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?

If someone won't marry you or won't enter into a civil partnership then why are you having kids with them?
Presumably the op's ex partner didn't put her on the deeds of any of the properties either.
That's the issue-having kids with someone who only cares about protecting their money.

But it’s not about allowing someone “who has laid” with you rights to your assets - that’s ludicrous and reductive and not at all how cohabitation laws work. It’s for those who are living as married - making plans for the future, having children, making a home and a life together. Often, one person keeps all the assets in their name while the other contributes and makes sacrifices for the good of the couple in ways that don’t count under the current law - ie buying all the food and cooking, furnishing a home, planning and paying for holidays, carrying a child and then reducing work to look after it, all while the other person’s finances are ringfenced. It’s to fairly compensate both partners and protect the children should the relationship fail.

‘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.’

Oh well 🤷‍♀️
Anyway, you haven’t convinced anyone that the state should grants rights to legally single people but ok 😄

But that's a conscious choice isn't it. It's the risk you take. If you're living as married and want your partner to benefit from that, marry them.

If someone isn't willing to do that it's generally because they don't want to share their assets. If the other partner knows that they can choose to protect themselves (ie, work) or leave.

I don't think the rights should be a given as plenty of people choose not to marry so they don't have to share assets legally. See the thread running on second marriages and inheritances. Lots of people specifically choosing not to marry again to protect their wealth, but live happily with new partners.

Its a choice and should remain one.

I say this as someone who has a child before marriage but I always worked, my name is on the deeds and mortgage and always has been. Its the risk you take.

It’s for those who are living as married - making plans for the future, having children, making a home and a life together

This is so subjective though. Why should a court spend time and money arguing over what each party sees as "living as married" when they aren't actually married? Marriage is a clear black and white signed contract agreeing to legal terms and conditions.

Often, one person keeps all the assets in their name while the other contributes and makes sacrifices for the good of the couple in ways that don’t count under the current law - ie buying all the food and cooking, furnishing a home, planning and paying for holidays, carrying a child and then reducing work to look after it, all while the other person’s finances are ringfenced

More fool that person for doing that without insisting on marriage beforehand.

The UK is seen as behind on this in the rest of the world and The Law Society has recommended the bill pass through Parliament.

I hope we eventually live in a society where what’s being questioned in threads like this is how and why someone who is “extremely wealthy” with multiple properties ended up ringfencing everything from a long-term partner and parent of their child. Instead of saying “women should be more savvy and it’s their own stupid fault”. It’s rarely that cut and dry. And that people suffering DA and financial abuse have a clause to get out without being left destitute. Again, it’s about protecting the vulnerable

But even to legally protect "the vulnerable" the asset holder would still have to make steps to formally agree to the terms.

If they aren't prepared to marry, what makes you think they would agree in any other way?

But it's not illegal to be a dickhead is it?

Would I want to be with someone like that? No. But I wouldn't have a child with someone like that either. And if I did, for whatever reason, I'd work. Id buy my own house or whatever, keep whatever I could in my own name.

Yes he's behaving like a dickhead (well only based on what we know tbh, he's clearly provided for op for quite some time) but op has a part to play in this too, imo. He should be providing for his child but if they have 50/50 he is doing that.

There is, however, a very good reason why unmarried couples shouldn't just be handed rights that married couples have. Because it means that a partner will then be able to claim assets by default just because they lived with someone. If one partner is dead and there is no legal way of proving that the relationship was long term or even serious, then anyone could do it. For example, my marriage breaks down or I am widowed. As a result, I have a house and a pension that I want to go to my children. I move some other bloke in. I die, he tells the courts after I am dead that he has a claim on my house and half my pension automatically because we lived together. I wanted everything to go to my children, which is why I didn't marry. Even if I make a will to that effect, he can contest it and cause massive hassles. If you don't agree with marriage, have a civil partnership. Don't take away the rights of people who don't want to share their assets with another adult. Children should be provided for and protected, and in the OP's case, there is an argument for the wealthy ex partner to provide a reasonable place to live for the children until they reach adulthood.

The UK is seen as behind on this in the rest of the world

That's rather a generalisation. Large swathes of the planet have very little or nothing in the way of legal recognition for unmarried partners.

On the DA point, you do need to factor in that there'll be occasions when the DA victim happens to be the one with the assets. Cohabitant reform will inevitably in some abuse cases function as a bar to splitting.

They would not just be “handed rights” like that. Of course the legal system isn’t open to exploitation like that, there’s hundreds of clauses. And yes, OK the UK might be more advanced than somewhere like Iran on this (maybe not, that’s just an example) but compared to Europe, Canada, Australia and other comparable countries, it is. They have looked at all the ways it could be exploited and it’s there to protect. Thereby, fewer of these incidents to begin with as people know what they’ll be liable for.

Well actually… my sister went to Australia, met a man whom she (and we) thought was lovely, fell in love and had a baby with quite quickly. They had a long engagement but never married as he became very abusive and kept delaying. Financially too, persuading her to put everything in his name for reasons she believed. He essentially cut her off from us, friends, they were living miles from anywhere and he’d talked her into giving up her career to care for DC. My sister is no fool, but was essentially the victim of emotional abuse. Because Australia does have automatic protection for unmarried partners with children after I think two years together, she was able leave with enough (but not much) cash to start again. Thank god it happened there and not here, where she’d have been royally screwed. I’ve heard so many similar stories too

It's a good job the abuser in that scenario happened to be the one with the assets. If she'd been the one who owned the flat and been targeted by that same emotional abuser, might have been a less happy ending.

That is completely undermining the point and complexity of those protections. The police were involved and it was very thorough, most definitely wouldn’t have worked the other way around. I really doubt the laws are blanket like that.

Can you tell us more? I'd particularly like to know would there have to be a conviction in order for an abusive cohabitant to be barred from making a claim, or would the evidence bar be lower. I've had a 30 second google but it sounds like you may be more familiar?

I get maintenance via the CMS
50/50 care, ex earns 75000
I

@bittertwisted It can't be "true" 50/50 then?

"One way to reduce the amount of child maintenance you'll be legally required to pay is to increase the amount of 'shared care' nights or split care 50/50 between both parents. If you can prove that you are contributing an equal amount of daily care for the children, then you won't need to pay child maintenance."

It is true 50/50. For one child, try putting it in yourself. The calculator tells you. He spoke to them and they agreed it

@bittertwisted I had a court enforced 50/50 from 2014 of two sons. Ex-husband earned 6 figures, myself around £20k pa. Nothing payable.
Why would he have to pay you if you have your children exactly half of the time?

Gov website:

You're very lucky because under the CMS you technically shouldn't be.

@Chocolatebuttonns unfortunately people don't always declare themselves as tight controlling arse holes and seem reasonable.. Unfortunately sometimes events move very fast and get ahead of legal stuff.

@CyndiLauper.
Excellent posts and I fully agree re wealthy non married persons being made to have more obligations towards unmarried mums of their dc.
They don't have to have sex with anyone, after all.

I fully agree with marriage but people that don't get married and have inequality do need some protection and I fully agree re why not look at the rich man whose trying to keep every single penny of a vast fortune to himself

Of course they don't declare it but you presumably did have a choice to have a child before marriage?

So did I, so no judgement. But I was absolutely aware I'd get nothing (other than the house I co-owned)

@Chocolatebuttonns I'm not going into the speficic on here.

We are a mumsnet site to help other people mainly mums and your question sounds accusatory, like... Well hey I didn't choose this or that so why did you, you fool.
That is what it feels like :your tone. Perhaps your not aware so I'm just pointing it out because rhe ethos of the site is support and help.

So sorry OP, I meant specialist solicitor! Apologies for confusion.