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.

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?

No, I did not say that. I responded to a point from the OP, who asserted that not finding out about these things did not make her irresponsible. It does make her so, since as a parent she has a responsibilty to know such things.
I made no comment on the father since it was not relevant to the point at hand. He has the exact same responsibilities that the mother does, however that was not what we were discussing.

OP, you didn't answer my question.

SorryWinter I think we cross posted. No I don't think it made her irresponsibly. Naive and hopeful yes, less cynical than I, definitely.
Aunty Not really. You're responsive have been daft.
momb get your friend to read this thread for starters.

So, in answer to my question ~ he found out about the legalities of such situations himself. He wasn't taught it in school.

"My mate is clueless about many things because she could not get him to be more forthcoming."

I don't understand ~ he is not the gatekeeper of this information, it is freely available to anyone who seeks it. Why was she relying on him to tell her where she stood legally and financially?

"It does not make her irresponsible or stupid."

I wouldn't call her 'stupid', no (naive and foolish, perhaps) ~ but she has very definitely been irresponsible. It wasn't the responsibility of school or her ex to tell her what her situation was and what the ramifications of that might be. That was entirely her responsibility, and one that she actively avoided addressing.

How on earth is the father not relevant to the question of how the finances will impact on the children now that the parents have split?

So you think the father was / is irresponsible as well then.

Reading some of these posts you'd think that women reproduced asexually

responses to Aunty

I agree, basic financial knowledge should be taught in schools, along with other life skills.
Your friend should still have known this though. You just don't have kids without thinking of the consequences.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to talk about ways of living and the social and legal ramifications for all parties - to boys and girls.
Pointing out the difference between so-called common law where it applies (if you walk across someone's garden on a path for 40 years to access your garage , for example) and when it doesn't (not being married). Also what the legal contract of marriage entails.

But please, without the agenda of many posts on this thread: that it 'ought' to be the way women live their lives and it is all about protection for women n the assumption that they will not be earning.

There are boys who will be SAHDs, women who earn more than their partners or come into a relationship with more assets, women who work married (or not) to SAHDs who then fear a break-up as the father is the main carer, girls and boys who will end up in same sex marriages, (or not).

I am very sorry for your friend, OP, she is not alone in her plight...but the general assumption, which you say she grew up with, that women look to men to 'look after them' is part of the whole sorry road to this kind of mess.

PEOPLE need to work in teams, in families, and recognise the value of each contribution - no matter what sex.

So if you don't like the way it has been pointed out that your friend was irresponsible, what are your thoughts on her level of responsibility for this situation?

How on earth is the father not relevant to the question of how the finances will impact on the children now that the parents have split?

He is. However that wasn't even remotely what we were discussing. You seem to be having a very different conversation that the rest of us. We were discussing the mothers level of knowledge of her situation, not the situation itself.

penguin He found out because he was in his terms, screwed. What really happend was he got dumped and nobody likes that. That's how he found out. Once bitten and all that. It's my opinion that he did his research and that's why he would not get married.

Like many people she did not seek the information until she needed it. Sadly.

Generally an unpopular opinion, but I think the law should be changed. If you live together and have children together, generally, there should be the same protections as getting married. Let's face it, if it were men being shafted as regularly as women, something would have been done years ago.

Better yet, do what other countries have done and recognise de facto relationships that are long term should have the same legal rights as those who are married. Australia does.

Not everyone believes in marriage for many reasons. I don't.

So you don't know that he did any research? He could just have had the same level of information that your friend had from knowing that he got nothing after a split from a wealthier partner. People have plenty of valid reasons for not wanting to get married, it's not only about protecting your money from your partner in the event of a split.

I couldn't disagree with that more Vivien.

www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-resources/defacto-relationships-and-family-law-factsheet

Look at this. Common sense that doesn't disadvantage people who choose not to marry. Fairness. Not that hard.

But what if you have a long term relationship, with or without children, and you don't want to be treated as if you are married? If you have the choice to be married, or civil partnered, or to make your own legal arrangements to suit yourself...why treat everyone the same? Isn't that rather paternalistic? Unless its easy to opt out of being treated as de facto married, I think thats an awful idea.

No, it should not be taught in schools.

Firstly, laws change. What a teenager learns at the age of 16 is going to be no use whatsoever when they split up from their long term partner in their 40s. So that lesson would be completely wasted.

Secondly, most teenagers are naive and optimistic when it comes to love. They think they are going to find someone and be happy ever after. How to safeguard your interests 20 years in the future when you currently have no interests to safeguard and believe in true love is so far from teenagers' experience that they aren't going to be able to relate to it.

Thirdly, teenagers don't always listen, and even if they do, they are busy learning more relevant stuff so a lesson about something that has nothing to do with their current situation will not stay in their minds long. So your half an hour lesson is going to be very largely wasted.

If better information is needed, then it should be made available in places where young adults starting on partnerships are more likely to be, like health centres, job centres, etc.

ptolemy That is a really interesting question. I don't think I'm unusual bringing my baggage when looking at other peoples lives so here goes.

I lived in the care of the local authority until 18. On leaving care I was given a flat. I live in a hostel whilst waiting for a flat and we used to have girls who had been given flats come and talk to us and give advice. There were two things that always stuck one good one bad. The bad? Run your bills up excessively, the energy companies with then take the money out of your benefit and you won't have to worry about it. The good? NEVER PUT A MAN'S NAME ON YOUR RENT BOOK. NEVER. It can't be taken off. That's the one I rember most of all.

I got my knowledge from a certain demographic in my early years which helped me in some ways but was of no use to me on many, many others, but that's what I was surround by.

My friend grew up in a kind of fairy tale world whilst her partners was similar in some ways to mine and it does make a difference. She is very optimistic and always feels that things happen for a reason and will work out, it's a different outlook, whereas I'm a the glass is half empty person.

She is really having to adjust to the seriousness of her situation but kicking herself for not doing research is not going to get her anywhere.

I guess I'm saying that as someone who has fucked up royally in my life I can't be judgmental as some on here.

She was not irresponsible. Life. Shit happens.

YANBU. It should be taught in school.

I don't know that he didn't do research but I'd find it hard to believe he didn't. Not many people wouldn't in such circumstances.

Hear hear, blu.....

I think you're confusing judgemental with assessment. To state that someone has been irresponsible is not saying "you stupid cow, its all your own fault". It's just a rational assessment, because it is every persons responsibility to learn and understand how to look after themselves and especially their children.

She made a mistake. People make mistakes. But you do need to accept and own your mistakes to be able to move on. I think you're assuming we're being nasty to your friend and being unsympathetic. I don't agree. We're just saying that it was mistake and it was a bit irresponsible.

I think looking backwards and saying she should have been taught this is both pointless and unhelpful. Look forward and ask, where do I go from here? What other things should I be learning now so I don't find myself in a situation like this again?

I think it should be taught as part of PDL/citizenship in school

I don't see what harm it would do and all sorts of issues can come under the same subject

My children have had a lesson in drugs, a lesson in careers, a lesson in alcohol (little buggers have remembered the drinking cider with a meal bit...apparently nothing else has sunk in ) so financial responsibility including payday loans and interest rates and wills and protecting yourself in a relationship would all be useful

Loads of people seem to think that common law wife is a 'thing'

I do think that if you're insistent that you don't want to get married then you really need to have some shit hot legal formalities arranged, whether you're dealing with children or large assets like a house.

It doesn't always have to be the case that one partner turns out to be a prat. Someone (either the man or woman) could become ill, or dependent, or there could be a death. There could be stepchildren or in laws which make inheritance very tricky. If there's no will, anything could happen. Which could leave the other partner up shit creek with no paddle.

As far as I'm concerned, buying a house or having kids are a MUCH bigger commitment than a wedding. If someone wasn't prepared to make the comparatively small commitment of marriage then I damn sure wouldn't be having children with them.

A wedding doesn't have to be big or flashy, but (IMO) it's so important to get it done if you're going to commit yourself to someone. Not for the religious or social aspect, just the legal stuff! By the time you've finished paying a couple of hundred quid max at the local registry office, you'll save more money than you would to pay a solicitor to draw up contracts.