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?

I think that the law is very unfair regarding unmarried partners so, no, you're not being unreasonable at all.

But unrealistic, almost certainly.

The law may be an ass but it's very much the law. Having kids outside of marriage at the same time as giving up your financial independence is always a terrible idea.

"Unfortunately this is what happens when people rush in and have babies without getting married and sorting out legal protection for themselves and their children. Marriage is not "just a piece of paper" and it doesn't have to be a big expensive wedding either, which I think puts a lot of people off."

THIS.

It takes self discipline and restraint to do things in order. This is the price women pay when they don't think long term and believe love will see them through everything. Big mistake!

There is also information on www.savvywoman.co.uk

I'm sorry but there is no way I would marry a live in boyfriend and risk losing half my house or savings, when I die this house is for my ds nobody else

I'm sorry but there is no way I would marry a live in boyfriend and risk losing half my house or savings, when I die this house is for my ds nobody else

And this is precisely why cohabiting couples should not have the same rights as married couples! Not everyone wants to marry but that shouldn't stop them from living with their partners. Lots of people blend families or move in their boyfriends when they've got children from previous relationships and don't want to marry and risk their children's stability. It's a very smart choice.

If you want the rights of a married couple, get married. If not, accept you're taking a big risk by having children - you're relying on your partners good will and that's not a smart choice.

It's always the woman who is expected to give up work and fuck herself financially

It might be expected but that doesn't mean the woman has to do it, it's yet another (possibly poor) choice that women make. Unfortunately there isn't yet a cohabiting law that protects women in OP's situation, and until there is they need to be less naive and trusting of their parters. The sad fact is that many relationships fail, and to give up a career and have kids when unmarried is a hell of a risk, yet women still do it, and they still come unstuck. It's so unwise to not look at the worst case scenario before having kids with someone, especially when single. Men promising marriage? It's bullshit until it happens, so look out for number 1.

And so often on MN we hear, "we were told we had conception problems so didn't expect to get pregnant so soon" for reasons why the kids arrived before the promised marriage proposal. If a doctor says a woman might take quite a while to conceive she shouldn't take that as a 100% certainty; if it's not the right time to have kids (eg only engaged but want to wait until married) flippin well use precautions rather than take the risk. Never get into a situation where you become dependent on a man. We have to protect ourselves and this message needs to reach more women IMHO coz life isn't all Disney princes and happily ever after.

Which is absolutely fine ilovegin. The reason I don't support a wholesale change in the law is so choice isn't removed from people in your position.

But if you'd had a disabled child with that live in boyfriend, for whom you couldn't find childcare so he'd stopped working in order to provide that child with the therapeutic approach needed, and then you split up but you weren't prepared to go part time to share the childcare yourself so your boyfriend could work, do you think you might feel a sense of obligation then? Especially if he'd been paying a bit of the mortgage?!

You both have responsibility for your disabled child.

You both need somewhere to live.

You have both contributed to the house which you live in now.

You both need to work. There is little childcare, so one person has to go part time and take this on.

If you want to split, another house has to be funded.

The sensible (and probably only workable) option is for there to be a choice between:

Person 1 stays in house you already have and works part time and does the care. They get the ADVANTAGE of staying in the house and the DISADVANTAGE of having their career compromised, being the parent doing care etc.

Person 2 leaves but works full time. They have the DISADVANTAGE of having to fund a new house but the ADVANTAGE of career and time freedom.

Present that to him and ask him what he thinks is fair. You're both parents, both with the caring responsibility. If he thinks the fact that his name is on the house means that it's just fine that you take the shitty end of both those sticks, then you know where you stand, and that he's a dick.

The fair option is that if he wants his house back, it comes with HIS disabled child in-situ and so does the caring required for that child. If you are to move out, you need the ability to work full time to fund it.

He doesn't get to have it both ways.

Excellent post Fizzy!

'And so often on MN we hear, "we were told we had conception problems so didn't expect to get pregnant so soon" for reasons why the kids arrived before the promised marriage proposal. If a doctor says a woman might take quite a while to conceive she shouldn't take that as a 100% certainty;'

This. I'm always astonished at the ignorance. It's easily obtained knowledge. Unless you are missing parts of your reproductive system, are known to have low sperm count/mobility, have undergone chemo/radiotherapy known to impair fertility, you can conceive. That's the default. Who are these 'doctors'? Haven't come across a one yet who would say this to someone without there having been a known impairment, which leads me to believe someone was just careless with contraception.

Yes, I'm fed up hearing that as well as an excuse.

If you're not going to use contraception be prepared you can get pregnant the first month. If you don't want a baby just yet, use contraception.

Unless people are legally qualified, can they stop offering legal advice?

I am unsure how he would pay you money for an asset that he owns in his name, even though you have paid him some money, nothing is legally in your name.

It's called the law of trusts - or equity law. Complex and specific area of law, which especially pertains to family law and assets. You have something called legal ownership - what the documents say - but you then have beneficial ownership, too, as with any trust - the idea that another person, or several people, can own the right to benefit from the thing, regardless of the legal owner. It doesn't need to be in writing: evidence of intention is sufficient, and then the dispute is as to respective shares. It's called a resulting or a constructive trust. It's complicated and the law is generally from other cases, not statute, which makes for imprecision.

I don't know enough to offer the OP a word of advice on this, and I have an LLB from Cambridge, and a research masters focused on the law pertaining to cohabitational breakdown. All I know is that I do not know enough to advise anyone, because academic law and law in practice is very different. Please, please, can people just back off and get the OP to ask those in a position to actually help her?

If anyone is interested, there's a good intro piece here.

And on the other point: in the 1990s, there was a wide-ranging survey done which found that an extremely large majority of the public honestly believed that if you live together long enough, and have kids, you become common law spouses with all the same rights. Most people only discover their mistake once they've had kids and things go wrong.

Personally I think that it should be a fundamental part of the personal and health syllabus at school. You can't properly protect yourselves from risks you don't know exist. The common law spouse myth is a really dangerous one.

Sleep, there aer some lawyers on here already which is why we said the law differs depending on whether Scotland or England and secondly asking if when she did pay towards the mortgage did she pay it or eg just pay for food as possibly she might have got an equitable interest if she paid some of the mortgage particularly if they intended or agreed she would have a share (unlikely but worth a try) and someone further up mentioned seeing a solicitor - I think referring to Children Act possible rights to protect the child.

Sorry, sorry Lucy I missed that you were posting. Bit harried here with other things! And such a long thread. I just wince at how often people argue what they assume the law is/should be based on what they regard as common sense, when the law is so complicated my own studies have essentially taught me that I don't know anything worth sharing.

I'm a single mum of a disabled child. I wasn't married to my ex and he has no assets anyway so no chance of half a house in my situation. Returning to work has never been an option due to DD's needs, appointments and therapy etc. But in some ways I've been better protected than other single mums and we're not exactly destitute, we are probably better off than we were with exP as he was on a p/t low income. I'm still on income support although DD is 9 now (you can get it as a carer and it doesn't change to JSA at 5 like for other single parents). We got a good council house due to DD's needs so housing benefit covers all the rent and it's far more secure than private rentals. And we get a high level of tax credits as DD is on high rate DLA, so financially we manage fine. If your DS isn't getting DLA then definitely apply soon as triggers a lot of extra support.

However the bottom line is never give up full time work no matter how easy that feels at the time.

Yeah, and that's the part where I tell you that I know more than you do. Lawyer or not.

My son is autistic, and gifted, and suffers from clinical anxiety, coupled with sensory processing problems so severe a day at school is like a day at a rave. He has strong demand avoidant traits, too. He needs very specialised care. There is no possible way he could manage standard childcare. None.

Sometimes, there are no good options available, and your choice becomes between your child's best interests, and your own. I don't denigrate anyone else's choices, but I wasn't earning enough for a specialist nanny, and my child would have suffered very much from any of the other alternatives. Suggesting that caring fulltime for a disabled child is easy is... well. Perhaps you might reconsider that rather unfortunate phraseology?

You said you contributed towards his mortgage until your son was born, so for two years? You're not entitled to half the equity in his house. You made a series of bad decisions unfortunately, but it sounds like he has already been through a financial settlement and won't be keen to go through it again.

He will have to pay you maintenance but that's it.

You sound nice, John

Oh and no, a partner is not a lodger. They can apply under s 36 of the Family Law Act 1996 for an occupation order if the owner tries to change the locks. I don't think many judges would want to see an unemployed mum with a disabled child kicked out on the streets with a weeks' notice.

They are not married, she is a lodger

If you had enough brain cells to look up the legislation I mentioned you will see that it refers to cohabitants or former cohabitants.

Just for you, John although I did enjoy your feeble attempts at mansplaining

36 One cohabitant or former cohabitant with no existing right to occupy.

(1)This section applies if—
(a)one cohabitant or former cohabitant is entitled to occupy a dwelling-house by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving him the right to remain in occupation;
(b)the other cohabitant or former cohabitant is not so entitled; and
(c)that dwelling-house is the home in which they [F1cohabit or a home in which they at any time cohabited or intended to cohabit].
(2)The cohabitant or former cohabitant not so entitled may apply to the court for an order under this section against the other cohabitant or former cohabitant ( “the respondent”).
(3)If the applicant is in occupation, an order under this section must contain provision—
(a)giving the applicant the right not to be evicted or excluded from the dwelling-house or any part of it by the respondent for the period specified in the order; and
(b)prohibiting the respondent from evicting or excluding the applicant during that period.
(4)If the applicant is not in occupation, an order under this section must contain provision—
(a)giving the applicant the right to enter into and occupy the dwelling-house for the period specified in the order; and
(b)requiring the respondent to permit the exercise of that right.
(5)An order under this section may also—
(a)regulate the occupation of the dwelling-house by either or both of the parties;
(b)prohibit, suspend or restrict the exercise by the respondent of his right to occupy the dwelling-house;
(c)require the respondent to leave the dwelling-house or part of the dwelling-house; or
(d)exclude the respondent from a defined area in which the dwelling-house is included.
(6)In deciding whether to make an order under this section containing provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3) or (4) and (if so) in what manner, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including—
(a)the housing needs and housing resources of each of the parties and of any relevant child;
(b)the financial resources of each of the parties;
(c)the likely effect of any order, or of any decision by the court not to exercise its powers under subsection (3) or (4), on the health, safety or well-being of the parties and of any relevant child;
(d)the conduct of the parties in relation to each other and otherwise;
(e)the nature of the parties’ relationship [F2and in particular the level of commitment involved in it];
(f)the length of time during which they have [F3cohabited];
(g)whether there are or have been any children who are children of both parties or for whom both parties have or have had parental responsibility;
(h)the length of time that has elapsed since the parties ceased to live together; and
(i)the existence of any pending proceedings between the parties—
(i)for an order under paragraph 1(2)(d) or (e) of Schedule 1 to the M1Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents); or
(ii)relating to the legal or beneficial ownership of the dwelling-house.
(7)In deciding whether to exercise its powers to include one or more of the provisions referred to in subsection (5) ( “a subsection (5) provision”) and (if so) in what manner, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including—
(a)the matters mentioned in subsection (6)(a) to (d); and
(b)the questions mentioned in subsection (8).
(8)The questions are—
(a)whether the applicant or any relevant child is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to conduct of the respondent if the subsection (5) provision is not included in the order; and
(b)whether the harm likely to be suffered by the respondent or child if the provision is included is as great as or greater than the harm attributable to conduct of the respondent which is likely to be suffered by the applicant or child if the provision is not included.
(9)An order under this section—
(a)may not be made after the death of either of the parties; and
(b)ceases to have effect on the death of either of them.
(10)An order under this section must be limited so as to have effect for a specified period not exceeding six months, but may be extended on one occasion for a further specified period not exceeding six months.
(11)A person who has an equitable interest in the dwelling-house or in the proceeds of sale of the dwelling-house but in whom there is not vested (whether solely or as joint tenant) a legal estate in fee simple or a legal term of years absolute in the dwelling-house is to be treated (but only for the purpose of determining whether he is eligible to apply under this section) as not being entitled to occupy the dwelling-house by virtue of that interest.
(12)Subsection (11) does not prejudice any right of such a person to apply for an order under section 33.
(13)So long as the order remains in force, subsections (3) to (6) of section 30 apply in relation to the applicant—
[F4(a)as if he were B (the person entitled to occupy the dwelling-house by virtue of that section); and
(b)as if the respondent were A (the person entitled as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section).]

You need to get down to citizens advice and find out what benefits your entitled to if you move into rented acommadation - can u afford rented accommodation. Prob dla, carers allowance, housing benefit and tax credits. Plus maintenance from ex.

Then decide if you can afford to rent near ex or back near family.

Could u get him to pay deposit and say three months rent?

I'd give up on chasing the equity in the house tbh and try to work out a financial agreement wth him.

Gold Digging ex tried that shit she lost

Was she the primary carer for your disabled child? No? OK, well that is of limited relevance then. Seeing as you included a link to lodgers' rights and didn't have a clue what I was talking about when I mentioned occupation orders, I think you are talking out of your arse.

Obviously, I should clarify to OP and others that an occupation order is not a long term solution, but it is a possibility if he threatens to throw you out before you have new accommodation sorted.