Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Common law wife rights - Labour policy

87 replies

LavenderfortheBees · 09/10/2023 12:12

Apologies if I've missed an existing thread on this.

Was looking at the news story about Marina Wheeler being appointed whistle-blower tsar by Labour looking at sexual harassment and buried in the stories was this gem:

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

I have googled and can't find any more information on this proposed policy.

Now I know women who have children unmarried and give up work get screwed over if they don't have their name on the house and the relationship breaks down - but surely that is a known risk?

They won't just be able to do it for women - it'll have to work both ways.

I earn well and own a home. My ex didn't work for years and I supported him for years to 'make it big' before finally kicking his lazy arse out. No kids. I owed him nothing luckily as we never married but under this policy would he have been entitled to a share of my house and pension?

Similar with current DP who is hardworking but doesn't earn as much as me and has fewer savings. He contributes to my house bills but (rightly) less than I pay and way less than equivalent rent and bills would be. I wouldn't have agreed to live together if it put my significant equity at risk which would be an awful shame as we love living together. No kids and I have no intention of marrying. He is provided for if I get run over by a bus but if we split, I don't have to pay him off (or him me).

What do we think? I will be very angry if this becomes law as it takes my choices away. If I wanted to marry, I would marry.

OP posts:
OP posts:
Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 09/10/2023 12:14

Ridiculous policy. What's needed is education about what marriage is and when it's a good idea. Forget romance and the big party, it's about creating a legal partnership and mutual rights and responsibilities. As with any other legal contract, people should be aware they're entering into it. It isn't right for everybody and the OP is a very good illustration of why.

Janieforever · 09/10/2023 12:16

There is no such thing as a common law wife, so if they can’t even get that right, they have no chance, isn’t kier a lawyer? Do they think the public are idiots?

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Family law General money
FloweryName · 09/10/2023 12:19

Another reason not to vote Labour then.

I’ve already realised I can never remarry after my husband died so that I can protect my home and children’s inheritance, but Kier wants me to live alone for ever as well? How nice of him.

Timeforabiscuit · 09/10/2023 12:19

What a great way to further fuel a housing crisis - by making co habitation the decider in whether you are in a financial partnership!

ZebraD · 09/10/2023 12:20

Surely it should be opt in/opt out so essentially either like a marriage or prenup??

BalletBob · 09/10/2023 12:20

It's a bullshit policy and I can't see how they'd ever do it. I do think there should be greater protection where kids are involved though.

Original poster
LavenderfortheBees · 09/10/2023 12:21

Yes how would they define it? How long cohabiting? Children?

I have had lodgers (some formal, some more casual as they were mates) on and off over the years. Could one of them have tried to pull a fast one and claim we were cohabiting?

OP posts:
Luckydog7 · 09/10/2023 12:22

Agreed. Ignorance about marriage is what got us here, and ignorance about this new bill will mean that people sleep walk into a legal partnership.

I wonder if instead that there should, yes be education about marriage. But also perhaps some recourse for parents that have raised children with someone to not be thrown out of their home. Perhaps a notice period similar to tenants? Or recognition of the financial value of raising children which could then be redressed. All of these are problematic though and better addressed by more understanding of marriage but also the reality of how vulnerable you can be if you are dependent on someone.

There is so much drive now in school that girls have a career, which is great but It means that there is an assumption of independence and therefore why would I even need to marry, the reality is more complicated.

Original poster
LavenderfortheBees · 09/10/2023 12:23

Australia has a similar policy and I have heard it can create problems.

www.australianfamilylawyers.com.au/information-centre/am-i-in-a-de-facto-relationship

OP posts:
asterel · 09/10/2023 12:24

I agree completely. And it would give unmarried domestic abusers - male domestic abusers, because we all know the vast majority of domestic abusers are men - an advantage in one of the only situations that they don’t already have one.

It isn’t 1940 or even 1980. Women are able to choose not to marry, and often have not done so for good reasons.

FictionalCharacter · 09/10/2023 12:37

Janieforever · 09/10/2023 12:16

There is no such thing as a common law wife, so if they can’t even get that right, they have no chance, isn’t kier a lawyer? Do they think the public are idiots?

Hopefully they are not using that terminology. The article doesn’t, it says “unmarried women who live with their partners”.

volunteersruz · 09/10/2023 12:47

It’s unnecessary, civil partnerships fulfil that need for people who are ethically opposed to marriage ,more education about what you are getting into if you choose not to safeguard your financial rights is what’s needed.

Janieforever · 09/10/2023 12:56

FictionalCharacter · 09/10/2023 12:37

Hopefully they are not using that terminology. The article doesn’t, it says “unmarried women who live with their partners”.

Show quote history

True

weird, op where did the quote come from it’s not th4 article linked?

on a separate note, it seems as labour has signficant issues due to their definition of a woman, they are trying to do other things to curry favour.

just a shame it’s a pile of shite, this is not the dark ages and if you give the rights to women you give them to men, and lots of women just don’t want that.

IvorTheEngineDriver · 09/10/2023 12:59

The Scots tried this with what was called "a marriage of habit and repute". However, no Scots legislation ever said how long a relationship had to last to be one - the only Court case said that 18 months wasn't long enough. In the end the Court of Session basically outlawed them.

It's a bloody minefield. I'm not surprised you can't find any details OP. The more you look at it, the more problematical it becomes.

loislovesstewie · 09/10/2023 13:00

I agree, we don't need further tinkering. I would never enter into another relationship if I thought that the other party could claim some sort of common law marriage rights, I have 2 disabled adult children to worry about first, without some man deciding he can con me with the help of the government.
Surely there should be some active acceptance by both parties i.e marriage/civil partnership , not a default situation.

Neodymium · 09/10/2023 13:00

Yes current policy in Australia. Means you need a prenup before you move anyone in. I didn’t realise that wasn’t already case there

GunboatDiplomacy · 09/10/2023 13:01

Janieforever · 09/10/2023 12:16

There is no such thing as a common law wife, so if they can’t even get that right, they have no chance, isn’t kier a lawyer? Do they think the public are idiots?

The OP referred to common-law wives, but fortunately she's not on the Labour policy team. Emily Thornberry rightly referred to cohabiting couples.

TrashedSofa · 09/10/2023 13:02

It's a very big change if so.

There are pros and cons to both approaches, but since it potentially involves screwing over one group of people (those wanting to cohabit without a legal contract) in favour of others, I hope its something we have a societal discussion about if it's going in the manifesto. Because realistically Labour are going to win the next GE.

YokoOnosBigHat · 09/10/2023 13:02

LavenderfortheBees · 09/10/2023 12:13

Link

BBC News - Boris Johnson's ex-wife Marina Wheeler is Labour's sexual harassment adviser
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67043606

There's no way she hasn't just been employed to piss off BJ. And I am one hundred per cent here for it.

Sorry, I know that's not the main point of your thread!

Sconehenge · 09/10/2023 13:02

Janieforever · 09/10/2023 12:16

There is no such thing as a common law wife, so if they can’t even get that right, they have no chance, isn’t kier a lawyer? Do they think the public are idiots?

In NZ this is the law! People can easily “opt out” by making a relationship property agreement before they reach the threshold (think it’s living together for 2 or 3 years). So it doesn’t take anyone’s rights away but you do have to opt out. I think it’s actually better as forces you to think about the issue and stops men dragging their feet about marriage

Sconehenge · 09/10/2023 13:03

TrashedSofa · 09/10/2023 13:02

It's a very big change if so.

There are pros and cons to both approaches, but since it potentially involves screwing over one group of people (those wanting to cohabit without a legal contract) in favour of others, I hope its something we have a societal discussion about if it's going in the manifesto. Because realistically Labour are going to win the next GE.

No one would get screwed over as you will be able to legally opt out. Sort of like a pre nup but without marriage.

Original poster
LavenderfortheBees · 09/10/2023 13:03

Janieforever · 09/10/2023 12:56

True

weird, op where did the quote come from it’s not th4 article linked?

on a separate note, it seems as labour has signficant issues due to their definition of a woman, they are trying to do other things to curry favour.

just a shame it’s a pile of shite, this is not the dark ages and if you give the rights to women you give them to men, and lots of women just don’t want that.

Show quote history

Sorry the quote came from this article.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/07/ex-wife-of-boris-johnson-to-help-labour-protect-women-from-bullying-at-work

The BBC one had more detail though when I searched for it so I linked it instead.

Marina Wheeler, Boris Johnson’s ex-wife, to be Labour ‘whistleblowing tsar’ | Women | The Guardian

Barrister to be tasked with strengthening rights to safeguard women who report workplace harassment

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/07/ex-wife-of-boris-johnson-to-help-labour-protect-women-from-bullying-at-work

OP posts:
Aquamarine1029 · 09/10/2023 13:04

Common Law marriages should not exist anywhere.

AuntieJoyce · 09/10/2023 13:05

Janieforever · 09/10/2023 12:16

There is no such thing as a common law wife, so if they can’t even get that right, they have no chance, isn’t kier a lawyer? Do they think the public are idiots?

Actually there is but it doesn’t have any significance in this particular circumstance

Agree this is a very sneaky bullshit policy if it’s the case. The Labour Party would be better focusing on child support arrangements and enforcing these through the tax system