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.

Well I'm not looking backwards, I'm actually thinking of lessons for future generations.

She has to look forward because that is all anyone can do in difficult situations.

We'll have to agree to differ on the judgmental versus assessment.

Thanks for input folks.
I have to leave laptop for now.

Perhaps it comes down to a question of interpretation, but I'm afraid I can't see how her choices in respect to this issue can be regarded as other than irresponsible.

'I believed in the fairytale of happy-ever-after' isn't a reason to not take responsibility for checking out where you stand legally and financially. Shit happens, as you rightly say ~ and it's the responsibility of the individual to find out just how that shit is going to hit them, if and when the worst happen. It's not a question of optimism vs pessimism, it's realism vs fantasy.

It's a crappy situation, and one that I wouldn't wish on anyone ~ but it's still the responsibility of the individual to have a full understanding of their legal and financial situation.

If this wasn't her responsibility, then whose was it?

Lots of people make fuck ups prorsum, and you're right that most of us bring our own baggage to the conversations we have on here. When children are brought up in care, then the state does have a responsibility to teach certain things to children. I agree with winter that stating someone has been irresponsible is not the same as making a negative judgement against them. People can be irresponsible or make some negative action for understandable and completely forgivable reasons, but it doesn't stop that action being irresponsible or negative.

I'm quite like your friend, going around believing everything happens for a reason and that it will all work out in the end, but I still think that when we have children we have to open ourselves up to the bigger picture and think about the consequences of our choices in life. We have the right to be an eternal optimist about our own life, but when We chose to become a parents, we have a responsibility to think about the situation we have brought them into.

However, you're right, your friend beating herself up for not thinking things through properly isn't going to help anyone. But I don't think that teachers doing things that parents should be doing is going to help either.

I don't understand the people who say 'the information is there if you look for it'
You need to know that you're supposed to look for it before you can do so.

One thing that needs to be taught is if you separate, think about the other person and your family. Even if you've separated.

Married /unmarried - many women still get a really crappy deal when they separate. How about teaching boys to take responsibility for a situation and not to leave the mum with the children?

Oh -and maybe Government could look seriously at these issues as well. Why are things harder for children from "broken families" (to use their phrase). Poverty. Why are such children in poor families? Because their ex doesn't support the family they helped create.

Why are things harder for children from "broken families" (to use their phrase). Poverty. Why are such children in poor families? Because their ex doesn't support the family they helped create.

It isn't that simple. Running two houses costs more than running one. Supporting more children costs more than supporting fewer children. If there is one full time working parent and two households, everyone is going to have a lower standard of living than one household, even if the ex is living in a bedsit and eating bread and scrape. Merely saying this isn't a solution, but it doesn't make it any less true. Even if absent parents were pursued for every disposable penny they have, the cost of running two households is greater than the cost of running one.

Yes to all those who've pointed out that civil partnerships are no different from marriage. No easier to get into, no easier to get out of, just the same legal status.

Yes to all those who've said that getting married is easy and cheap and the problem seems to be lots of people don't realise that it's more important to get that legal protection in place than to wait till they can pay for an enormous wedding.

It's not just in case of divorce. As parents you also have to think about the possibility that one of you will die before your children are adults - and at some point we're all going to die. It's not comfortable to think about this but it's the responsible thing to do. Work out what your position would be if your partner died if (a) you're married and (b) you're not married. Then work out what the position is if you die, (a) and (b) again. Then decide between the two of you whether you want to be married or not, and sort it out.

Somebody upthread said that if an unmarried parent died without leaving a will their children might have to share their inheritance with the deceased's siblings. I'm sure this isn't right. It would all go to the children (from all relationships) unless there was a surviving spouse from an earlier relationship (and no divorce) - in that case it would be split between the spouse and the children. However, it would be a complicated situation and it would be much easier for the surviving partner if s/he inherited as the widow/er.

In the case of an unmarried couple who didn't have children, then yes, if one of them dies without leaving a will, their estate would go to any children from previous relationships, or if there were none to the parents, or if no parents surviving to their siblings, and so on and so on. Not a sausage would go to the surviving partner.

Most people don't leave enough money to be liable for inheritance tax, but for those few who do (including lots of people who own a house in London) the inheritance tax benefits alone make it worthwhile financially to get married.

Most people have very little idea how the law works, something that is frequently demonstrated on Mumsnet, so I think incorporating this topic into legal/financial education in schools would be an excellent idea.

I disagree with common-law circumstances being assumed by the law, such a level of legal and financial commitment should be opted into, not drifted into.

Finally, I agree with all upthread who mentioned the difference between a marriage and a wedding.

I'm in favour of formalising common law marriages.

The arguments could then be the same. "He knew what he was getting into.." Etc.

At what point would you "formalise" a "common law marriage" though? One year, five, ten, after the birth of a child, two children, a joint mortgage/rental contract?

The situation in Scotland is slightly different in that if a couple are widely believed to be married, common law can be applied. But in all of my 53 years, I have only known of one such couple (and only found out they weren't/hadn't been married when she told me they had just tied the knot!)

I should have said I agree with vivien....

Better off partners who want to avoid creating a financial tie or liability will continue to do so whatever the law.

They will refuse CPs, they will dodge FT cohabitation if de facto r/ships are recognised as legally equivalent.

You can't legislate people into commitment, generosity and 'doing the right thing'.

If individual adults can't work out that there is a need to check their legal position regarding a house purchase, a car purchase, a relationship or a tenancy agreement, it is very very hard to force the relevant information under their noses at the right time.

It doesn't take much imagination to check the CAB website for some swift advice, after all.

Threads like this are probably a good thing. As are subtle mentions over coffee if you are concerned about someone. But you can't legislate common sense or responsibility into people.

I'd have to think about that, Hirples?

It's early Sunday morning here. I'm about to stroll out for a coffee. Back later.

Enjoy your coffee. :)

It's just that back in my young days, I lived with a "dp" for a couple of years, but neither of us thought for a minute it was forever. Neither of us owned anything significant either, and we didn't have dc, so breaking up was no biggie; I'd hate for similar couples these days to end up squabbling about pension rights!

The "common law" couple I knew had a dd the same age as ds1 and lived round the corner, which was how I came to know them. She had an older ds who she acknowledged wasn't her "dh"s son, and her ex had been abusive. All four family members had the same last name, everyone assumed they were married - but they weren't until their joint dd was about 8. They married when, as a reservist, he was sent off to Kosovo, obv it was a very low-key registry office do, with witnesses off the street, and it was an entirely practical move.

Thanks, it was lovely. Hard to find around these parts.

As to when it should apply, certainly when a significant of time has been spent under the same roof and there are children involved. People will have a different view of what 'significant' means, no doubt. If you asked me to name a number without thinking too much, I'd say 3 years?

People would probably put more thought into who they co-habit with, and, more significantly, who they have children with. Men and women.

Fewer women (usual disclaimers apply, but it is mostly women) would end up without a roof over their heads, yay for the taxpayer. Fewer women would stay in dysfunctional and abusive relationships. Yay for the children.

I've said it before on other threads, and I'll say it again here. No woman should ever give up a career (or not bother to start one) for a man, or for her children.

I'm really shocked about this. In Australia a long term partner has right, rights to things like pensions and property.

Yeah, the definition of "significant" would be difficult. A one night stand that led to a baby? There's no "relationship", but there are responsibilities.

How does it work in Australia, Hazchem?

I'm not too well versed but when a couple break up assets are split. It works both ways too so I know women who have paid out.

YABU, OP. I don't think it's the school's place to teach this any more than it's the school's place to teach about how to get a mortgage or apply for a passport. It is the school's place to teach ahout DV, EA etc.

Also, for most people there is a gap of several years between scool and having children. Things change. It's up to each and every one of us to find out what the legal position is when we take major decisions such as buying a house or having children. When I was at school, there was no such crime as rape in marriage, by the time I got married there was.

Your friend chose to have children without bothering to find out what her legal rights were. She and her partner chose not to make a will - had they done so, the solicitor would have explained her rights (or lack of). She might have been ignorant about her legal status, but surely she knew that making a will was important ?

When we had our first dc, my dh and I went to make a will. We were married, and I knew what my position would be should my dh die, but I didn't know what exactly the position would be if dh and I died at the same time. Seeing a solicitor and making a will was a straightforward but necessary act to protect our dc.

You are moaning that people aren't showing sympathy for your friend, but that wasn't what your post was about. Although for what it's worth, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for someone who didn't take basic steps to protect herself. I do have sympathy for her dc.

Well I'm a bit shocked by this, I thought once you were with someone for 2 years in a 'de-facto' relationship you had the same rights as married people!

A potted version of the situation in Au:

www.law4u.com.au/cgi-bin/factsheet_right.asp?article_id=476

And while I'm here, de facto is a noun here, as in "He was her de facto."

Ugly beyond belief.

< Disclaimer - am an English teacher who has been marking away too many essays lately>

Winterofourdiscount - why should anyone with children and a long term relationship want to "opt out" of those responsibilities if they weren't trying to screw someone over?

It gives you the right to argue a property settlement/inheritance/power of attorney whether you are married or not, I don't think it automatically entitles you to anything if finances are deliberately separated and no party is disadvantaged ie a sahm.

I'm in a 16 year relationship. We have a child. Joint bank accounts. House in both names. Bills in both names. Each other beneficiary on life insurance and wills.

Luckily I am protected and not forced to marry here for the law to recognise my financial stake in our assets, that's archaic. No way in hell am I getting married to symbolise that I'm "legitimate".

Do we still call children like mine bastards or are we past 1950?

It's really disgraceful that you should be forced to marry for the sake of protecting yourself financially.

I wish more people would make a fuss about this as it's not right.

Some schools do already teach this but I suspect more people would understand it if it was covered in a major soap opera.