What happens when not married parents spilt up to cms or support when one person is extremely wealthy?

[Whatif1]

So obviously the legal protection is not there, property cannot be split etc but if they share 50/50 custody is there any financial support expected from the wealthy partner or anything at all legally?

Yes just go to a lawyer. I’m speaking from undergoing the process myself. You don’t need to have jointly owned the property to apply for TOLATA. Much more nusanced than that. @RosieIs44 is right

Sounds like she should have got married.....

Yeah, the “free ride” of looking after his (I’m assuming his) children, probably losing her career and income, pension etc, to enable him to keep earning the big bucks which he’s then looking to keep all himself as was too stingy to get married. No doubt he’s spun her along to this point too. UK legal system around cohabitation of partners with children is woeful and in desperate need of reform

This is why marriage isn't 'just a piece of paper' as is often spouted on here.

It doesn't need reforming. Women (and I am one too), can choose to marry, keep their jobs and pension. If they and their partners want children, then they can always insist on marriage before ttc. Or walk away.

@SecondUsername4me is correct. Women should just be more savvy.

she could have insisted on marriage before kids. She could have continued to work and make pension contributions and keep her career. She chose not too. She decided to live on his cash. Huge mistake

Wow. The attitudes here are smug. Half of all children are born to unmarried parents now, and marriage is an outdated institution many choose not to enter. There’s a million reasons people end up in these situations. We don’t know that she “chose” not to. She could have been pushing for it and him denying her it or making false promises. We also don’t know she was “living on his cash”. OP said they were together 11 years so I’m sure “she”’has contributed to his financial success and home etc. Why aren’t you having a go at extremely wealthy “him” for wanting to see his child in a small flat despite having a selection of homes to choose from. Sounds like a punishing asshole.

And if the “women” are “savvy” enough to insist on marriage, then they’re branded as gold diggers.

Zero reason why unmarried couples who have children and been together for a long period of time shouldn’t be afforded the same protections as married couples. Aside from misogyny. The UK is one of very countries who don’t have this

How is marriage 'outdated'? What a ridiculous idea.

Not when residency is 50/50 split

The thinking is that both parents have equal care of the child/children so why should one parent provide the other with money when both have the same responsibilities.

I think this is fair. Regardless of how wealthy one parent is they're still fulfilling their obligations to the child. Why should they subsidise their life at the other parents home?

Why is this relevant? Their wealth and assets isn't taken into consideration

You want the legal protection? You enter into the legal agreement that affords it.

What is outdated about marriage?

@CyndiLauper nope. You’re implying women are so stupid they cannot look up what legal protections they’re not getting by choosing to be legally single, that the state needs to step in and gift rights to boyfriend and girlfriend.
This is obviously a terrible idea (have a think about why-vulnerable adults/domestic abusers/someone rich whose assets should go to their kid and not just a girl/boyfriend etc.)

People need to opt in to consenting to legal protections, by easily signing a document. If the person they’re dating wants to remain legally single and that’s not what their boy/girlfriend wants, simple-move on. Do not give up employment, housing, or reproduce with the person whose lifestyle choices aren’t aligned. Or at a basic level, know what you’re walking in to. Zero document=zero legal status. This is a good thing. State interference without consent, in to your private life is a terrible idea.

Nope. Not implying women are stupid at all. You are implying that everyone has the law at the forefront of all decision making, and are also ignoring the ever-increasing issue of DA, financial and coercive control. Oh and those with unplanned pregnancies with partners and a hundred other possible scenarios.

Strange that you use the outdated argument about cohabitation rights being a danger to the vulnerable (which is usually based on an imagined fraudulent scenario, which every single country with these rights has managed to legislate around) as that is exactly why they’re needed - or is it OK to force one partner into poverty, or make them put up with ongoing DA as the lesser evil? These are couples with children whose relationship is AKIN to marriage. Not just boyfriend and girlfriend. With children. And guess who suffers the most in the end as a result of these non-protections? The children.

Doesn’t matter why marriage is an outdated concept, it simply is by the figures - almost half of all children are born to non-married parents. The law needs updating to reflect this societal change.

The idea of “opting in” to legal protection is bonkers. Should we also “opt in” to domestic abuse protection? Opt in to mugging protection et al?

The properties does he rent them out? Has he got any large amount in savings?

In the variation on cms if you apply, it takes account rental income, also a %of interest on savings above 2500

But with 50/50 im not sure if they would use it, but ive never had to look into high earners with a load of assets tbh.

https://www.gov.uk/how-child-maintenance-is-worked-out/ask-other-income-expenses-included#:~:text=You%20can%20ask%20the%20Child,maintenance%20has%20been%20worked%20out.

Think this is the right link..its the government website on variations page about assets

The idea of “opting in” to legal protection is bonkers.

Opting in to protection which gives you rights to someone else’s property and assets absolutely is necessary. How many women end up with a cocklodging partner - bad enough but at least he has no right to their assets when she’s had enough.

"opting in to legal protection" is quite literally marriage or a civil partnership isn't it?

You can opt in. You do so by getting married.

I agree with you @Chocolatebuttonns i was saying @CyndiLauper was wrong in thinking legal protection should be assumed when that protection actually gives rights over someone else’s property- marriage gives that legal protection. If you chose to not get married you chose not to have the security it brings.

This type of scenario is used a lot to stop cohabitation laws being passed. But laws are there to protect the vulnerable, not enable the chancers. And are written as such. The countries with them are certainly not fighting off an avalanche of such claims.

It’s NOT giving someone rights to someone else’s property. It’s making sure how it’s divided is fair given the partnership is akin to marriage - without being married, no (for myriad reasons discussed above) but living for all intents and purposes as such.

Yes clearly it’s easy to say they should have just got married, but the thing is, half of couples just don’t anymore, and these issues only become apparent when it’s too late.

Ah sorry! Yes agreed!

The idea of “opting in” to legal protection is bonkers.

This is the wrong way to look at it. In England and Wales, marriage and cohabitation both give certain forms of legal protection, depending on what it is you want to be protected from.

If you want it to be more straightforward to be able to get part of a partner's assets after a split so you're less likely to be left high and dry, yes marriage and CP will give you that form of protection. If however you don't want that to be able to happen because eg you want your assets for your kids, remaining unmarried gives you more protection in that respect. So there's no way to do this that doesn't involve some level of 'opt in'. The only question is what you want to opt into.

In OPs specific case, as others have pointed out, because there's money available this is actually one of the instances where TOLATA is potentially useful.

@Whatif1@MyGooseisTotallyLoose Nothing payable by either party in the way of Child Maintenance if 50/50; married or not and regardless of who has what.

It’s NOT giving someone rights to someone else’s property. It’s making sure how it’s divided is fair given the partnership is akin to marriage - without being married, no (for myriad reasons discussed above) but living for all intents and purposes as such.

Why should letting someone lie with you in your flat for a time and being romantically involved with them during that time mean that you lose your rights over your flat and have to rebuy some of it back from the person or lose the flat altogether so it can be sold and the proceeds divided? Over a flat you had before the relationship? How is such a scenario not giving someone rights to someone else's property?

Yes, of course it's potentially giving one person rights to the other's property. It's sophistry to claim otherwise.

What matters is whether we think that's the most equitable way of doing things or not. And, if we do want to create a parallel cohabitant system other than TOLATA claims, whether it should be opt in or out.