Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Coercive control and cohabitees’ rights to property - Maria Wheeler and Labour

111 replies

LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 08:43

From a Guardian article.

”Labour would also seek to give common-law wives who live with their partners the same rights, including over property, as married women should their relationship end.”

Bit misleading. That right couldn’t be restricted to women. It would also be available to men who move in with a woman who owns her own property. Which would make a woman subject to coercive control even more unable to leave the relationship.

OP posts:
MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 08/10/2023 13:25

Where (and what) is the burden of proof that a lodger is a partner? The presence of shared children would be persuasive I suppose

What's the burden of proof in a relationship where there aren't children?

In Australia you can register a defacto relationship but that's just marriage under another name.

Gothambutnotahamster · 08/10/2023 13:23

Exactly @PuttingDownRoots and what's to stop a lodger claiming they were in a relationship with the home owner and staking their claim.

quantumbutterfly · 08/10/2023 13:22

PuttingDownRoots · 08/10/2023 13:18

What about lodgers? Should they gain rights over the landlords property? After all, they share the property...

Seems like a vexatious question but I'll bite.

Where (and what) is the burden of proof that a lodger is a partner? The presence of shared children would be persuasive I suppose.

PuttingDownRoots · 08/10/2023 13:18

What about lodgers? Should they gain rights over the landlords property? After all, they share the property...

Original poster
LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 13:16

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 13:06

The way to deal with issues of abusive relationships or rates of poverty in households headed by a single mother is not turning cohabitation into marriage without explicit consent.

it’s to ensure that women understand the risks of making themselves financially dependent on a man who hasn’t entered into a property sharing contract (that’s what marriage largely is). And making sure women can stay in work and return to work so they can financially support themselves and their children.

And for men to step up and shoulder the responsibilities of children properly. And various other things.

But sneaking marriage with out the party and paperwork on people is not a good idea.

Spot on.

Especially this.

”The way to deal with issues of abusive relationships or rates of poverty in households headed by a single mother is not turning cohabitation into marriage without explicit consent.”

OP posts:
quantumbutterfly · 08/10/2023 13:15

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 13:06

The way to deal with issues of abusive relationships or rates of poverty in households headed by a single mother is not turning cohabitation into marriage without explicit consent.

it’s to ensure that women understand the risks of making themselves financially dependent on a man who hasn’t entered into a property sharing contract (that’s what marriage largely is). And making sure women can stay in work and return to work so they can financially support themselves and their children.

And for men to step up and shoulder the responsibilities of children properly. And various other things.

But sneaking marriage with out the party and paperwork on people is not a good idea.

this.

My grandfathers were both widowed early and remarried, their children were disinherited by the second marriage, I'm certain that their biological mothers would not have wanted this.

Original poster
LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 13:12

Precipice · 08/10/2023 13:02

I think this (and generally, provisions favouring cohabitants in respect of legal claims over a deceased's estate) very unfair towards the children. Children of a previous marriage/relationship are already in a precarious situation and often lose out over a parent's new relationship. It's one thing if the parent has chosen to make a long-term commitment in law, and another on the basis of 'well, they were in a relationship'.

In terms of the couple itself, what a benefit to the 'cocklodger'! Screw a woman over and screw her out of her house.

“very unfair towards the children. Children of a previous marriage/relationship are already in a precarious situation and often lose out over a parent's new relationship.”

That hadn’t occurred to me. Really good point.

OP posts:
ICanSeeMyHouseFromHere · 08/10/2023 13:12

it’s to ensure that women understand the risks of making themselves financially dependent on a man who hasn’t entered into a property sharing contract (that’s what marriage largely is). And making sure women can stay in work and return to work so they can financially support themselves and their children.

Absolutely this - in fact the article I shared about Ireland is making exactly this point - that people don't know about it, and women especially end up sleepwalking into these situations, because we have a habit of not properly financially protecting ourselves, which society tacitly pushes.

Original poster
LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 13:08

opstopop · 08/10/2023 12:43

Lots of abusive men will be benefitting from this. Many already target single mothers for somewhere to live - imagine if they could take their homes too.

How likely would this be?

Good point.

OP posts:
Gothambutnotahamster · 08/10/2023 13:06

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 11:38

i think this stuff is ridiculous. People can choose to be married or they can choose not to be.

It really isn’t ok to sneak the obligations of a legal contract on to people who’ve chosen not to marry.

Absolutely this - good point!

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 13:06

The way to deal with issues of abusive relationships or rates of poverty in households headed by a single mother is not turning cohabitation into marriage without explicit consent.

it’s to ensure that women understand the risks of making themselves financially dependent on a man who hasn’t entered into a property sharing contract (that’s what marriage largely is). And making sure women can stay in work and return to work so they can financially support themselves and their children.

And for men to step up and shoulder the responsibilities of children properly. And various other things.

But sneaking marriage with out the party and paperwork on people is not a good idea.

Precipice · 08/10/2023 13:02

I think this (and generally, provisions favouring cohabitants in respect of legal claims over a deceased's estate) very unfair towards the children. Children of a previous marriage/relationship are already in a precarious situation and often lose out over a parent's new relationship. It's one thing if the parent has chosen to make a long-term commitment in law, and another on the basis of 'well, they were in a relationship'.

In terms of the couple itself, what a benefit to the 'cocklodger'! Screw a woman over and screw her out of her house.

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 12:56

The thing about inheritance and such like is that, if you want the rights (and responsibilities) that come with a marriage contract… you should get married.

I don’t want to get married but I want to cherry pick the bits of the contract that suit me and have them apply to everyone is not a reasonable position.

My mum and stepdad are not married. After being married to my dad, my mum is certain she never wants to marry. They’ve been together for decades. Their estates won’t benefit from inheritance tax rules for married couples - but they choose not to be married and that how these things go.

quantumbutterfly · 08/10/2023 12:48

I chose not to be a wife, fortunately my partner is a good man and put me on the title deeds of the house but things like inheritance and parental responsibility also need to be looked into for unmarried couples.

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 12:44

The phrase ‘common law wives’ is really unhelpful.

Living with someone should not make you a de facto ‘wife’. Lots of women very much choose not to be wives.

opstopop · 08/10/2023 12:43

Lots of abusive men will be benefitting from this. Many already target single mothers for somewhere to live - imagine if they could take their homes too.

How likely would this be?

quantumbutterfly · 08/10/2023 12:37

LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 09:20

It’s also quite a middle class view:

  • It’s of no benefit to cohabiting couples living in rented accommodation.
  • It’s of no benefit to those who don’t have the money or skills to get a lawyer.

And there’s a question of: why should you be entitled to half someone’s property just because you’ve been living with them? The answer is: because you had kids and you lost your earning potential as a result of not being able to afford childcare.

So here are two alternative “policy solutions” to address that problem: free universal childcare, and making absentee fathers actually pay for their offspring.

But those policies a) cost the government money and b) don’t create a lucrative new income stream for law firms.

Show quote history

Those could be good policies.

Incentives for workplace childcare would be good I think.

Also financial incentives for workplaces to provide transport provision from something like a railway station hub if they're not on public transport routes. Not everyone can afford to run a car, some families run one car and need to access different workplaces /different hours.

I lost 15 years of work experience (and self esteem) at home with my children. I know many women with STEM qualifications who became childminders to bring an income in, but that requires home space that complies with regulations. I know of one professionally qualified couple who both childmind because it's so lucrative.

Apologies for the derail.

ResisterRex · 08/10/2023 12:32

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 11:38

i think this stuff is ridiculous. People can choose to be married or they can choose not to be.

It really isn’t ok to sneak the obligations of a legal contract on to people who’ve chosen not to marry.

This is a really good point. And highlights a lack of understanding of consent, in effect

Winnading · 08/10/2023 12:23

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 11:38

i think this stuff is ridiculous. People can choose to be married or they can choose not to be.

It really isn’t ok to sneak the obligations of a legal contract on to people who’ve chosen not to marry.

Totally agree, I'm not married BECAUSE I own a house and if we were to split he could take half. I worked bloody hard to buy my house. Bought well before I got together with current partner. I'd be pissed beyond belief if this law came in. So I'd have to chuck my partner out to keep my house safe. Seems a bit ridiculous after 15 years together. But I would nevertheless chuck him out.

What housing crisis?

Original poster
LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 12:14

ICanSeeMyHouseFromHere · 08/10/2023 11:25

I live in Ireland, where this is already largely the case, and I've just gone through a split. I spent more than 20k (and him 5x that) - and it wasn't even particularly complicated or acrimonious. Even if we'd agreed on what was fair, and had gone the minimum route, it would have cost 7k in total for both of us.

It's all very well having the law, but the fact of the matter is that it's only accessible for a small number of people who have the money for solicitors, and that means that it's not going to do anything to protect women with children, who have the least time and money to spend defending themselves.

It will be used by abusive men, to further pummel women.

“Even if we'd agreed on what was fair, and had gone the minimum route, it would have cost 7k in total for both of us.” 😲

Do you know which organisations led the campaign for “you can’t live together and then not live together without it costing you a fortune” being put on the statute book in Ireland, Icansee? Was it women’s refuges and VAWG campaign groups or was it representatives of the legal sector?

From memory, it’s been mainly lawyers who’ve been campaigning for it in the UK.

OP posts:
TheirEminence · 08/10/2023 11:46

Here’s a review of a recent book by a U.S. economist that makes a strong, data-driven case for marriage. The review’s author is very much on the left but recognises the robustness of the data:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/27/opinions/two-parent-privilege-kearney-marriage-single-parenthood-filipovic/index.html

Labour needs to think through and robustly test its policies. Shouldn’t be too much to ask after this long in opposition.

Opinion: The problem with all this talk about two-parent ‘privilege’ | CNN

Extramarital births, single parenthood and marriage problems in America aren’t the result of liberal or feminist ideals, but conservative policies, writes Jill Filipovic.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/27/opinions/two-parent-privilege-kearney-marriage-single-parenthood-filipovic/index.html

Chersfrozenface · 08/10/2023 11:44

There is a law on cohabitants' rights in Scotland.

Does anyone know of a study or studies on how that has worked?

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 11:38

i think this stuff is ridiculous. People can choose to be married or they can choose not to be.

It really isn’t ok to sneak the obligations of a legal contract on to people who’ve chosen not to marry.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 08/10/2023 11:37

I think I recall this being suggested years ago and people asking how do you define such a relationship - length of time? number of children? it works for marriage because there are the witnesses and the marriage certificate, but how do you prove you have those rights without it?

And I'd expect the Guardian to know there's no such thing as 'common-law wives.' Or husbands.