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.

A couple of them didn't care because they 'didn't believe in marriage'.

Part of the problem is that "marriage" has got bound up with "expensive weddings". When people are asking for "civil partnerships", how does this differ from a quick no-fuss, jeans-and-tee-shirts, two witnesses who happen to be to hand wedding at your local register office? The only reason why civil partnerships for same-sex couples were conjured into uneasy life was because Brown was too much of a coward to take on the church, while Cameron was up for calling Welby's bluff. If you want a handy package of legal rights, get married, which costs far less than getting a solicitor to even make the beginnings of a start on the things you might otherwise need.

Winter Are you saying that people don't eventually grow up and take responsibility for their lives and choices?

What strikes me about some of the comments on this thread is the utter lack of empathy. This site is full of the experiences of mothers raising children, the difficulties of it as well as the joys.

Leaving a relationship is not easy, especially if you have young children but here are the knowitalls with their shoulda/coulda.

People have a tendency to think that 'it won't happen to me', so the usefulness of it being taught in schools is debatable. Smoking, binge-drinking, eating too much fat/sugar, driving dangerously, etc etc ~ people take risks all of the time, even though the risks of those lifestyle factors are well-known and highly publicized.

Sometimes, people just don't accept that the worst might happen or that the 'rules' apply to them too. There's always a reason why, for them, it'll not work out that way. Until it does ~ and then it's someone's fault.

A lot of people just prefer to look the other way and not think about the shit that might hit the fan.

ptolemy no idea what you're talking about. Family values? Whose?

Everyone's! And everyone's are different, which is why some things should be taught be family. My dc went to a CofE primary school, albeit a very liberal one. But I didn't like it when I was told during the meeting about the sex education they'd be recieving in Y6 that the school thought that it was best only to have sex within marriage. My children weren't born to married parents, so I didn't want them hearing that their parents hadn't done things as well as those parents who were married. To some families, having children within marriage is important, to me and my ex it obviously wasn't. We didn't enjoy having to contradict the schools teaching and tell our dc that what matters more is that they are loved and cared for by both parents regardless of whether we got married or not.

So what are schools supposed to do? Do they tell children that it's important to get married so that if their mothers become single they are protected, and therefore basically tell them that if their parents aren't married then their Dads (or whoever is the highest earner) aren't looking after them properly? No, I don't want my children being taught that sort of thing at school for the sake of a few people who can't be bothered to find things out for themselves before they have children. I'd rather talk to my children about things like that myself without state interference.

YABU. Adults have responsibility to guard their financial well-being. Does no good to tell people. Happens on here just about every week, a woman posts about d'p' and how she's pregnant and going to jack in work to be SAHM, no legal or financial protection in place. Equally as often someone is 'splitting up' with D'P' and facing poverty.

Not a good idea to jack in your job to look after kids if you aren't married unless you are independently wealthy or have legal protection in place.

Sleepwalking into it is no excuse.

Winter Are you saying that people don't eventually grow up and take responsibility for their lives and choices?

Not at all, in fact the opposite. I'm saying that the people who don't grow up and take responsibility for their lives and choices wouldn't have got much out of a lesson on marriage/partnerships when they were 14.

What strikes me about some of the comments on this thread is the utter lack of empathy. This site is full of the experiences of mothers raising children, the difficulties of it as well as the joys

If you had posted for advice about what to do, or for sympathy for the situation she's found herself in, you would have got very different answers. But essentially your post is that its someone else fault that she is where she is, and someone else should have taught her long ago not to do it that way. The people answering you don't empathise with your point. In fact I think its quite insulting to both us and your friend, you seem to think women on the whole can't look after themselves at all.

People can have empathy for your friends situation without wanting their children to be taught things at school that should be taught in the home.

prorsum you said her partner knew, but she didn't. Why do you think that happened then? It's not a secret that's imparted only to men.
It's really common knowledge that marriage is a legal partnership and that cohabiting isn't . I don't really understand why your friend didn't know that.

Most academies already have as part if their funding agreement the requirement to teach that the preferable way to bring up a family is within marriage - so the DfE would say YANBU

But in the would that lesson have made any difference to your friend? She would still have been in a relationship with an abusive man who refused to marry her, wouldn't she?

'What strikes me about some of the comments on this thread is the utter lack of empathy. '

For what? The information is freely out there. Your mate chose not to force the issue. For sixteen years. And to have not one but two children.

My stepfather is convinced common law marriage is a thing. It took a lot of discussion before he half believed me. He was worried that as his son had been living with his girlfriend for two years she would be able to take half his non existent money if she left due to CL Marriage.

I can't imagine that a man who won't get married (not even the basic registry office job) would be willing to sign up to an alternative which gave the mother of his children the right to inherit, half his assets etc. as marriage does, even if it did exist. I've yet to meet the man whose opposition to marriage hasn't actually been a smokescreen for making sure that he can get out with all his assets intact if the need arises.

Just my experience, but if you want a woman to bear your children, you need to sign up for the rest of your life to what that entails, whether marriage or legal agreement and if you want to have children by a man, either get married or do the same. It's about self-respect and respect for the other. That's what my mum taught me. But then, she never was much of a romantic - she never had the money.

It always seems to be a bit odd to me that the biggest reason in favour of marrying is to give you security when you split up. It's not a very optimistic view, is it?

I think cardibach is right, though - it's about putting protections in place. If you live in a bought house together (as opposed to rented) you need to make sure that both your names are on the house deeds. The OP's friend will also presumably be entitled to child maintenance from her ex.

For what it's worth, I was taught this in citizenship at secondary school - that there is no such thing as a common law wife, and living together doesn't protect you if you split.

It was also reiterated through posters at university.

I think the better thing to teach would be to fully explore a situation - so children, living with a partner, how being married changes things - before you enter into it. You don't need to be a pessimist or have a secret fund, you do need to know your legal position.

ptolemy I merely posited a lesson or two stating the differences between marriage and cohabiting and the effects thereof. For both genders. Not saying one was better than the other, merely the differences.

You sent your dc to a church school, what did you expect them to say, fuck around to your hearts content and then settle down with your true love?

I agree penguin that there is a massive tendency for people to think it won't happen to me, or just be oblivious to certain consequences. Some of the most valuable lessons I learned was because I found out the hard way.

prorsum I do think the shoulda woulda coulda replies are unhelpful and often come across as beating OP with a stick. Not to derail the thread but it astonishes me how often someone will reply "and you still went on to have kids with him, move in with him"... or whatever. Not that this excuses it but I think a lot of posters are shocked that your friend lived this precariously for 16 whole years.

Different posters are saying it is taught in school, so what's the problem. Apart from getting no sympathy - this is AIBU- you really expect sympathy . You did say in your OP that he wouldn't of married her anyway, so even if she did know it wouldn't have made one iota of difference.

We need to divorce Marriage from A Wedding. One is essential if you are planning to build a life with another person, for security and protection for both of you, the other is not. Until this happens, scenarios such as this one will be all too common.

For what it's worth, my daughter will be told that we don't mind what she does so long as she's happy. BUT, if she takes any steps detrimental to her future financial position, she needs to have a ring on her finger (and engagement rings don't count). Also, always get your name on the title deeds.

Do civil partnerships still exist? I don't see why they're any different from my civil marriage to be honest.

Also just as an aside, I think it's a little unfair to blame Gordon Brown for civil partnerships considering he wasn't PM when civil partnerships came in.

Civil partnerships weren't ideal but they were a good start. The Tories would never, ever in a million years have brought in same-sex weddings without there being civil partnerships first.

I did not state it was someone's fault. Point out where I said that. I asked a question with regard to it being taught in school. Some of you are seriously lacking in reading comp. You're bring in all kinds of scenarios which have nothing to do with my op.

namechange that's why I said get on the deeds...

I know two women who suffered very badly due to this very situation. Yes - you would think that everyone knew about this, but sadly that is not the case.

One woman lived with her partner for 15 years. He died suddenly and his family inherited everything (no will). They chucked her out of their shared home, took the car and all the money.
She was left with nothing and no rights.

The second was left with 2 DC and no home. (Her partner left her). He even took her car having persuaded her to put it in his name because he used it more often. He was a controlling bastard and she was very naive.

Ok then, no, I don't think it should be taught in schools other than citizenship and that there is no such thing as common law marriage. It's up to adults to protect their financial interests, not the state to police that for them.

Marriage. Is not essential. Securing your future and that of your children is.