In wanting 50/50 share of DPs house? In his name only.

[Runningsheila]

I've lived with my boyfriend for 7 years now, at first paying him a contribution to his mortgage. Then we had a child together who has medical needs (now aged 5) so I haven't been able to work and might only have part time in the future.

We were supposed to get married... live the dream etc! But now splitting up.

But you've guessed it all went a bit wrong, with my boyfriend getting cold feet early on and we've never really recovered from his lack of commitment. Of course I wish we'd married before having the baby, the baby happened a bit quickly! I was naive as we were all set to marry but had to wait for his divorce... which took longer than expected and then life got crazy.

Now I feel very vulnerable. My boyfriend is a decent man, did the right thing and gave his ex wife a good settlement on divorce. However, he doesn't seem to be wanting to do the same with me. There isn't much equity in the house, as much went to his wife, however I do feel that I should have a 50/50 share on what is left as it is what has built up since I lived there. I feel more strongly as it might be much more unlikely now that I'll get a mortgage as I may be looking at part time care for years and years for our young son. BF will give me maintenance but what about - house and pensions?

It's not that simple. When your name is on the mortgage you're liable for it. If you lose your job you lose the house and everything you've put in it has gone. Her name wasn't on it so she didn't have that risk. There are pros and cons - she could have lost money. She's been a fool and admits it. When she was working and paying in she should have insisted he sells up and they buy something else where her name is on it and they apportion out the equity percentage-wise. She didn't.

However, he should support her and the child. Whether that is a lump sum to help her set up or child care or more than CMS minimum maintenance I don't know, but when your name isn't on the mortgage it works both ways - you don't benefit but you're also not a loser if it goes into negative equity.

Time and time again women are doing this to themselves. I'm honestly sick of this argument that's trotted out time and again that the women has facilitated his career and he wouldn't be where he is if it wasn't for her picking up everything at home. 1) no woman should put herself in that position in this day and age as so many marriages break down; 2) not necessarily - perhaps he'd still be in the same position career wise if the woman had also protected her interests and gone back to work as there'd be more money to buy in services, and also there's also no direct correlation between the man not being around until late and travelling abroad at the drop of a hat with his career prospects; there are many permutations of how work/life can balance out and how you can combine a career with family life.

You would probably lose all the money in legal fees.
.
Your name isn't on the house .
He has a duty to provide for your child but not you.
If house is sold where does he live? Where do you live? You in same situation...renting somewhere.
Try and go back to work .
Share childcare costs with child s father.

Willyoujustbequiet Am I one of the misogynists you mean?

I hope not: I just set out the law as it is.

Time and time again women are doing this to themselves

The real issue is that firstly we expect the woman to always be the one who gives up her job or goes part-time. It is always assumed that that is how it will be. Men therefore get away with not doing their share of caring and looking after the home.

The second issue is that society doesn't value caring work. Despite the fact that society would grind to a halt without it, we do not value it. At the same time, we make divorce and separation easy for men- they can walk away with limited consequences. All the while, women get shafted financially but are told it is all their fault.

I was very naive it is true. I did pay into the mortgage and only stopped to look after our child. I really did think that my contribution was obvious, it could have been my boyfriend staying at home to mind the child and my name on the mortgage whilst I carried on with my career (which was a good one) and my pension. Meanwhile he's been promoted.

Posters are right, it's not the equity of the house. I think it's the thought that he'll be able to continuing to fund a mortgage while I am renting or on housing benefit. Part of me wants to get full time work again however other parents in my position have failed as the provision for disabilities is not as great as you'd think, my child already only just being accepted for 2 hours a day and would need specialized childcare, not a local childminder.

I need a plan!

Terrible misogyny by some posters who claim the OP shouldn't be entitled to anything.

The standard advice given on here is usually: if you're in a financially weaker position than your partner, get married. If you're in a stronger position, don't.

Basically - look out for number one in the event of shit hitting the fan.

She's been a fool and admits it.

You think that should form part of the moral argument against her having part of the equity? I mean, you can say she did this to herself, but she's had a fair amount of help.

The real issue is that firstly we expect the woman to always be the one who gives up her job or goes part-time.

No, women choose to do this and don't think of the consequences. So many women go part-time or give up work completely when legally, they're not protected should things go wrong. I see hundreds of threads on here where women have children, don't get married, quit work and then are screwed over when their relationships end.

It's not misogynistic to say that women shouldn't quit work or drop their hours to raise their kids without some kind of legal protection. Of course, accidents happen and unplanned pregnancies exist, but lots of people continue to plan pregnancies outside of marriage and don't think of the consequences.

The law states you're not protected if you're not married and your name isn't on the mortgage/deeds or tenancy. Yet women still give up their jobs, and let themselves become dependent on men who could kick them out with nothing at a moment's notice.

Please post on legal? It's kind of complicated because you did pay in cash to the mortgage (people saying that would be looked on as rent don't know the law - with cohabitants, that's generally not the assumption) and can presumably prove that (and you say it was half?) and you say there were conversations about him putting you on, and he said he wanted to and it was jointly owned to his mind, but you'd not get as much of a loan - right? Is that evidenced in any emails or letters or anything or is it his word against yours? I ask because that could evidence a trust of mutual intention, and that might help you.

Sadly you have no right to his pensions as you aren't married. And the onus is on you to prove contributions to the house, and that he's indicated he saw it as jointly owned.

You need to post on the legal section here on MN. And I would look at old emails really carefully to see if you can evidence this. I'd also consider sending him an email setting all of this history out as a sort of discussion on how to work it all out now, pointing out how fair he was over his first wife, but that you share a disabled child who needs a lot of care, and asking for his suggestions on how to work this going forward. Bluntly, if he accepts that you paid towards it and he told you it was jointly owned in reality and it was only to secure a larger mortgage that he kept you off the deeds, you may then have some evidence if none other exists.

I'm really sorry you are in this situation. Bluntly I think it's really unfortunate people don't know the gap between legal protection inside and outside marriage, when it comes to having kids and an earnings drop thereafter.

The standard advice given on here is usually: if you're in a financially weaker position than your partner, get married

Bit hard to do that if your partner who promised to marry you has changed his mind and you have already given birth to his disabled child though? Marriage is a decision made by two people. You can't heap the blame on a financially weak person for somehow not managing to get her much financially stronger party to marry her.

The impact of this relationship on him: CSA until child is 18, promotion and payrise at work, own house which will presumably go up in value. Can save or sell and buy a bigger house, likely to get promoted again. Pension, security for the future.

The impact of this relationship on her: given up her good career, carer for disabled child, meaning she cannot get back to work in the same capacity as before. Because she cannot get back to work, she is unlikely to get on the property ladder, ever. Likely to have to rely on benefits to make ends meet. May have caring obligations beyond child's 18th birthday due to disability. No pension. Reliant on government not to cut benefits too much. No security for the future.

But yeah, that seems so totally fair.

Ron nobody plans to have a disabled child. You can't work and care for them properly unless you're high earning enough to have a specialist nanny, in many cases. And few women are.

I agree marriage is the sole means of protection against this. Frankly, even that's not much unless your spouse is a high earner and you have a lot of savings/equity/pension piling up. The career hit of many years at home is horrendous, and few people have enough money to provide for two separate households.

When a child is disabled there isn't that much you can do, though.

I really hope threads like these make women take their financial future seriously and take proper measures to protect themselves. It is depressing how often this scenario comes up on MN good luck OP hope things get easier for you and your DC

So to me we were starting as equal partners - both contributing the house. If I wasn't there he'd have to pay for childcare.

No, he'd be paying you 20% of his salary (or whatever the calculation is these days) - he'd not be paying the full whack for nursery or child minder for 40 hours a week.

No, women choose to do this and don't think of the consequences. So many women go part-time or give up work completely when legally, they're not protected should things go wrong. I see hundreds of threads on here where women have children, don't get married, quit work and then are screwed over when their relationships end

Often those decisions are made in the context of the family's welfare though. Sometimes it is not a choice as such, because child care costs make it unaffordable. Sometimes the woman's partner says he prefers not to put the child in nursery. Sometimes the child has additional needs and normal childcare is not an option and the government will not fund extras.

I agree that women should not give up work, but to say it is solely their choice when it is a family decision and they should be the only ones adversely affected by the decision to have a family is actually deeply unfair.

Often those decisions are made in the context of the family's welfare though

But I never see men taking that financial hit. It's always women who give up their career and financial security "for the family". Men rarely choose to stay at home and give up their careers. I know the answer to that is because women give birth/take maternity leave but that shouldn't be a reason to give up work completely.

Most careers can be done part-time (so both partners sacrifice) or hours can be changed so that childcare use is less, but lots of men would have their partners believe they need to work the hours they do, and that cutting down/flexi-time isn't possible.

Yes, childcare is expensive but if BOTH partners change their hours/cut down their days, it's generally possible for both partners to afford their jobs. Without the protection of marriage it's foolish for EITHER party to give up their financial independence. Unfortunately it's mostly women who end up doing so, but it would be equally foolish for a man to do so.

Men therefore get away with not doing their share of caring and looking after the home.

And women get away without paying their fair share of normal household expenses and both they and their half of the financial responsibility to the child are paid for by someone else.

There are pros and cons to being in either position when a relationship breaks down.

As I suspected, OP states that there isn't sufficient suitable childcare for DS locally. Meaning it'll have to be done by family. Yet he doesn't give enough fucks about this to reduce his hours and do it himself.

And women get away without paying their fair share of normal household expenses and both they and their half of the financial responsibility to the child are paid for by someone else

That's because they are not earning an income because the work they do is not valued. And on relationship breakdown, men are able to carry on as normal, continue to develop their career and then retire on their pension. Women who have sacrificed their career to look after the family are left with fuck-all, potentially facing poverty in middle age and later years, with no chance of rebuilding their career.

If you honestly think that is fair, I will shut up.

My child does have a severe life long disability and it is true I will be unlikely to be able to work full time again , perhaps ever.
There is no family back up at all on either side. If I could persuade my ex to reduce his hours so I could work more that might help, but he says his work can't be part time. He also could afford his mortgage part time.

Sorry he says he can't afford his mortgage part time. Mistake.

The thread certainly supports the view that most people in England want English law to stay at it is - that a lot of us deliberately do not marry a partner as we do not want them to have any financial claims on us at all. I would never want a live in boyfriend to have any share of my assets ever and would deliberately not marry to avoid that. I want it all to go to the children and I would never ever no matter what best interests of family might supposedly apply have gone part time.

If there is a moral to the tale it is never give up full time work because of a promise from a man or because it feels easier at the time.

At first it did make sense completely for me to stay at home as I could do the job of therapists who would have charged thousands. And believe me I know a lot of families who have paid that kind of money to get early intervention help. It made a big difference and professionals urged us to keep going with our set up as they saw big progress.

So I do feel I gave up work for the families interests. It wasn't just to enjoy extended maternity leave. But now I see the future with continual renting or benefits and no pension and permanent caring and it scares the life out of me.

But Lucy what if you had a child with a boyfriend and he stayed at home to care for them and when you split you lived in the mortgaged house and he in a council house with you paying minimum maintenance?

I believe the Cab and government websites have some information about the differences between married and single. There is no such thing as common law wife/husband. I don't believe that you have any claim on any of his assets unfortunately. I would start a claim for child support and investigate benefits and working even if is part time. I agree it is a vulnerable position to be in.

It is hard runningsheila. If you have a child with a disability/ medical needs normal options do not always apply. I am lucky I have an income and assets but surviving on 3/4 hours sleep a day, childcare that is 1:1 and in some scenarios 2:1 and no family local getting a job or holding a job is useless advice. I too never married as I never planned on a child with special needs and was independent so never saw the need.