Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Chat

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

Flip

1 2 3 4

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:

bonzaitree · 09/10/2023 17:37

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 09/10/2023 14:11

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.

Show quote history

Loads of women are the higher earners. I know so many couples where the woman has higher income more assets etc.

The policy is there to protect the lower earner who is sometimes a women and sometimes a man.

Timeforabiscuit · 09/10/2023 17:40

The proposal was

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

If you make it more complicated or financially risky to live with someone, then you won't!

People who are shits will continue to find a way to be shit.

This doesn't address the problem of women and children tending to be worse off after a split, with the majority of people renting I'm not clear what this proposal would achieve, I think enhanced education and iron clad child maintenance would be far better.

VineRipened · 09/10/2023 17:40

The law needs to be clear and precise.

Married - entered into a mutual contract
Not Married - no contract.

I definitely do not want to see them blurred.

As a woman I want my assets and security within my control.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Family law General money

Spendonsend · 09/10/2023 17:43

I really dont like this idea. I think marriage is a contract and implying that someone wants those terms when not married isnt right.

Fladdermus · 09/10/2023 17:47

We have law like this already in Sweden and it works fine and is fair. It's not the same as marriage, where all assets are in the pot. It's more about assets built up while you are together.

Some people, mostly men, are using the current law to shaft women and children. That's not ok.

AnSolas · 09/10/2023 17:49

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

Just to point out that the social welfare system already act as if a cohabiting couple is married (sharing economic advantages) when it comes to means testing

However neither party has a legal obligation to fund the other and the transfer of economic benefit of assets net income etc is only assumed to be the same as if they were married.
So if partner A is on 10k a year and partner B on 200,000k under the current rules partner A is already "discriminated" against as a legaly unmarried single person.

One area that the Irish legislation deals with is if one of the parties are already married as in theory if partner A moved in with already married Partner B, partner A would bee seeking to access a share of the marital assets from the prior relationship.

Millybob · 09/10/2023 17:53

Much better to chase the deadleg fathers who get away with paying nothing and make it in an imprisonable offence not to support your children.

Zebedee55 · 09/10/2023 18:02

Marriage is a commitment and a legal contract. "Live ins" aren't the same. Bad idea.

Whether people want to get married or not is up to them, but they shouldn't get the same advantages.😗

WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps · 09/10/2023 18:07

Fladdermus · 09/10/2023 17:47

We have law like this already in Sweden and it works fine and is fair. It's not the same as marriage, where all assets are in the pot. It's more about assets built up while you are together.

Some people, mostly men, are using the current law to shaft women and children. That's not ok.

Claims on built-up assets is true in England & Wales already. Don’t know about Scotland and NI.

SwedishEdith · 09/10/2023 18:17

Fladdermus · 09/10/2023 17:47

We have law like this already in Sweden and it works fine and is fair. It's not the same as marriage, where all assets are in the pot. It's more about assets built up while you are together.

Some people, mostly men, are using the current law to shaft women and children. That's not ok.

You sound like a voice of reason on this thread.

I'm more intrigued that Marina Wheeler is working with the Labour party here.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz12 · 09/10/2023 19:01

ZebraD · 09/10/2023 12:20

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

Marriage/civil partnership is the opt in, not getting Marie's/entering into the civil partnership is the opt out, so nothing needs to change

AuntieJoyce · 09/10/2023 19:18

Fladdermus · 09/10/2023 17:47

We have law like this already in Sweden and it works fine and is fair. It's not the same as marriage, where all assets are in the pot. It's more about assets built up while you are together.

Some people, mostly men, are using the current law to shaft women and children. That's not ok.

How does this law affect child support@Fladdermus ?

if a couple have no assets or very few, I can’t see that it’s going to resolve the issue of lack of provision for child support going forward.

Flip

1 2 3 4