What do you think would happen if Common Law Wife / Husband WAS a thing? /

[DontDrinkDontSmokeWhatDoIDo]

There are often posts on here where (usually) women have fallen into financial difficulties through living with but not being married to their partners.

Often it's is a nasty surprise to them that despite living as 'man & wife', they don't have the rights that come with legally being married.

It got me thinking - what if the concept of Common Law wife / husband DID exist, and that after, say, 5 years of living together, similar rights to marriage DID apply?

I can see loads of outcomes, and I'm not entirely sure it would be a bad idea.

What do you think would happen ?

Being married has been hopelessly over-romanticised.

Having a lovely big wedding and party is lovely and romantic and fun, but being married is a serious legal commitment.

How do you distunguish between friends living together and sharing bills and a romantic relationship?

'Common law marriage' is still legal in several US states. This was because it was often difficult to find a preacher to marry you. It's a lot less common now and you can make a non-marriage declaration.

I'm in favour of a legal contract that doesn't have the emotional baggage of being married, or being divorced if people decide to separate. Would love to be able to agree to share finances and responsibilities with another adult but not be 'wedded' or seen as a couple in everything.

How do you distunguish between friends living together and sharing bills and a romantic relationship?

Sex, children together?

trappedsincesundaymorn
They might be, DBros landlord is one of his best mates from school, including uni houses they've probably lived together about 8 years. I don't see DBro moving out until one of them moves in with a long term partner.

@Themostwonderfultimeoftheyear

How do you distunguish between friends living together and sharing bills and a romantic relationship?

Exactly! But we were just housemstes. Yeah, ok, we slept in the same bed but that doesn't mean we were in an actual relationship or anything...

Would just end up really messy and lining the lawyers pockets.

How will the government monitor how much sex people who live together have? And why should committed couples who don't have children be treated differently?

Sorry that was in response to Karma

What about the people that want to keep finances separate, and protect their home for their children, etc.

Marriage or Civil Partnership is a legal contract. Nothing romantic about it. The whole 'wedding industry' has done that for us.

NZ has a defacto relationship law - details here: communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-12-relationships-and-break-ups/dividing-your-property-when-you-split-up-relationship-property/whos-covered-by-the-property-relationships-act/

When DH, then my boyfriend, bought his property he was advised to get me to sign a contract a bit like a pre-nup to protect his assets. I was happy to sign I had no intention of claiming anything.

I actually think it’s a good idea - it forces a discussion about how serious the relationship is and it puts the cards on the table.

It would be disastrous. So many would remain in single households and just date.

Perhaps parents should instill a work ethic to their children, teach budgeting, how to provide for oneself and to not rely on others to fund their lives.

I’m not sure how many can be shocked that a dating partner doesn’t have to hand over their assets if they stop dating.

Men will take advantage, of course.

Messy lawsuits.

Women being cross-examined about their sex lives in those lawsuits when one side claims it was a relationship and the other side claims it wasn't.

@Themostwonderfultimeoftheyear

The way that it works in some countries is that the woman opt to prove they have been living and raising children as a couple for x number of years and with that they acquire the same rights as a wife.

It is not something the government monitors or force on people, just an option available to take if you are a de facto wife for around 10 years. It was put in place to protect women as it is normally the woman who is forced to take a cut to her hours/income/financial independence/career to accommodate child rearing.

Perhaps parents should instill a work ethic to their children, teach budgeting, how to provide for oneself and to not rely on others to fund their lives.

Perhaps we women should teach by example. Being a SAHM can teach your children that the correct thing is for the man to bring the income and the woman to stay at home once children arrive.

@Ultimatecougar

Actually I can also predict an increase in cocklodgers. I know of a number of men who’ve moved in with a single mother just because she had a house. This would only increase. Rest assured men will always make sure the law works in their favour.

NZ has de facto property law.

What happened is that usually men those with assets put them in very carefully created trusts to ring fence assets away... and cocklodgers tried it on more often and with excellent success due to cohabitation.

The most egregious I'd heard of was the odd occasion of a male lodger trying to claim he was actually the romantic partner of his landlady in order to take half her house and other assets.

I support greater propety protections for dependent women (i.e. to protect those who are financially injured through motherhood) but de facto is NOT the way forward on this issue.

I would suspect that the ultimate goal of the state in implementing such a system would be forcing women to financially support feckless men so that the state does not have to.

Although I dont agree with forcing people to get married I do think if you are living as a couple you should have some of the same protections.
E.g. if a couple is claiming uc
Not sure how it would work though.

I would suspect that the ultimate goal of the state in implementing such a system would be forcing women to financially support feckless men so that the state does not have to
Of course the state is well aware that men's behaviour is generally much more problematic than woman's and is always looking to try and get women to take the hit for things that men do

Going forward governments will need to deal with the problems created by women's refusal to have children, they will need to find ways to incentivize women to have children or risk societal implosion and collapse

You don’t want to go down this road OP. In Australia living together is considered the same as marriage, so after a few years your assets are divided in half if you separate. It’s the same as getting a divorce.

It’s all very well for women who have DC with a partner, but they have a choice. Don’t take away the choice from people who would like a live in relationship but don’t want to give away half of everything they own if they split up. Inheritance, pension, house, car, savings.

Don’t take away peoples choices. If you want security when you are having a family with a partner, get married. If you want to keep your assets in case of a separation, don’t marry.

I’d prefer to keep my assets for my children to inherit, not have to give half to an ex partner.

How would anyone prove that it had been 5 years, though? At least with marriage or a CP there is no arguing about dates.

If it did ever become law, I dare say it would just result in a lot more partners (more often I suspect the bloke) buggering off before he was deemed responsible or liable for anything.

@Iwantacookie

Although I dont agree with forcing people to get married I do think if you are living as a couple you should have some of the same protections. E.g. if a couple is claiming uc Not sure how it would work though.

Which ones?

I'm old and have been married for 22 years so I'm not thinking about me.

Just reading a fair amount of threads recently and it feels that a commitment or agreed non-commitment, one way or the other, would give each party more clarity on where they stand.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER

How would anyone prove that it had been 5 years, though? At least with marriage or a CP there is no arguing about dates.

If it did ever become law, I dare say it would just result in a lot more partners (more often I suspect the bloke) buggering off before he was deemed responsible or liable for anything.

I think so too, @GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER . And maybe that would be preferable to find that out within 15 years than 10 or 15?