Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
GunboatDiplomacy · 09/10/2023 13:50

I think I'm in favour on balance, with a widely publicised opt-out for eg flatmates and people in blended families. It would mean people having to have the difficult conversation up front but that's no bad thing. You'd be absolutely fine OP, you sound pretty assertive.

TrashedSofa · 09/10/2023 13:52

GunboatDiplomacy · 09/10/2023 13:50

I think I'm in favour on balance, with a widely publicised opt-out for eg flatmates and people in blended families. It would mean people having to have the difficult conversation up front but that's no bad thing. You'd be absolutely fine OP, you sound pretty assertive.

Or alternatively, them not having it and then the chips falling where they may...

muddyford · 09/10/2023 14:00

Ponderingwindow · 09/10/2023 13:10

people should not be treated as married by default. There is a simple procedure for creating a legal partnership. It’s just like filing to create a business.

what needs to happen is an education campaign to help people recognize that marriage has never really been about romance or religion.

Spot on. If someone wants the rights of marriage, just get married.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Family law General money
LadyBird1973 · 09/10/2023 14:00

Having an opt out won't protect the women who need protection - their men will spin them some bullshit excuse about why they need to opt out!

If people want the rights and protection of marriage then they need to get married - they need to make an active choice to legally commit.
If a man won't marry you, but is happy for you to be a sahm or contribute to his house, then that tells you where he stands on protecting you! I'm not sure you can legislate for stupidity. We already have rules that mean a person who can prove they've paid into the property can make a claim on it.

What the government could do though, is ensure proper meaningful child support is paid.

BocolateChiscuits · 09/10/2023 14:07

I haven't read all the thread, but I think this is a case of getting our knickers in a twist over nothing.

Marina Wheeler has recommended giving whistle blower protections to women reporting sexual harassment at work.

Emily Thornberry will talk about that at the conference. And then the BBC article says

Ms Thornberry will also set out plans to strengthen the property rights of unmarried women who live with their partners, in England and Wales.

"For too long, women in co-habiting couples have been left with no rights when those relationships come to an end.

"If there is no joint property or parental responsibilities, a man can kick his partner out of their home, and leave her with nothing, especially if he has the means to go to court, and she does not."

So it's not about giving full marriage rights to cohabitees. It's just about looking at strengthening property rights for cohabiting couples. Clearly any potential strengthening would go through the normal governmental research, checking, debating and voting. It's nothing to panic or worry about.

I'd be more worried about the people trying to make you panic over nothing - I don't think they're doing it because of their deep concern for women's rights.

Megifer · 09/10/2023 14:08

tasslesated · 09/10/2023 13:48

You need to a will then

Show quote history

Even if I had a will cutting DH out he could still contest it so not sure what your point is. Unless it was just a reminder in which case thank you but I already have one.

Original poster
LavenderfortheBees · 09/10/2023 14:08

There is also the existing issue of cuckooing where vulnerable people are at risk of being exploited by criminals for their housing.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckooing#:~:text=Cuckooing%20is%20a%20form%20of,with%20county%20lines%20drug%20trafficking. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckooing#:~:text=Cuckooing%20is%20a%20form%20of,with%20county%20lines%20drug%20trafficking.]]]]

How much worse would this problem get if you could essentially scam someone out of their equity and pension? Elderly romance scams would go through the roof.

I would be very in favour of beefing up child maintenance collection strongly.

OP posts:
LaurieStrode · 09/10/2023 14:08

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.

Agree. We have the antidote: marriage.

No need to force the rest of us to live under the same terms.

Daffodilwoman · 09/10/2023 14:11

I don’t agree with it.
If you want the same rights (and downside) as marriage then get married.
It’s a choice the same as having dcs is a choice.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 09/10/2023 14:11

bonzaitree · 09/10/2023 13:16

Very sexist for you to assume men are the higher earning ones.

Show quote history

Realistic, surely? They usually are because they are far less likely to have taken a career break or dropped to part-time because of caring responsibilities. Plenty of women on MN are the higher earners because the demographic here is skewed towards the better educated, but that's not the norm across the UK.

LaurieStrode · 09/10/2023 14:12

* "*I'm not sure you can legislate for stupidity."

This sums it up.

pikkumyy77 · 09/10/2023 14:18

There are very good reasons why the state would step in and create a right to assets or support for a vulnerable person who might otherwise resort to public funds to make up the difference.

The poster raising the rather bizarre point that this would have a bad effect on the housing market is just a great example of how stupidly people think about systemic issues ehen all they really care about is narrow self advantage. The UK has a massively crap housing market with bizarre, archaic, rules on land ownership and building which protect landowners at the expense of all renters and even future owners. It’s incredibly difficult to get new buildings put up, and corruption incompetence makes those that are built of poor quality. But sure! The government making it possible for some long term partners to suefor a share of the assets will have a deleterious effect on the housing market because your live in boyfriend might have to get his own apartment.

At the other rnd, though, someone’s abused partner with kids might not have to be housed by the council when their lird snd master drops them at age sixty.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 09/10/2023 14:25

fearfuloffluff · 09/10/2023 13:29

Sounds sensible to me. Loads of people think they will be somehow legally protected if a relationship breaks down and find out the hard way.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be talking about identical rights to those of married couples.

Read the thread. There are two sets of circumstances that would be affected here. The first is the people who live together but don't marry and the lower earner, usually the woman, is left in a really bad position if the relationship breaks down, or the other partner dies without a will. But the other side of the coin is the people who have made an active choice, for very good reasons, not to marry because of the financial implications for the children of an earlier relationship, or for themselves in the event of divorce.

The first group have an easy and obvious solution to their issue - get married or enter into a civil partnership. The second group also have an easy solution - don't get married or enter into a civil partnership. Why should the second group suddenly find that their choice has been taken away from them?

GunboatDiplomacy · 09/10/2023 14:27

Pikkummy makes a very good point. This is motivated by the same forces that made George Osborne introduce the marriage tax allowance.

At the moment, if a young woman moves in with her boyfriend, lives with him for thirty years, gives up her career to raise kids but doesn't marry him because he's "too free spirited", then when he runs off with his secretary and chucks her out her lack of earning power and accommodation is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's problem.

If he can be bribed into marrying her or she can be given an automatic share in his property without marriage then the Chancellor can wash his/her (since this policy should benefit Rachel Reeves' Treasury) hands of her.

workshy46 · 09/10/2023 14:31

We have this where I live. To be honest the times when the women will lose out will be v v rare so I am all in favor of this. All very well to say educate people on marriage but what happens if someone won't marry you. it isn't 50:50 either and generally it is just enacted if there are children involved.

LaurieStrode · 09/10/2023 14:35

workshy46 · 09/10/2023 14:31

We have this where I live. To be honest the times when the women will lose out will be v v rare so I am all in favor of this. All very well to say educate people on marriage but what happens if someone won't marry you. it isn't 50:50 either and generally it is just enacted if there are children involved.

If someone won't marry, maybe don't bear their offspring?

writteninthewater · 09/10/2023 14:43

I think it's great as long as there's an option to opt out - not fair when it comes to blended families.

Ponderingwindow · 09/10/2023 14:43

If someone won’t marry you, don’t cohabitate and don’t have children. People need to have higher standards for their relationships.

People can cohabitate for a short-time to stress test the relationship, but should be smart enough not to proceed to the career sacrifice or child rearing stage with someone who won’t protect them legally and economically.

Deathbyfluffy · 09/10/2023 14:48

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.

As a male victim of DV, just saying unmarried domestic abusers would have been fine.
I know it's mainly men, but there's enough of a hard time getting the police to take male DV victims seriously (ask me how I know...) without further skewing things.

enchantedsquirrelwood · 09/10/2023 14:55

Sounds stupid to me. Just get married or go through a civil partnership.

And educate women not to have kids with men who won't marry/partner them.

Labour could do one thing really useful, and sort out all the absent fathers who don't pay for their kids. That doesn't require any new laws, just making the CMS do its actual job.

raabbgghhrbb123 · 09/10/2023 15:26

How in practice would this be monitored? I think it's a bad idea, if I wanted to marry my partner, father of my child, I would but I do not want too. I doubt that this will get off the ground. We are adults after all who can make decisions.

GunboatDiplomacy · 09/10/2023 15:37

raabbgghhrbb123 · 09/10/2023 15:26

How in practice would this be monitored? I think it's a bad idea, if I wanted to marry my partner, father of my child, I would but I do not want too. I doubt that this will get off the ground. We are adults after all who can make decisions.

Presumably one partner would be able (but not obliged) to sue the other for their share of property rights on the breakup of the relationship. That's simple enough, you'd just have to prove that you qualified for a share on the balance of probabilities according to the rules set down in legislation.

The tricky bit would be if the State could unilaterally step in to enforce the claim where one partner was applying to claim benefits.

WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps · 09/10/2023 15:51

The poster raising the rather bizarre point that this would have a bad effect on the housing market is just a great example of how stupidly people think about systemic issues ehen all they really care about is narrow self advantage.

I can’t find that post. Who posted it, which page?

TrashedSofa · 09/10/2023 17:00

GunboatDiplomacy · 09/10/2023 15:37

Presumably one partner would be able (but not obliged) to sue the other for their share of property rights on the breakup of the relationship. That's simple enough, you'd just have to prove that you qualified for a share on the balance of probabilities according to the rules set down in legislation.

The tricky bit would be if the State could unilaterally step in to enforce the claim where one partner was applying to claim benefits.

Show quote history

Mmm, that's where it starts to get complex. Particularly if it were a DV situation- women often don't go for child maintenance in that scenario even now.

InterFactual · 09/10/2023 17:31

It's not really going to happen, it's just one of those throwaway comments that never becomes a reality.