Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think if you want marital rights then you should get married?

647 replies

KitKat1985 · 27/11/2017 13:07

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42134722

According to this BBC article, 2/3rds of cohabiting couples wrongly believe 'common-law marriage' laws exist when dividing up finances, and there are calls now to introduce some form of legal financial protection for 'common-law marriages'. AIBU to not get this? Surely if people choose not to get married (or have a civil partnership for same sex couples) then they do so knowing that they don't have the same legal protection as married couples. It was one of the reasons me and DH decided to get married after co-habiting for a couple of years. Surely if you choose not to take on the legal and financial commitments of getting married, then you can't expect to have the same rights if you break up / your partner passes away? And surely for some couples the whole reason they don't want to get married is so they can just walk away from things if the relationship fails, without having to have the legal and financial complications involved in getting divorced? Is it really fair to then force those people to have to support their partner if they break up even if they actively choose never to make that commitment in the first place?

OP posts:
ahatlikeprincessmarina · 28/11/2017 14:23

I mean, those saying that if my DP died, his estate would go direct to our DC so the house would have to be sold immediately –in practice, who would actually turn 3 young children out of their home in order to sell it to give them money from a dead parent? Does that actually happen? It's bonkers ...

PramWanker · 28/11/2017 14:32

Young children wouldn't be likely to do that of their own volition no. You might die when they're older though. Also, people sometimes are in a benefits or care situation where any failure to avail themselves of any assets available to them means they won't get the help they need. It isn't necessarily something a person has a choice about. And you will need to consider eg if your share of the house is in trust (and if you're not a joint tenant so it won't go to DP automatically) who will be responsible for your share of the maintenance costs?

If you don't have anything of any sentimental value at all that your DP would want to keep then yes probably that's not an argument for the will. Although I have personally seen that sort of thing cause more trouble than money!

RustyBear · 28/11/2017 14:37

An interesting case in the light of this thread - a ruling that someone in a long-term relationship is entitled to bereavement damages for negligence, not just married /civil partners as the government had claimed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-42152782

bananafish81 · 28/11/2017 14:42

However until the law is changed, you'd have to make a legal challenge to the courts to receive bereavement allowance

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3423084/How-cohabiting-couples-lose-bereavement-benefits-one-dies.html

^ A study from Royal London suggests that widows and widowers whose partner passes away miss out on support worth £82million a year in total, because they were cohabiting but not married.

Cohabiting couples lose £15 million a year in bereavement payments, £11million in bereavement allowance and £56million a year in widowed parent’s allowance, amounting to £82million in total every year, according to the study.^

MrsHathaway · 28/11/2017 14:42

I mean, those saying that if my DP died, his estate would go direct to our DC so the house would have to be sold immediately –in practice, who would actually turn 3 young children out of their home in order to sell it to give them money from a dead parent? Does that actually happen? It's bonkers ...

Sometimes a house has to be sold to cover inheritance tax. Worth making absolutely sure this wouldn't be the case (e.g. life insurance or clever ownership).

Littlecaf · 28/11/2017 14:48

Interesting high court case RustyBearre the cohabiting couple & inheritance - to sum it up

“If you are living together the government classes you as a couple for the purpose of payments like council tax and jobseeker’s allowance, so why not when it comes to this?”

FluffyNinja · 28/11/2017 14:50

I only got married in a registry office for the financial protection it afforded me and my son. No big do or honeymoon.
I'd have preferred not to be married though if I could get the same protection otherwise.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is an outdated con for the 21st century.

ahatlikeprincessmarina · 28/11/2017 15:01

Sometimes a house has to be sold to cover inheritance tax. Worth making absolutely sure this wouldn't be the case (e.g. life insurance or clever ownership).

No, our estates aren't worth £325,000 ...

Battleax · 28/11/2017 15:05

in practice, who would actually turn 3 young children out of their home in order to sell it to give them money from a dead parent? Does that actually happen? It's bonkers ...

There have been a couple of cases exactly like that, that the widow/widower deliberately publicised to warn others.

ReturnOfTheMackYesItIs · 28/11/2017 15:22

Rustybear - interesting case but she had to take it to the court of appeal after the high court rejected it. I can't imagine this would have been funded by legal aid? (I'm very prepared to be wrong!) so what would the costs of this legal fight have been?

shhhfastasleep · 28/11/2017 15:31

Benefits/Tax etc are calculated according to the individual because it is assumed you are getting something out of the State or you owe something to the State. Property ownership can pass to your next of kin. If you are not married, you are not next of Kin.
Which is why you need to get your legal position clarified and preferably set in a contract if you are not married.

Graphista · 28/11/2017 15:32

Also speaking as an ex nurse can you imagine the awful ramifications if pretty much just anyone with the same address as you could claim next of kin rights and eg get your life support switched off? Horrific idea!

It would be impossible to create legislation that suits EVERYONE. Certainly bonkers to create legislation that caters to a very small minority.

If the terms "marriage" and "wife" bother you so much - you don't have to use them in everyday life, it doesn't have to be religious, hell you don't even have to tell people you're married except for the relevant authorities necessary in order to get the rights you desire. Eg dr, lawyer, tax man

I also think given the current state of the economy it would be a stupendous waste of the govts time and money to worry about this.

As a pp said - if you want marital rights get married!

To go back to the op, it should be opt in not opt out, I disagree wholeheartedly with making people who DON'T want to be married, effectively married by default. I disagree with the govt applying it to couples in terms of benefits too which is the current situation which is leaving millions of women open to financial abuse.

"What I don't understand is how you could replicate the institution almost exactly, call it something else and claim it's got no connection to the original." This!

The way to REALLY avoid the situation of men who won't marry in order to protect their assets from their OWN CHILDREN is to change the laws regarding parental responsibilities and maintenance (which at the moment are shit even if you WERE married to the father of your children) AND to educate girls and women to be more financially independent wherever possible and to make financial life GENERALLY more equal. Again even IF you are married there's no guarantee of spousal maintenance it's actually very rarely awarded.

"How does social security work in the UK if unmarried couples have no legal link? Could an unemployed partner claim unemployment benefits even if they're in a de facto relationship with a millionaire?" No (coconut why do you think otherwise?) if you are living with someone you are in a romantic relationship with their income is also scrutinised and 'counts' in calculating if you need means tested benefits.

Ahatlike - dying intestate is a NIGHTMARE to deal with. Everything jointly financial goes into limbo and it can take YEARS to sort it all out. Unless everything financial of yours is in your sole name you need a will. And anyone with children under 18 needs one regarding guardianship of the children. Especially if in like my case their other parent has parental responsibility but is completely estranged from them.

"Does that actually happen?" Yes! Again as an ex nurse the vile machinations of vultures circling a patients deathbed would shock you. I've known spouses with Alzheimer's and other serious illnesses, children (inc disabled orphans) be dismissed without a 'by your leave' some 'relatives' can treat their 'family' appallingly when there's something in it for them.

And as pps have said the govt often wanna stick their hand into the coffers too.

And yes the lawyers would LOVE this as a pp said because it's hard to prove if you're cohabiting or not as no signed contract necessarily involved. The person with assets to lose saying "no we weren't I still had my own place" or whatever and the other "you were there 4 nights a week" the lawyers would make a fortune!

lalalalyra · 28/11/2017 15:43

We have a joint car and only joint bank accounts, lalalalyra. No stocks and shares or anything so affluent! I just wanted to know if there's anything I'm missing

A joint car? Whose name is the car in? As far as I'm aware cars can only be registered to one person.

As for your later comment about you being kicked out of the house - it does happen.

Also the impact on your children has to be considered. If they inherited your house, for example, then for any benefits purposes they have access to that money/share, they couldn't claim housing benefit or get the first time buyer discounts, if they get divorced or go bankrupt you could be forced to sell unexpectedly.

Intestacy is a nightmare. It's months of paperwork and accounting for every penny and faffing about. All for the sake of making a will which allows choice of executor and sets out clear direction.

Power of attorney is also an idea (for all couples, not just unmarried ones). The health attorney doesn't kick in until it's needed, but can make life much easier at a difficult time.

Hoplittlerabbit · 28/11/2017 17:02

I think it needs to be emphasised that marriage is more about pragmatism and protecting your position particularly as a woman, than about romance.
If you are a woman who chooses to have children then in most circumstances that means your career is adversely affected to some degree. Women who take a break from working to raise children or choose to work part-time are in a very dangerous position if they don’t get married.
Marriage means you can be legally and financially compensated for the choices you make as a family e.g. rights jointly to property and pensions etc.
Without the legal protection I can’t see why anyone would stay and live as man and wife without actually making the legal commitment. I’m cynical after having witnessed friends partners making a big issue about there being no need for marriage... only to later have the relationship break down and the female/mother is left in financial trouble

manicmij · 28/11/2017 17:35

YANBU. Definitely should be restricted to those who have entered into a formal agreement to accept responsibility for each other and that includes not only assets but their debts too. Unmarried people can walk away with no liability.

Motherbear26 · 28/11/2017 17:37

I think it’s absolutely reasonable for people to choose not to get married. I also think that people, particularly women, who make this choice when raising their families should be made fully aware that those in their situation are completely unprotected in law should their partner chose to walk out on them (or vice versa). Far too many people believe that ‘common-law’ is the same as marriage. It isn’t.

coconuttella · 28/11/2017 17:51

It’s clear that modern marriage is consistent with feminism for women in a committed long-term relationship with children.

The idea that you wouldn’t get married because of the supposedly misogynistic connotations, and expose yourself and your children as a result is a clear case of “cutting off your nose to spite your face”.... And is particularly bizarre considering marriage is now open to gay people, there need be no religious connotations, and legally the husband and wife relationship is equal.

It would be a bit like me saying, “No, I’m not voting in the election as Parliament has a history of oppression... it was less than 100 years ago that women got the vote, and it supported slavery and torture for centuries!”..... or “I’m not sending my children to school... Schools have a history of sexism and cruelty. Not so long ago they used the cane!”

I think those who refuse to get married because they dislike the word “marriage” and “wife” at being absurdly precious, and seem to think it will damage their right-on feminist credentials in the circles in which they move.

abtnurse · 28/11/2017 17:57

Yes. Totally agree. People often forget that marriage isn't just a lovey dovey thing , but it gives legal and financial responsibilities and protection. Hundreds of years ago, love took a back seat and 'marrying well', i.e. into wealth, social standing, etc. was more important. Co-habiting suits people who don't want permanent commitment - why change it to make it like marriage?

Jaxhog · 28/11/2017 17:58

Absolutely right. I can't help wondering that people who have an aversion to marriage are unlikely to want to make any other legal commitment.

The other thing that occurs to me, is how do you distinguish a casual relationship from a long term committed one? Should someone who's lived with you for a couple of weeks have the same 'rights' as someone who's shared 4 or 5 years and had your children? Or maybe we should means test it, and recruit a whole new army of civil servants to administer it? Big can of worms. If you want security, just get married!!

AssassinatedBeauty · 28/11/2017 18:00

I don't move in any "right on" circles, and everyone that I know in a long term relationship is married. It is a personal feeling towards the concept of marriage and being a wife that I have an issue with, no one else's opinion is relevant to that. So you may think I'm stupid to think that, but it's nothing to do with being "right on" or precious.

Jaxhog · 28/11/2017 18:02

I mean, those saying that if my DP died, his estate would go direct to our DC so the house would have to be sold immediately –in practice, who would actually turn 3 young children out of their home in order to sell it to give them money from a dead parent? Does that actually happen? It's bonkers ...
It can, and does. What if he has DCs with a previous partner? Or partners?

ChipmunksInAttic · 28/11/2017 18:04

It may have no point in European countries, but I wish we had this law in my country. In some regions where women are under-educated, they get married at a very young age "religiously", without registering by law. These women spend their lifetimes for their families, cannot get away from their husbands so easily because of family ties and customs, but can be dumped so easily. So I think even if you are not married, you should be protected by law, that if you lived a life together and earned together, it must be shared. one must not be disadvantaged so severely, just because she didn't sign some papers.

Jaxhog · 28/11/2017 18:06

As far as I'm concerned, marriage is an outdated con for the 21st century.
Why?

TheFormidableMrsC · 28/11/2017 18:11

The Marilyn Stowe blog has an article on this very subject today :

www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2017/11/28/living-together-how-to-protect-your-rights-by-claire-ward/

Jaxhog · 28/11/2017 18:12

And be aware that getting married voids your existing will (unless that will is made in contemplation of a particular marriage to a named person). That catches out a few of my clients - kids disinherited...
Not to mention the former partners who give up 20 years of their lives, only to have their partner's will voided when he marries some young girl. The new wife then cops the lot.