Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 ··· 25 26

Original poster

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:

LorelaiVictoriaGilmore · 27/11/2017 14:48

Despite being a lawyer, my contract law is a bit dodgy, so please correct me if I'm wrong. BUT... usually you have to get married (i.e. choose to enter into the contract of marriage) to get the legal protections which marriage offers. In other areas of law you can have contractual terms implied by a course of conduct. Nothing of the kind applies to a marriage contract and you do not, therefore, have the concept of common law marriage under English law.

In deciding whether to introduce a concept of common law marriage under English law, you are deciding whether to (arguably) limit people's freedom to choose whether they enter into certain contractual terms by implying contractual terms which have arisen as a result of custom, a consistent course of dealing, the intention of the parties etc.

Generally I would be ringing the bell for total freedom of contract, BUT I find it really hard that in a business relationship contractual terms may be implied by intention, course of conduct etc. but not in a personal relationship (where ultimately implied terms are most likely to protect the vulnerable). It's a tricky one to call, but I think I am in favour of some concept of common law marriage because it is most likely to protect the vulnerable. But what makes it even trickier is that I think you would then also have to be able to 'contract out' of it...

BertrandRussell · 27/11/2017 14:50

""I know someone who was a SAHM and wasn't married. She wasn't on the deeds either.
Her partner literally changed the locks one day. Her and the children were out on the street."

That's not becUse she wasn't married. That was because she did not put in place adequate protection for herself and her child.

Blueberry1 · 27/11/2017 14:51

I can see the protection argument (especially where a relationship is very long term), but some people do actively choose NOT to be married. I would support extending civil partnerships to straight couples, which may be an option some feel like taking instead of marriage.

As a cohabitee, my partner and I are aware that we lack the legal protections of marriage. We made special arrangements when we bought our home together as advised by our solicitor. As we're now expecting a child together and DP already has a (university aged) child and owns a property bought before he met me, we've already discussed the wills we need to make to ensure that if the worst happens no-one (each other, our kids, siblings, parents etc) will be clearing up a mess or left without what they need.

However, we're nerds who look up this kind of thing, record our spending on spreadsheets and know how to do our tax returns etc, so I suspect we're better informed than the average cohabiting couple.

BertrandRussell · 27/11/2017 14:52

Shall we address the elephant in the room? Many married people think of themselves as a cut above unmarried people, and they like the fact that they can justify this by talking about legal considerations.

stopfuckingshoutingatme · 27/11/2017 14:52

Left

I do not believe people harm their children by not getting married . And I don't infer anything as I am not married either !

Where the issue can be tricky is for the children of non married parents who are mainly cared for by a non working parent . Should the monied parent decide to fuck off creating a legal framework for financial support and maintenance is far far harder

But for cases of abuse etc and custody it's a NON issue as a different law and parental responsibility is what applies

So don't get offended . I know my rights having conducted a very expensive family lawyer last week

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 14:56

Well I don't know a huge amount about the differences between marriage and civil partnerships, except that same sex couples often wanted the option of marriage because it had better protections.

Just had a quick Google....marriage still looks better to me. You can annul a marriage if one person had an infectious STD when you married, or divorce based on adultery. But I've only had a quick look.

I can't see any reason why heterosexual couples shouldn't be able to have a civil partnership if they prefer.

Many married people think of themselves as a cut above unmarried people, and they like the fact that they can justify this by talking about legal considerations.

I usually have an enormous amount of respect for what you say, Bertrand, but this is total bollocks.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 14:58

Although on second thoughts, I think I might be confusing you with another poster. Either way, that statement is total bollocks.

Goldfishshoals · 27/11/2017 14:58

I get really annoyed at some of the moves being made to make living together virtually identical to marriage.

This. Times a million. If I am living with someone and not married it's because I actually don't want the kind of legal entanglement that marriage involves. I do not want the state to patronisingly force a quasi-marriage type commitment on me.

Sprogletsmuvva · 27/11/2017 14:59

I suspect wishful thinking and/or saying what they think the situation should be is behind the 2/3 figure. Oh, and things like local newspapers would often use the phrase...probably as a short/none-cringey version of life partner, live-in lover etc.

I think one of the things that irks me about this is it’ all about “getting my rights “. Being married also carries responsibilities/liabilities/obligations, but nary a word mentioned about that...

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 14:59

I don't think I was talking about your post stopfuckingshouting. I understand the issues and the legal side pretty well (I'm a lawyer as is DP). I just don't think "everyone should just get married" is the answer.

PurpleTraitor · 27/11/2017 15:00

We have wills, of course, which we got when we bought a house together, as many people do (and then go on to marry)

Our wills are nullified if either of us marries. So we would have to get them drawn up again, in the event of marriage. That’s another cost of entering into a marriage. It’s not enough just to say, oh we are married now, everything will just go to the other. You do actually need to think about how things will be divided up, guardianship for your children, and contingency planning for the event of you both dying in the same incident. Even if you are married.

Going and getting married isn’t a catch all solution.

I’m not going to go and get married. However much anyone says, you don’t have to do dresses, rings, cakes, or call yourself husband and wife, change your name, etc etc, you do have to vow to take the other as a husband/wife. You do have to fight the assumption about what that means. You do have to enter the state of matrimony, knowing what it was intended for, knowing what it has meant to people in the past, knowing that you do not in fact want that for yourself. You do have to explain to people that yes you are married, but no he’s not your husband. And to your family, that yes you had a wedding, but no you didn’t invite them. And that yes you are married, but no your name is not Mrs Traitor. And that yes, your children have your name, and that yes, he is their father, and that, yes, you are married, but no, that is not illegal. You do have to face the problem of dissolving the marriage, one of you will lose out to the other financially, who is to know who that will be. There will be costs to getting married, some financial, some personal, some short term and some long term.

I care about my children. I support them financially. I ensure their future is protected. It would be a VERY bad idea for me to think of marriage. They would be significantly worse off.

DeepPileTinsel · 27/11/2017 15:01

Many married people think of themselves as a cut above unmarried people, and they like the fact that they can justify this by talking about legal considerations.

What on earth is that based on?

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 15:01

A contract needs to be something you enter into willingly and deliberately. If you don't want to marry, fine, but you can't then introduce a load of creeping rules on people that mean they end up in this contract without actively accepting it.

I do agree that it seems crazy that someone could be a cohabiting partner for 20 years and have no legal rights while someone else could be married for six months and take their share, but that's how contracts work. If you never actively entered into it, for whatever reason, that's the risk.

And it seems plenty of people on here do have very strong feelings about not actively entering into it, so why should we be able to creep it up on them?

Sprogletsmuvva · 27/11/2017 15:03

Cohabitee here, so definitely not some kind of ‘smug married ‘.

1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 15:04

I think we need to look at the protection of assets for children as seperate to marriage. I would say keep the option of marriage (or a legal eqiverlant) and strengthen the obligations legally of both parents in regards to kids as a seperate issuse to couples legal obligations.

GrockleBocs · 27/11/2017 15:05

That's not becUse she wasn't married. That was because she did not put in place adequate protection for herself and her child.
And if someone doesn't know they're vulnerable then why would they? Marriage would have given her that protection.
Changing the law to cope with a myriad of different situations will be far more expensive than just educating people of the risks.
Any other solution needs to be opt in though for it to be workable.

WaxyBean · 27/11/2017 15:08

Agree. Education is more important than granting rights that people don't want. Perhaps midwives etc could hand out information on this to unmarried couples?

RhiannonOHara · 27/11/2017 15:09

Many married people think of themselves as a cut above unmarried people, and they like the fact that they can justify this by talking about legal considerations.

Sorry, what?

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 15:09

pooryorick I agree with a lot of that.

But my point is that non married couples should be able to choose to cement their relationship in a contract with terms to suit them that could (but don't have to) mirror the same legal rights acquired on marriage.

Then the fact that this is possible needs to be widely publicised so that people can decide what works best for them and their relationshio.

OlennasWimple · 27/11/2017 15:09

Oh come on, Bertrand, you are being deliberately provocative there, aren't you?

flirtygirl · 27/11/2017 15:10

If you cohabit for 20 years and didnt do a will or make sure each party were on the deeds, then surely thats your own fault in the event of death or separation.

papayasareyum · 27/11/2017 15:12

all the hassle of signing paperwork and reading through documents in order to get the same or almost the same legal rights as a married couple does make me wonder why the fuck they don’t just get married. Getting married can be a quick straightforward non flowery legal ceremony with no mention of God or anything. It’s quick, painless and all about the legalities. Why people are so averse to that, whilst stating they want all the legal and financial protections and are happy to visit their solicitor for a longer period of time than a wedding ceremony to get their wills/finances in order, is beyond me. Just do the wedding, it’s quicker and easier and ticks every box!

expatinscotland · 27/11/2017 15:13

You see it on here nearly every day, a woman posting that she's going to jack in work or FT to become a SAHP with her 'DP'. One of the stupidest financial decisions a person can make unless she is independently wealthy.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 15:13

Which protections would you want, and which would you want to omit?

Fluffypinkpyjamas · 27/11/2017 15:14

I agree. If you want the benefits of getting married then get married

^ This.

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 ··· 25 26