Status of unmarried women in long term relationships should be taught in schools.

[prorsum]

A friend of mine has recently separated from her partner of 16 years, 2dcs under 14.

Legally she is entitled to nothing, common law wife is not a legal status. She has performed all the acts a sahm wife performs yet it counts for very little.

Her partner would not get married despite her wanting it and I know why, he knew.

She's not a money grabber, just wants some security for her children in case he meets someone else and has other dcs.

We've both done google to get some information as she cannot get legal aid and it's not happy reading.

I'm not man bashing, I think that it would be useful for both sexes to be aware of the implication of living together but it does impact more negatively on women.

The information is everywhere if you are the sort of person that reads newspapers and magazines or uses forums like MN, has well informed, caring parents etc. However many children don't have the benefit of these things so the misfortune carries on from one generation to the next. Yes, it should be taught as part of financial / relationship education. I agree CPs for heterosexual couples would be a big step forward in this respect. Unfortunately she's going to have a very tough time, hopefully her DCs are old enough to not need childcare while she works.

It doesn't have to be pro marriage just awareness of what marriage confers other than a white frock and a party.

In the example above it may well be worth the high earning woman not marrying if she intends to leave her dp.

My BIL didn't bother getting divorced for 10 years. I can remember trying to gently persuade him to get things sorted before he went to a war zone. My MILs face was a picture when I joked you know ex will say turn your life support off. She and other family members had no concept that a wife you had not seen for 10 years is still legally was next of kin not the woman you've lived with for 9 years.

East I'm not an educator but I don't think 30 mins would be enough. I think one lesson stating the differences between cohabiting and marriage, then sending then giving homework eg googling it. I think the info would stick a bit more.

She and other family members had no concept that a wife you had not seen for 10 years is still legally was next of kin not the woman you've lived with for 9 years.

Except that isn't at all true. NOK has no legal meaning for all intents and purposes in the UK, and confers no particular rights or responsibilities. A simple declaration of his gf or mother being the NOK for such purposes would ensure that the estranged wife would have nothing to do with it. NOK don't decide such things as switching off life support anyway.
A lot of people have an idea of these things that is mostly gleaned from (mainly american) tv and films.

My DS(16) said this was discussed in his PHSE class, although I'm not sure how in depth it was.

But really this is something that needs to be drummed in to them by their parents, as they grow up.

I'm sure that would have more impact than something their teacher discussed during a lesson.

Do you think your friend would have made different decisions had she known what the financial position was? Did she really have no idea at all?

If she wanted marriage but he didnt then there is little that could have been done differently unless she had left him which she presumably didn't want to do

I don't agree that it should be taught in schools, some things are a families responsibility to teach because parents have different family values.

Do you also think that we should be teaching boys that they should protect their assests in case they get screwed over in a divorce - something that happens regularly? Or that no matter how well he provides for and cares for his children, he could be stopped from living with them by someone else? No, I didn't think so. So why are women more deserving of information that will protect their finances than men?

If they are going to teach anything along these lines at school, then it should be that each of us is the only person who has financial responsibility for ourselves, and when you have children, you become 100% responsible for providing for them as well as yourself. If you're able to share some of that 100% responsibility for your children with their other parent then great, but don't rely on it lasting forever.

YABU.

Assuming your friend doesn't have any specific neurological or medical conditions that make ger vulnerable, she has no excuse for not making herself aware of her situation.

People are responsible for educating themselves about the repercussions of their life choices. So many people don't, and they get stung.

As someone said on another thread in here: 'Shall I think about this issue and its ramifications? Nah, BGT is on ...'

Civil Partnership is not easier to get out of than a marriage. It's just the same. To all intents and purposes it's a marriage in all but name.

Again, "just google" isn't the answer either - suppose the person posts on a forum and gets loads of replies from equally ill-informed people saying "oh, you'll be all right, hun, you're his common-law wife"?

Schools are there precisely to teach critical thinking and the basic information people need to get through life - so you teach arithmetic, and you teach that this can be used to balance a bank book, you teach IT skills and you teach how to google effectively - i.e. distinguish decent sources of information from rubbish.

And you teach financial nous. I agree that I wouldn't put this sort of stuff in relationships because it's difficult to do without it coming across as "women should stay at home and put these protections in place/should go out to work then they won't need these protections/are looking for a meal ticket/are financially independent individuals," or as couching it as an exclusively female problem, when the example upthread of a woman dying intestate and her brother grabbing some of the estate, thus rendering the partner and kids homeless shows that it isn't (in practice, though, it is highly gendered).

You put it in a finance lesson, along with other stuff like your basic rights at work - what's the difference between workign 30 hours a week for your local supermarket on a proper contract and doing the same job on a zero hours contract, for instance? People of both sexes get stung by not knowing about laws around finance. Cohabitation is an obvious one, but I've known people messed up by not knowing laws about continuity of employment/breaks in continuous employment - I remember a trade union rep at one of my previous employers coming across a case where someone had, near as dammit, worked there for 20 years, but because the employer had cleverly exploited loopholes, he found himself redundant with no right to a redundancy payout.

What's wrong with teaching this stuff in school? Or perhaps we should all homeschool on everything.

How much do parents actually think they should parent? Why should the school take on yet another responsibility that they shouldn't need to. I'm sorry but your friend is responsible for her own actions entirely. She chose to marry this man and have kids with him.

I stated in my op I thought it would be useful for both sexes to be taught the implications of living together.
ptolemy no idea what you're talking about. Family values? Whose? A parent who abuses their partner/kids? The parent who is there in person but absent mentally? The parent who lavishes gifts on their child but not much in the way of time and love. Schools were invented for a reason. A lot of parents are abysmal, though few of them admit it.

Again, "just google" isn't the answer either - suppose the person posts on a forum and gets loads of replies from equally ill-informed people saying "oh, you'll be all right, hun, you're his common-law wife"?

For a start, maybe teach your children the difference between googling for actual information and posting on a forum to get advice from ill informed randoms?

And do you really think that telling teens in one lesson in school is going to help anything? They won't see it as relevant to them, it won't change their life choices. Schools aren't there to teach your children every single thing they need to know about life. Thats the parents job! And all you really have to teach them is how to be informed about life, and how to look after themselves through knowledge, not try and stuff them full of facts and figures. It doesn't work like that.

Reading comprehension aunty She did not get married. That's her problem. Love to get in there with the 'make yer bed now lie on it' don't cha!

Why have the hassle though of declarations and possible challenges. When a loved one is in hospital it is stressful enough. 'I'm his wife'. Stands in this country or abroad. Ex would have caused hassle.

It was more his death in service payment which I hope he sorted for financially dependent GF not wife but I don't know if he did (BIL is v laid back)

My friends daughter did citizenship and included things like tax, NI, elections. This is same sort of thing.

I don't think I'd have taken any notice of such a lesson when I was school. At 16 any talk of marriage / cohabitation rights etc would have gone in one ear and out the other. I also think it could be entering into dangerous territory i.e telling young women that all they need to do is marry a man with a healthy bank balance and they're sorted for life.

In your OP you mention you suspect that he knew all along so chose to avoid marrying her for this very reason. That makes me think she's in for a tough ride.

I think people have to take some responsibility for educating themselves - what idiot lives with someone for years & years without spending half an hour finding out how they stand legally? God knows I'm not the brightest, but am always shocked how many people genuinely believe the myth of common-law marriage.

Absolutely agree, Winter.

prorsum. Presumably she willingly brought children into the world whilst unmarried. And continued to raise them with the same status. No way on earth would I have done that without knowing the ramifications if someone left or died.

Surely if someone in this situation is on the house deeds, named on the children's birth certificates and both parties have made a will recognising the other as beneficiary then matters of inheritance and separation are just as 'nailed down' as in a marriage?

Inheritance tax would be one counter-example: there is no IHT payable on transfer between spouses on first death, and no way to obtain this benefit by any other means. Widow/er's pension may be different (or non-existent), depending on pension provider.

And divorce rights cover your non-material contributions to the joint finances (ie "I was at home with the kids while he worked and payed the mortgage, therefore the house is partially mine") while unmarried couples don't get that protection.

Realistically though what would have changed if she knew this / acknowledged that she knew this?

She still wouldn't have been able to get him to marry. She still would have been in denial about the state of her relationship / likelihood of it failing.

Another point, the kind of people who don't bother to find out the very basic facts of their lives are the same kind of people who wouldn't have paid the slightest bit of attention to it in school.

It wouldn't help. There's many a thread on here where people helpfully point out the pitfalls that your friend fell into and even when they're made aware, it doesn't change anything. Likewise, I have friends who've ended up in the same situation as your friend. As much as I could, without being rude, I told them the legal risks they were taking by not getting married. A couple of them didn't care because they 'didn't believe in marriage'. Another, like your friend, would have got married but her partner didn't want to, so they went ahead and had kids, got a house etc anyway. And now they've split up and she's in the shit. Honestly, your friend should have made herself aware of the facts, but really I doubt it would have made any difference. If she wanted to get married and he didn't and she stuck with him, that's the mistake right there. Not the lack of a Citizenship lesson that kids piss about in anyway.

Ok she might not be married but she still had children with him knowing she wasn't married. Those were her choices which she is responsible for.