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.

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?

No they are not.

And babies are not registered at birth. Friends got married because when their baby was born he was very ill and in SCBU, the hospital staff had to get permission for any procedures from mum because at the time unmarried dads had no PR, and at that stage the birth had not been registered, and frankly what parents want to leave their poorly child alone (even in hospital) while they go register a birth.

The other thing people need to learn is that a religious marriage is not automatically a legal marriage.

But surely when you plan to have a child (bit different if you have a surprise) you look in to the legalities of things? Or is that just my way of thinking?

All of the schools around here are church schools so I didn't have much choice, but that a different debate.

The thing is that you can't teach children the differences without at least implying that one is better than the other, and no child should be hearing at school that their parents made a poorer choice than the parents of the kid sat behind them. That is just not what schools are there for.

I absolutely agree with citizenship classes in school, and they are great for prompting and helping discussion at home. I'd have no problem with teaching what people's responsibilities are if they choose to have children, or what the legal implications of being married are, but it is not the schools place to start talking to children about the pitfalls of having children outside marriage as you suggest in your OP, because that will lead to children feeling bad about the way they were brought into the world.

If anything, I'd rather schools taught children that if they have children then they have a responsibility to keep a job so that they can pay for them, but you couldn't teach that without some children worrying about their own SAHPs, so schools need to just leave it alone.

This happened to me, and I thought I had my head screwed on.

Everyone I've spoken to regardless of age and background said "but you're a common law wife". Er, no.

Well by saying that it should be taught in schools is saying that someone else other than a parent should take responsibility for that. And if it doesn't work out then you turn around and blame the school.

Do civil partnerships still exist?

Yes.

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.

He was one of the main opponents of same-sex marriage in the Labour cabinet, and conveniently absented himself from all the votes on it. It looks like even agreeing to civil partnership was a stretch for him. As the main implications of marriage are fiscal, the chancellor's support would have been absolutely vital.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/05/gordon-brown-joins-labour-mps-who-didnt-support-same-sex-marriage/

The Tories would never, ever in a million years have brought in same-sex weddings without there being civil partnerships first.

We'll never know. And post the Irish referendum and the (likely) supreme court judgement in the US, we will be able to put all this behind us and get on with people who love each other marrying each other.

But OP, why do you think a lesson in school would have any effect? The information is easily available to anyone interested, in seconds. Why would a lesson 20 years ago be any more use to your friend than the ability to use google at any point during her relationship?

"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."

Yet you also say that he 'knew' ~ so how did he become privvy to this information? I'd hazard a guess that he made a point of ascertaining exactly where he stood legally. Your friend, sadly, for some reason, chose not to do the same with regards to her situation.

Dh was in a position to buy a place before I was when we were unmarried. We had been living together renting.

He wanted to buy somewhere himself, live together and have me pay half towards mortgage. Thia was pretty dcs. I refused. Said he could buy and we live separately if he liked but I was not paying his mortgage unless we were married.

Now, we might have made more on property pre 2007 if I had gone along with him (we ended up buying together in 2006 shortly before we married) but I stand by my decision.

People used to say "why buy the cow when getting milk for free" about sex. Attitudes have moved on about sex but I felt this way about my money going to pay his mortgage. Paying his mortgage or being a sahm to his dcs amount to same thing in my book.

This doesn't indicate much trust but there is such a thing as too trusting.

Being rude to posters is not helping you gain sympathy.

Your post is titled "Status of unmarried women in long term relationships should be taught in schools" and then you tell us that your friend has found herself in a difficult situation. Now, if your point wasn't that she didn't know because she wasn't taught in school......what was your point? Because that is the obvious reading of your entire premise.

Being insulting to people who don't agree with you doesn't really lend itself to anyone being at all sympathetic to your friend's plight, which you say you didn't ask for and then scold everyone for their lack of empathy, or to people assuming you are at all reasonable.

I don't think it should be taught in schools.

I think people who sleepwalk into this situation do so on their own lookout. They are adults and adults should be responsible for themselves, not blame the state for their problems.

Some of the choices and responsibilities of being an adult should be taught in schools. This really isn't one of them. She was with him for 16 years OP, with a controlling man whom she rarely challenged.
I'd rather schools looked at identifying red flags in the early stages of a relationship, respect, sexual health, contraception, rights in the workplace and being responsible for your own financial security as an adult.
Not everything can be delegated to schools, no matter how much adults want it to be. Didn't you talk to her about her situation, over the years as she was in an EA relationship? Didn't she listen to you? Why not?

I agree with you OP. I don't think it's about teaching 'values' and I also don't think it should be about presenting 'marriage' as the best route for a woman. Rather, it's about teaching the legalities of relationships, the different types of relationships and also discussing financial planning.

Some pupils won't listen. Some pupils will. Certain areas have horrendous literacy rates, we don't jump from that outcome to a decision that we shouldn't bother teaching literacy skills because some pupils don't listen. So, yes, if we had comprehensive relationship lessons in schools around consent; DV; EA; legal status of relationships and financial planning some people would still end up in a precarious situation but the sheer weight of the practicalities may just help a teeny bit to balance all the romcom; flowers and love hearts view of relationships which currently place many people (both male and female) at a disadvantage.

Penguin He knew because his previous very high earning partner left him. They had a very expensive house in a very nice area.

He was entitled to nothing but she gave him a 'sorry I've climbed the career ladder and you're still doing the same low scale job, I've moved on and am mixing with different people and you and I have very little in common now, here's a few quid. bye, payoff. No judgement, just stating facts.

I've heard chapter and verse over the years about the exgf. It hurt him dreadfully which is why he was so controlling in the relationship.

My mate is clueless about many things because she could not get him to be more forthcoming. It was a very traditional relationship in many ways. Tbh I've been horrified at her lack of knowledge in certain areas but we all have our blind spots, for a variety of reason. It does not make her irresponsible or stupid.

I suppose a good long-term aim would be to change our society so that on separation the current situation that usually seems to happen (she gets the children and he gets the money) wouldn't happen. Clearly this set-up is fair on neither of the adults or the children.

Not sure how you go about doing that but it makes sense I think.

Sorry Op that doesn't help your friend at all at the moment. Personally I think that many people don't think about these things / it doesn't occur to them to think about it / they have half formed ideas and assume it will be OK / they are not in a position to make another adult do something they don't want to do and so on. And that is the way it is, so saying oh well they shouldn't have been so stupid, is all well and good but unhelpful. Because we are left with a situation with a lot of children living in poverty and that does no-one any good.

It works both ways. Male friend of mine recently gave up work to be SAHP as he earns the less of the two. She doesn't want to get married. I worry for him.

Ironic that you're questioning my basic thinking skills. But anyway.

Tbh I've been horrified at her lack of knowledge in certain areas but we all have our blind spots, for a variety of reason. It does not make her irresponsible or stupid.

Well, it does make her irresponsible, really. She is responsible for two children, so yes, she was remiss in her duty to be informed for their sake if not hers.
There may be a hundred different reasons why this is so, but it doesn't absolve her of that responsibility.

It's nice that you're so supportive of your friend, but it sounds like you do need to accept that her mistake was hers alone, and it is not anyone else's responsibility except maybe to say that her parents could have talked to her more about these things when she was younger.

It is not a reason for schools to start interfering in things that plenty of decent parents would rather do for themselves.

If all your friend wants is security for her children, then in theory, they should get that. There is a (crap) system in place to vet the NRP to pay maintenance, and there is a welfare state that pays for children when their parents don't. The children are more than likely to be fine financially. Marriage wouldn't have made any difference to the outcomes if her ex has other children, which you say is her biggest concern. I think it's your friends financial security that is likely to be more of a problem, but that is entirely her own responsibility. She was very naive if she thought that producing a couple of kids meant she was sorted for life. How was she expecting to fund herself now that her children are older? Presumably they are secondary age or close to it as you say they are under 14?

Winter the children have two parents. You only say the mother has any responsibility for them in your post. And that she has been irresponsible. What about the responsibilities of the father? Is he not irresponsible too?

And another one saying that the father has no responsibility towards the children, financial or otherwise. " that is entirely her own responsibility". No the father should have some responsibility towards his offspring as well.

This thread is rather toxic isn't it. The men get the money and the women get the children and if the women haven't arranged everything carefully then they are irresponsible and no mention of the man whatsoever in any of it

And FYI according to Gingerbread "42 per cent of children in single parent families live in relative poverty, around twice the risk of relative poverty faced by children in couple families (23 per cent)" so I'm not sure where the confident assertion that the children won't suffer financially comes from

If you heard chapter and verse about the exgf over the years then surely your friend did too, and was aware that her partner got nothing from his ex as they were unmarried? So what made her think that she'd be any different?

There is an astounding lack of financial general knowledge which I think should be taught in schools. As a result this issue would be covered.

An awful lot of people think a will covers the issues a marriage does on death. They forget to remember or conveniently forget that someone could have a will written today leaving everything to their partner then next week they could change this will without telling their partner and leave them nothing. The only time the partner would find out would be when they didn't inherit.

The same goes for any life insurance or pension beneficiaries, death in service payments etc.

You can't divorce someone without letting them know, but you absolutely can disinherit an unmarried partner without their knowledge.

It is no good saying this should be taught at home when so many people are financially unaware themselves.

I admit, that it wasn't until I found MN that I found out that there wasn't such a thing as common in law marriages. I stupidly assumed that if you lived with someone for x amount of years you were entitled to roughly the same as you would be if you were married if you split up.

Yes, very ignorant but it wasn't something I looked into because I didn't need to as I married so I just thought that people who said it were right. I am sure if I didn't marry I would have done some research on the subject.

I plan to tell my children stuff like this as I think it is my job, but sadly, there are many parents who don't, so I think a quick lesson on it in school might be a good idea. If it saves one person from the situation the OP's friend is in it might be worth it. On the other hand where does it end? there are loads of things parents should be teaching their children but don't, and the schools can't cover everything.

Wasn't asking for sympathy and I don't like the way she has been categorized as irresponsible and wanting to blame someone else for her predicament as some have done. Think I've been quite restrained actually. I will challenge that and I will reply in kind to that kind of dismissive thinking. I used her experience because it's something I've been thinking about in the last few weeks and wondering if it could be avoided for others, hence the idea it might be a subject to be covered in schools.

Don't give it out if you can't take it. There is some serious lack of reading comp here so I state again.

I am not advocating pro or agin marriage or cohabiting, merely asking if teaching the differences would be useful to both genders. See? It would be useful to both.

Also as Aplace has said, Certain areas have horrendous literacy rates, we don't jump from that outcome to a decision that we shouldn't bother teaching literacy skills because some pupils don't listen.

FWIW. I've told my nieces and young acquaintances this cautionary tale. I'll be messaging it in their birthdays, xmas cards on the top of any cakes and biscuits I make them.