her hair down and her shoes off.