Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

292 replies

prorsum · 30/05/2015 12:03

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.

OP posts:
Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 06:55

I don't think it is the schools job.
People persist in thinking a marriage certificate is 'just a piece of paper' when it is far more. If you don't have it then you need to see a solicitor and get it drawn up- even then it is difficult to get the same and very costly.
Sadly people think that they have 'rights' that don't exist and that house in joint names etc is all it needs. They don't understand until something goes badly wrong- like sudden death - and then it is too late.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 06:56

I can't see how 'people making a fuss about it' would make any difference! Hmm

iamadaftcoo · 31/05/2015 07:00

Yep great attitude! Let's just never try to change unfair laws Hmm

Like segregation and apartheid, people making a fuss about that didn't change a sausage, did it.

Sigh.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 07:00

If you are not protected either by marriage or safeguards by solicitors it is your own fault- no good making a fuss! Sort it now. Last time I saw my solicitor she said that she was responsible for 7 couples getting married that year. She just pointed out the realities. You don't need a wedding- the register office with 2 witnesses is fine- you can fit it in your lunch break!

iamadaftcoo · 31/05/2015 07:01

Yes I know that, I am not thick, what I am saying is it shouldn't be that way and not enough people complain about it.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 07:02

It is hardly like appartheid! Living with someone with joint finances is up to you to sort and if you don't sort it then you take the consequences.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 07:04

You can't just be ruled by your heart if you live with someone and have children- you need your head too. Modern finances, pensions, death benefits, taxes etc are complex- if you are not covered by a marriage contract you need to see a solicitor and get one drawn up.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 07:07

People who are young and fancy free with, no children, no mortgage , wouldn't want to be covered by laws if they live together. That would be just as unfair.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 07:11

I can think of older couples who have been in a relationship for years with no children, separate assets, who wouldn't want to be covered by laws- that would be unfair.
It is up to you- if you have joint children and joint assets then you need to find out exactly how you stand and do something about it if you don't like what you find. Never assume anything- especially about common law.

iamadaftcoo · 31/05/2015 07:21

Out of interest, are you aware you could have posted all that on one post??

As to your points, I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that people should educate themselves about their rights as being married vs not being married, what I'm saying is I don't think it's fair you should have to marry someone you own a house or have children with in order to qualify for rights.

BertrandRussell · 31/05/2015 07:26

"I don't think it's fair you should have to marry someone you own a house or have children with in order to qualify for rights."

You don't. Getting married is the simplest way, but it is perfectly possible to make legal provision so that you have all the "rights" of marriage. Except for widow's benefits.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 07:28

Hindsight is a wonderful thing! Had I thought of it all first of course it would have gone into one post- but it was all different thoughts- coming in dribs and drabs!
You don't have to marry someone- I thought that I had explained that. But you do need to see a solicitor and get it drawn up.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 07:32

My son and his girlfriend are young- they certainly don't want all those legal rights automatically. They are not married, they don't need a solicitor. If , or when, they do need them they can get them. Marriage is the easiest and cheapest way.

BarbarianMum · 31/05/2015 07:38

The information about how it is done in Australia is interesting but I think it could actually make things worse, by encouraging people to think they are more protected than they actually are.

In the OP's example I think both parents have acted irresponsibly wrt their children.

AnneElliott · 31/05/2015 07:48

I'm not sure teaching it in schools would result in a different outcome for people like your friend OP.

I am surprised at the number of people who think that common law marriage is a thing. My DB only got married recently (their DD was 9) and he thought there wasn't much difference in rights since they had a Dd together.

I also think women should be better informed about not giving up their financial independence at all. One of the few benefits of my controlling parents was that I resolved never to be financially dependent on anyone ever again.

GirlSailor · 31/05/2015 07:50

The assumption seems to be that no kid at school would think this is relevant to them because marriage and children are too far in the future. Lots of my school friends left at 16 and got married and had children shortly after. You have to stay in education or training until 18 now but I can't imagine much else has changed in a decade.

Mehitabel6 · 31/05/2015 07:57

I wouldn't want the Australian system. If anything happened to my husband it means that I couldn't live with someone because I wouldn't want anyone to have part of my house or savings etc. At over 60yrs I want it all to pass on to my own children. I can think of lots of people who actively don't want 'rights'.
I can't see what is wrong in actually choosing them in marriage or legal contracts.

sandgrown · 31/05/2015 08:02

Is it still the case that you have to be on the mortgage to be on the deeds of the house?

HagOtheNorth · 31/05/2015 08:02

I'm all for pressure on the government to change the law, but I still don't think teaching it in schools is going to make much difference.
Many women will continue to put their faith in eternal love and a man being responsible for their financial well-being and that he will be a good father. Which so often doesn't happen. You'd think seeing the reality of so may relationships ending IRL all around them would give them some perspective, but it doesn't seem to happen enough.
You wouldn't take anyone's word over a job, a financial agreement or when employing them to do a job of work for you without an agreed contract. Why stumble into a relationship with joint responsibilities without paperwork, safeguarding your interests?
Changing the law is the best answer to the problem.

Oliversmumsarmy · 31/05/2015 08:03

I think in an ideal world the idea that getting married means you have protection and your ex pays maintenance for both you and your children is great but I have several friends who got married, had children, did everything by the book yet have recieved nothing from their exhs despite court orders of how much maintenance the exw is entitled to. There is a loop hole. To get an employed ex to pay maintenance takes, I think it is something like 6 months, sorry if I am wrong but it does take several months for the relevant government department to get their employer to take the maintenance from their monthly salary. But if the exh leaves and then goes to work for a different company at 5 1/2 months then the 6 month timescale starts again. My friends have not had a penny maintenance from their exhs ever. One of the exh's actually works for the council and goes between 2 local councils every 5 months.

GoodbyeToAllOfThat · 31/05/2015 08:06

Surely this is a parent's role?

Branleuse · 31/05/2015 08:09

marriage also makes it much more of a pain in the arse for women who want to leave relationships too

YesThisIsMe · 31/05/2015 08:10

It's interesting that no one has mentioned the new married tax break. This comes in the form of a transferable tax allowance so in practice many of the people who will benefit will be couples with one SAHP.

When it was originally mooted, it was spun as "married couples stay together more, so if we encourage couples to get married this will be better for the DC". This is pretty obviously flawed reasoning and lots of people said so.

But I think the real reason is that the Treasury doesn't fancy picking up the tab for abandoned SAHPs, and would much rather that the working ex-P paid their fair share of compensation for the SAHP's labour. To the Treasury's mind (and mine frankly) a bribe of 200 quid a year is money well spent if it saves them having to shell out tens of thousands in benefits while the Ex-P laughs all the way to Monaco.

comingintomyown · 31/05/2015 08:39

Remember 16 odd years ago computers/internet were far less common and we didn't Google things the way we do now. If you had wanted to find out your legal status it would have required an expensive trip to the solicitor or some clued up reading.

I could very easily have been your friend OP as after five years co habiting I then had a child almost 19 years ago. I had no desire to get married in fact the opposite. I was totally unaware of how marriage would protect me etc although our house was jointly owned. Neither family or friends ever pointed out the potential pit falls because I expect they believed in common law wives etc.

A year after having DS we got married as I was persuaded by the fact of it being nicer for DS as he grew up if we were. Thank goodness as when XH then took off years later I had the full protection of the law.

One of my close friends has had the same experience as your friend OP , together 20 years with 3 DC then split up. Fortunately she did jointly own their home and got half the money from that but has otherwise needed to rely on his better nature for anything more. She is embittered by the fact she has no pension whilst he will enjoy his huge pension earned in his high flying job while she ran his home life and brought up their three DC.

I would like to think young women now have more nous and certainly the likes of Google make it a moments work to research this kind of thing totally privately. I'm not sure school is the right place to learn ?

My DD is just 16 and I will be telling her my cautionary tale along with my friends who she knows very well very soon.

As an aside at the same age I talked to my DS about how if he fathered a child he would be legally obliged to support that child until 18 years old irrespective of whether he was told the girl was on the pill it was a one night stand or anything else .

Original poster
prorsum · 31/05/2015 08:42

usedtobe Did not moan, was an opinion about posters who did exactly what you have done.Moan about her supposed irresponsibility. My post was not specifically about her, I used her as an example to posit my question. Get your facts right.

OP posts: