Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Aibu to think if you want the legal protection of marriage then get married

947 replies

Sofabitch · 14/04/2018 12:19

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about how widows allowance isn't paid to couples that weren't married, even if children are involved.

Aibu to think marriage is essentially the legal joining of people and if you want to be recognised legally and finacially then you should get married.

I guess the supreme court will ultimately decide if I am being unreasonable. But i can't help but think people dont realise the legal security marriage offers and they should.

OP posts:
GreenTulips · 15/04/2018 18:53

My friend wants a divorce, he left years ago and refuses to sign/acknowledge the receipt of the papers. He has a new family.

She is stuck financially as he won't pay maintenance and won't sell the house she's struggling to upkeep.

She has had no protection from marriage

He has money and should he divorce (his mother is strongly against divorce even in these circumstances she expects friend to forgive and forget and take him back) That aside, should they divorce due to where he lives his current partner and children would also be entitled to half his money so he effectively upon divorce would have 25% of his wealth left

It's a mess

CynthiaRothrock · 15/04/2018 18:56

Thread has probably moved on but im on the fence with this after seeing first hand the devastating financial effects after death. I lost someone close recently they have been with their partner for years with 3 teenage children. Their wedding was planned for next year and one of them passed away very suddenly, the other is left struggling to cope and is entitled to nothing. They are having to move as they can no longer afford where they live etc. I get the op's point yet i feel there should be some lea way where children are involved.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 15/04/2018 18:57

It's still a really bad idea, sorry. It wouldn't do anything to assist a couple facing an issue like an unplanned pregnancy. We'd still have the issues we have now of ignorance, inertia and a desire not to have to register a relationship in any way with the state, whatever marriage alternatives and models the state is offering. There'd be no obligation on couples facing mandatory renewal to actually give it any thought rather than unthinkingly sign on the dotted line, and it also potentially fucks SAHPs over in the event of relationship end even more than now.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 15/04/2018 18:58

'It' being a change to renewable marriage there, I should have said.

lozster · 15/04/2018 19:05

YABVU re: allowances when a partner is deceased. That is a massive inconsistency. The state would ignore my relationship when it comes to giving this allowance on the basis that it is too difficult to define where a genuine relationship exists. However, the state felt pretty confident that it could identify my relationship when my partner was made redundant. Treated equally to a married person then and expected to provide for my ‘dependent’ Same with child benefit. No issue with my Partner being treated as such, it’s the lack of consistency that is irksome.

It is indeed concerning how many people think ‘common law marriage’ is a legal entity however, I am often bemused at some of the assumptions that married people make about how ‘protected’ they are eg advice to only be a SAHM if married.

BasiliskStare · 15/04/2018 19:07

ah - you see I think there is a point in getting married - but as I have posted before - doesn't make you a chattel - but Anglo Saxon scholar here. If you don't want to , don't do it , but understand what you are doing. There are those who would like to get married and it doesn't happen, there are those who do not wish to , and fair play. But it is currently the legal bond between heterosexual couples. And that's about it and all about it. ( well except I had another reason for it , but legally marriage is the only option to have a legal relationship - not all legal things , but the most legal thing IYSWIM between a man and a woman ) I think civil partnership should be an option in a heterosexual relationship.

PoorYorick · 15/04/2018 19:10

My friend wants a divorce, he left years ago and refuses to sign/acknowledge the receipt of the papers.

Can she not divorce him on the grounds of desertion?

DioneTheDiabolist · 15/04/2018 19:15

I think after 5 years separation she can get a divorce without him.

Bluelady · 15/04/2018 19:16

I was thinking the same thing, PoorYorick. Surely after five years a divorce can go through without the consent of both parties.

welshmist · 15/04/2018 19:18

A friend of mine was so anti marriage, her Mother had a few husbands. She and her partner worked hard made a lot of money had a family. When they decided to get some expert financial advise re: trusts, she was so shocked to find that her and her childrens rights were so little she caved and they got married.

CharlotteLV · 15/04/2018 19:18

Anyone who thinks this might not affect them - this is worth a read: www.lawdonut.co.uk/personal/divorce-and-family-law/cohabitation-and-common-law-marriage

jewel1968 · 15/04/2018 19:47

So is marriage a disadvantage for the individual with the higher income/assets if the relationship was to flounder?

Bluesrunthegame · 15/04/2018 19:56

I didn't get married, I couldn't see the point, still can't. When it ended, I got more than half the money from the sale of our house, it was owned by both of us, and some of the cash he'd stashed. I wouldn't have got more if we'd been married. He lied about how much support he would give our children and about his job and a few other things, but he would have lied if we'd been married.

At the time, a friend was trying to get divorced and because her ex-husband was an awkward person, he messed her around and she had to wait five years until the divorce was over. It seemed totally unfair that they both knew the marriage was over, but it couldn't be over until a judge agreed it was.

Maybe if divorce was easier, I'd have been interested in marriage, but as I owned my own home when I met my ex-partner, and our various homes were always in both our names, there didn't seem to be any point.

I had around 10 years as a SAHM and never felt 'vulnerable', as I have seen some women in similar situations described.

So if you don't want to get married, make sure your name is on the deeds to your home, it seems to be just as good.

Original poster
Sofabitch · 15/04/2018 20:00

CynthiaRothrock
Thats the point, shit things happen, marriage is one thing that protects a little in those circumstances. shitty for your friend, however could have been avoided by legalising the relationship.

OP posts:
GreenTulips · 15/04/2018 20:00

So is marriage a disadvantage for the individual with the higher income

Not necessarily. Would they have had the success abs career IF they had to go part time and share the childcare? Pay nursery fees rather than have a wife/husband at home to care for the children and working parent?

Picoloangel · 15/04/2018 20:04

The real disadvantage of not being married is if only 1 of you owns the property and/or there is no will. If you both own the property and have a will the difference is pretty negligible

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 15/04/2018 20:10

It depends what that individual wants and prioritises jewel.

For example, they may earn more than their partner but also jointly own a home that is over the IHT threshold, and thus be worried about the possibility of having to sell that home to pay the tax bill if their partner dies first. They would need to decide whether they're more worried about that or about losing money in the event of divorce.

So if you don't want to get married, make sure your name is on the deeds to your home, it seems to be just as good.

Depends on context. It's not 'just as good' when it comes to paying IHT, for example.

Graphista · 15/04/2018 20:19

Greentulips we're discussing U.K. Law here, under uk law she can divorce him regardless of his wishes after 5 years of separation. And as such can enforce separation of finances and sale of the property (I believe I'm sure I'll be corrected if not)

Bluesrun (again someone will correct me if I'm wrong) I suspect you were lucky rather than right. I believe If married there's more ability to find hidden monies and to enforce their division.

Original poster
Sofabitch · 15/04/2018 20:20

The real disadvantage of not being married is if only 1 of you owns the property and/or there is no will. If you both own the property and have a will the difference is pretty negligible

unless you are poor and can't afford to buy like about 50% of the population, then you loose out on around 10K+ of widows allowance and pension support.

OP posts:
Graphista · 15/04/2018 20:21

Also as has been said several times it's not just relationship breakdown that's the issue its serious incapacitating illness and death can make life and finances really messy if you're not married

ExFury · 15/04/2018 20:21

I think this is partly where the incomes of people I know irl and the people I see post on here vary.

I know very few people irl for whom the amounts in bereavement benefits wouldn't make a huge difference in a tough time. Especially the lump sum when there are funeral costs to think of.

And even though the monthly payments have changed to just 18 months - £350 a month for 18 months is a lot of money for so many people.

I do think people just don't think that that worst scenario will happen to them.

ExFury · 15/04/2018 20:22

*£350 is for people with kids

Graphista · 15/04/2018 20:32

Exfury I agree, I'm on benefits myself and where I live even the "rich" folk wouldn't qualify under iht rules BUT worrying about having a roof over their heads if their name isn't on the rent agreement/mortgage, death benefits etc would seriously affect them and be a major worry.

FaveNumberIs2 · 15/04/2018 20:38

I agree. If you want the legality of being married, get married.

Sunshinegirl82 · 15/04/2018 20:48

It's interesting because we're 22 pages in and people are still making comments along the lines of "if the house is in both names and you've got a will it's just as good". I think that pretty much demonstrates the nub of the issue. It's not as good, it's not even in the same vicinity as "as good".

That doesn't mean that marriage is the right choice for all or that everyone "should" do it but take the time to know what it is you're not doing and what that actually means for you rather than what you assume it means. These incorrect assumptions and assertions are dangerous and it's how people get themselves in real difficulty.