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

[KitKat1985]

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?

I find it horrifying that in this day and age we are advising women "not to settle down" with men who wont get married. What does this even mean? I would presume not to have children and to thus sacrifice their income (by giving up work) for men. In my view, the answer is to have a child maintenance system that is fit for purpose so that cost and sacrifice of children is fairly shared between the parents rather than some attitude that men need to pay for women regardless of whether they are married or not. Or to have a society where women are not so often forced out of well paid jobs when they have children.

Otherwise, I do generally agree that there is a choice to get married or not (and thus have the legal obligations which flow from that) so if the parties do not choose to get married, they cannot complain that they do not have those rights.

It’s not about MEN paying for women .

It’s about PARENTS shairing more equally the costs of raising a child.

ATM most women take most of the work and the risk , by taking maternity leave, going PT, working shorter hours , turning down promotion and limiting their career progression, pension pot and potential income.

Therefore it’s fairer if such women have a claim on assets which were jointly earned - by his paid work and her uppaid work.

If they are not married and assets are in his name ( as per usual ) then she has no claim.

If neither party has taken any financial risk or set back assocated with children or any other joint enterprise ( like domestic labour ) then that’s great . Or if such risks have been shared equally. Fantastic.

But these women are not the issue, as many other posters have pointed out .

Men are not expected to support women as a sex. They are expected to support the woman who has given up or limited her career to support his.

It would be exactly the same if it was the other way around. Except it never is.

I have said it before and I will say it again, being married is no guarantee that some Fathers will take responsibility for their kids. I have personal experience of this. A partnership married or not is all down to the people involved regarding finances etc. Because women are the one's that give birth, they will always be on the back foot, unless of course they are high earner's. Women have more opportunities now but not everyone can be a high earner. This depends on so many variations, such as family background, finance, education etc. So I agree with those that advocate a system that protects the children, no matter whether your married or not. A partnership, married or not without children should come under totally different rules depending on who or what was brought to the releationship. We have to take that responsibility for ourselves, so if things dont work out, we have the capacity to move on. We all survive in the long term.

*Men are not expected to support women as a sex. They are expected to support the woman who has given up or limited her career to support his.

It would be exactly the same if it was the other way around. Except it never is.*

It was in our case

I am the higher earner with more financial assets

Until we were ready to start TTC we chose not to be married, as until that point it made sense to keep assets separate, as neither party had any financial dependency on the other

The plan was for my partner to be a SAHD.

And thus if he was taking the hit on his income and career, he should have the financial protection in the event of our relationship breakdown

Hence getting married in order to start a family

Banana - that’s exactly my point. Men who decide to become SAHD are smart enough to get married and not end up like Alison in Gaspos post.

Or maybe it’s that their female partners are fairer.

Also all the SAHD I know ( not a large sample admittedly ) have a day off a week when their wife looks after the children and have assets like a pension or savings in their own name. And like you and your DH, they are married.

Kristina/banana - that's entirely my point though - it shouldn't be about men supporting women. It should be about parents supporting their children. It should also be about having a society which works for people bringing up the next generation - not the society which we currently have which means that women are often forced out of highly paid jobs because of caring responsibilities at crucial points in their careers.

We should not have to advise our daughters to get married in 2017 to protect their financial future. Instead we should focus on fixing society.

@Kr1st1na that's my point. We agreed up front that we wouldn't start a family without making financial provision for the event of death or separation. Regardless of who was the primary carer, the protection should be equal. If one of us had refused to a legal partnership offering mutual protections, then we'd have been fundamentally at odds morally and wouldn't have been suited to raising a family together.

I do have investments in my own name from before our marriage - the provision in my will is that in the event of my death he will become the beneficiary (and because we are married this is IHT exempt). I maintain these investments in my own right and in my own name.

I think the same/similar rules as marriage should apply if you are cohabiting and have children together.

If you don't have children, they shouldn't.

What about if you are not cohabiting and have children together Sonic? Why does that make a difference? Why is it ok for the RP to sacrifice their income and ability to accrue assets to raise children if they are not married or cohabiting with the NRP?

Because if you are not cohabiting (ie you are separated?), then you are already running two households and the the NRP should be paying maintenance. Which needs to be enforced a lot more.

Sonic -You said that similar rules to marriage should apply to cohabitees with children - presumably you mean in respect of a share of the assets as child maintenance is payable either way. Why should a hypothetical woman who cohabited with a man be entitled to a share of his assets because she gave up work to look after his children, but one who did not so cohabit should not? How is that fair?

Child maintenance is generally a pittance even if it is enforced. It must be a feminist issue that women are routinely left impoverished as single parents (often whether or not they were married although marriage helps) while men get off without either the work or financial sacrifice involved with their children.

It's not just that maintenance needs to be enforced in a much better way, it also needs to be a larger amount, the current percentages are woefully inadequate and far below 50% of the cost of raising a child which is what each parent SHOULD be contributing AND the nrp shouldn't be getting a "discount" because they CHOOSE to have more children - why should the older children miss out because they want more? Nrp should have to take the original children into account BEFORE having more children and they SHOULDN'T get a reduction for children that aren't even theirs! Those children are the responsibility of their PARENTS not their step parents. I know this isn't the main focus of the thread but it's a major consideration in relationships. It's slightly easier if the parents were married but not managed as well as it ought to be.

Graphista - I agree that child maintenance is woefully low and it seems to me that this is a big contribution to gender inequality. Women (and it is almost always women) have to take on the lions share of the work and financial contribution to raising children. Our society is structured in such a way that the best jobs go to those with a "wife" at home who can ensure they can put in the extra commitment. This needs to change.

I think that maintenance should reflect the cost of raising a child and if this means awarding assets to the RP, so be it. I don't think that there should be any difference whether or not the parents were married at any point or not.

That being said, you can only take what they have and I don't agree that the needs of other children shouldn't be taken into account. You cant stop NRPs having other children and any amounts have to be shared fairly.

That being said, you can only take what they have and I don't agree that the needs of other children shouldn't be taken into account. You cant stop NRPs having other children and any amounts have to be shared fairly

So my XH took on 3 kids that have a dad who pays maintenance and it means that the meagre amount he would have had to pay my son would have dropped to £4 a week because he had these other kids? Fuck that. He also has 6 other kids dotted about and pays nothing for them either. I’ve never had maintenance beyond 3 CSA payments which he still found a way to wriggle out of so I cancelled it.

Just as an aside in relevance to the thread, being married to that bastard made getting away from him a hell of a lot harder and more stressful. And gave me nothing. Not a damn thing. No maintenance for my son, no rights, nothing.

@ notreallyarsed - what you describe isn't really sharing fairly is it.

Its hard having to do it all on your own. I couldn't live with myself if I did not provide for my dcs and I think that's the same for most women. Yet so many men, like your ex, don't seem to feel the same way. And then women are demonised for being single mothers when they are usually the ones doing everything (while if men are single fathers they are heroes).

We should recognise the amazing contribution of all single parents. Good for you bringing up your son on your own - hes lucky to have you.

@zsazsajuju that’s my point about the system being broken though. The fact that he was apparently responsible for these 3 who aren’t his absolved him of responsibilities for my son. Ugh.

Thank you, I’ve been with DP for many years now but had 4 years as a lone parent and I have the utmost respect for anyone who is a lone parent it is hard bloody going!
Aye my XH is a scumbag who finds loopholes for everything, always has and always will, it’s just a shame the system supports that.

I completely agree with Graphista re child maintenance.

Why should a hypothetical woman who cohabited with a man be entitled to a share of his assets because she gave up work to look after his children, but one who did not so cohabit should not? How is that fair?

Sorry, I'm probably being thick but I can't work out the situation here. If a man and a woman live separately, have a baby (I assume unplanned in the very early stages of a relationship) and decide to continue living separately and not be in a relationship but continue with the pregnancy, then the woman probably wouldn't (at least, shouldn't) give up work, otherwise how would she be able to afford to live without a partner earning?

I agree that maintenance should be higher, to include the costs of childcare if both parents need to work. Men shouldn't be able to take the easier and cheaper option of not having 50% of the care AND not having to pay for childcare.

But I'm not sure that's what you're talking about? Do you mean a woman, not in a relationship and not living with the father should still be entitled to a share of his assets if they never lived together as a couple and made decisions as a couple?

I don't agree that the needs of other children shouldn't be taken into account. You cant stop NRPs having other children

why not?! RP's have to and are expected to think of existing children and finances before having more children why on EARTH should that not also apply to NRP?thats equitable. Why should ALREADY EXISTING CHILDREN be neglected in favour of children born after them? All the children are equally deserving

My ex has gone on to have FIVE more children with his 2nd wife. He has tried almost every trick in the book to avoid paying maintenance over the years. BUT the children from the second marriage are given luxuries I couldn't possibly consider for dd. One year for Christmas they all got games consoles where my dd got nothing from him. That's the kind of attitude these men have.

I agree, Graph. The first DC shouldn't have to go without because the NRP decides to have more DC. If he decides to have more DC, he should make the compromises required.

In the significant number of examples of shitty NRP absent fathers I know that might mean driving a Ford instead of an Audi, or giving up the golf membership, or fewer holidays abroad. Not deciding not to pay for their first children so they can have both, and the first DC make the compromises instead.

But then, that would require not being selfish and making responsible decisions as a parent. Which if that was the case, then the situation wouldn't have evolved in the first place.

Not deciding not to pay for their first children so they can have both, and the first DC make the compromises instead.

And in reality it's the woman (mother of the first DC) who actually makes all the compromises so her child doesn't go without as much as possible.

So we have a woman, who has been left with all the responsibility and costs of the children, facilitating her ex partner to go on and have more children with his new partner. How very fair and just.

Society is so messed up.

@Graphista NRPs who behave like that should face consequences, it’s appalling how they’re just allowed to swan off and leave their children to go without while they give everything to a “New family”.

I’m not against it per se but I think 2 years is too short. I’ve had relationships where I lived with boyfriends for a couple of years. It seems laughable I could be entitled to their pension because of it.

But I would also agree it is easily resolved with a quick trip to the registrar and a couple of hundred quid. I really don’t see the problem with doing that. You don’t even need to let anyone know you’ve done it.

They should face consequences but they very rarely do, how many of us know of an NRP who has actually had the bailiffs sent in? Property sold to cover it? Even been to court? I've never even seen a case in the news!!

I find it horrifying that in this day and age we are advising women "not to settle down" with men who wont get married. What does this even mean?

It means that if a man won't commit to a legal contract that would protect you if he died or the relationship broke down, it is advisable not to have children with him until he does. This isn't "smug" or any of the other bullshit spouted on here by assorted idiots. It's the same advice you'd get from anywhere reputable, from anyone who gives a fuck about your wellbeing.

I personally would not care at all if marriage was replicated under a different name. Why would I? Marriage already exists, so it's nothing to me if it exists twice. It just seems an enormous waste of Parliamentary time to replicate it just so that you can give it a different name and pretend it came from somewhere else.

I'd also have no issues with civil partnership for straight people. I'm just surprised they want it, since it's not as beneficial as marriage - that's precisely why gay rights activists weren't happy with it. Nor do I care about any other sort of alternative cohabitation agreement. It makes no difference to me, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

But with the situation as it is, unmarried women are simply not protected if they have children with, or become financially dependent on, their partners. They can make wills, but it's still possible for a will to be changed without their knowledge, or voided by marrying someone else.

It is not "smug" to point that out, and to advise them to avoid the situation.

I think we need more married people being so "smug", actually, because there appear to be hordes of people who think they have marital rights when they HAVEN'T. Somewhere, a very important message is not getting through.

And I DO have an issue with contracts being brought upon people by stealth. If you passionately do not want to be married, as many women on here are, why on earth would you want a situation where it can be creeped upon you without you actively entering into it?

It's like going into Carphone Warehouse every day for two years, trying out the phones, and then discovering they're taking money out of your account for it...despite you never having signed a contract with them.

Regarding children, the law does state that parents must provide for their children, whether or not they're married. There's no need for a legal contract for that. I do agree the system sucks and needs improvement though.