Women who have children before marriage

[FissionChips]

..but get upset when their partner does not want to/ has not asked to marry them , yet still insist they are too traditional to even contemplate asking their dp to marry them or just discussing it like adults.

I dont get it. Most of the complaining women give the child their partners surname as well which isn’t even traditional if the parents are not married. They live together for years. They are in no way following tradition.
AIBU to not understand why they lie about being “traditional “?

THEN she found out that Common Law Marriage has practically no legal standing at all.

Given that it doesn't exist, I'd be amazed if it had any whatsoever.

It was called co-habitation and common law wives/husbands.

There has not been a common law spouse in the UK since the Marriages Act of 1753.

Maybe the poster was talking about the 1750s. Or the 750s. The actual Dark Ages. Who can say?

BBC - Cohabiting couples warned of 'common law marriage' myths

"Millions of unmarried couples who live together could be unaware of their rights if the relationship breaks down, a family law group has warned.

Resolution carried out a survey which found two-thirds of cohabiting couples wrongly believe "common-law marriage" laws exist when dividing up finances.

The number of unmarried couples living together has more than doubled from 1.5 million in 1996 to 3.3 million in 2017.

[He said], under current law, it was possible to live with someone for decades - and have children together - but not take responsibility for the former partner if the relationship breaks down

The ComRes poll of 2,000 UK adults, by Resolution, found 84% of people thought the government should take steps to make sure unmarried cohabiting couples knew they did not have the same legal protection as married couples.

Of these respondents, 281 people were in a cohabiting relationship - two-thirds of which thought they were common-law married.

A further four in five cohabitants believed that the legal rights surrounding cohabiting people who separate were "unclear".

Yikes! Two thirds? That’s a bit worrying.

That is extremely worrying! If everyone is aware of the difference in rights between married and non married and people choose not to get married then that's fine, noone should be forced to get married. However people not knowing is a bad thing.

From the same article

"Mother-of-five Yvonne, who was with her ex-partner 17 years, said she was "shocked to find out" her legal rights when they ended the relationship.

"I was entitled to nothing," she said.

"I was no longer just dealing with a break-up - but with the fallout of not being legally entitled to share in any of what I thought were our joint assets."

Yvonne, who gave up paid work to look after their children, said she now has to move house - but has no independent funds or a pension.

"I'm devastated to have been left in this situation, and think it's wrong that the law is unable to provide people like me with any support whatsoever," she said.

Resolution, which represents 6,500 family practitioners, said it had seen an increase in the number of cases involving cohabiting couples.

Some 98% of Resolution members report having worked with a couple who they say they could not help due to the lack of legal protection.

Yeah but you're all smug marrieds and lots of unmarried couples have protection so whevs.

Ok maybe niave here, but in the Uk common law spouses is a 'thing,' and in the eyes of statute we do now provide a clause for that statement its called co-habitation. And if a 'partner - lives with another for over 6 months plus they are LEGALLY ENTITLED upon splitting with their respective "significant Other," a portion of properties and statutory entitlements such as Child Support Maintenance "CSA," whether they have married or not.

Know this for a fact siblings had children - not married left partners ALL PAYING CSA. No rights????? as previously said product of such a relationship.

And old enough to see the new developments of legalising the abortion and provision of "The pill," obviously you children have not been educated to that standard yet? By Dark Ages I mean. Why blame the females in all of this why are the males not responsible for the production of children???????!!!!!!!!!

As a relative once said to me it takes TWO TO TANGO!!!

“Ok maybe niave here, but in the Uk common law spouses is a 'thing,' and in the eyes of statute we do now provide a clause for that statement its called co-habitation.”

Errr, what?

No, love. This is just wrong.

Just read bananafish81 statement. Sorry Love but get in touch with DWP and Dept of Health on that one. CSA will make the males have a paternity test and thay WILL BY LAW make them contribute to a childs upbringing. Particularly if there was proof of their co-habiting prior to the relationship breakdown.

@moyesp did you read the article? There. Is. No. Statute. In. UK. Law. For. Common. Law. Status

You're talking about child maintenance.

The common law myth is about a range of legal protections that cohabiting couples are not entitled to.

Not a week goes by without a thread on here about how the OP and 'DP' are 'splitting up', aren't married, had kids, the mortgage was in the partner's name, the OP jacked in work to be a SAHP or works PT and the bills she pays are not the mortgage and she's asking where she stands.

Or some variation on that theme.

EVERY.SINGLE.WEEK.

Then there are the ones who are on maternity leave and have found themselves doing everything because 'DP' works, the poor sod, and how she is not going back to work as 'can't afford childcare'.

Or even worse, I'm jacking in work to help 'DP's business, I'll be doing all the shitty admin to support him get better clients and all the childcare and housework, he'll pay me and I'll pay for all of the shit stuff like child's clothes and activities whilst he pays for the important stuff like mortgage and how do I organise myself?

Then they are agog to realise the benefits system has changed radically in the past decade and it's no longer a matter of rocking up at the council and getting a house no less and a raft of benefits money because 'DP' and they split. It's a hostel or room in a B&B and Universal Credit.

It's staggering how much financial ignorance there is out there.

'As a result many fathers insists that the children are given their surnames despite not being married to the mothers.'

They can insist all they want, the mother is not compelled to give it to the children and both are still responsible for the child's financial upkeep.

@moyesp

Please can you point out where common law marriage rights are enshrined on the statute book?

‘Common law marriage’ myth leaves cohabiting couples facing financial hardship

Paula Myers, national head of will, trust and estate disputes at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth, says: “It’s very concerning that there is such little understanding around cohabitation, which in the long run can spell disaster for couples when it comes to will disputes.

She adds: “Without any sort of agreement in place or an updated will, couples could spend their entire adult lives together and literally be left out in the cold once their partner dies because they have a limited claim to the estate.

“Cohabitees can also struggle to persuade trustees in claims for life assurance payouts and pension entitlements, which can very often be paid out automatically to spouses. Some parties can struggle to access bank accounts or even have a say on how a funeral is arranged.”

Taken from the UK Gov website a few minutes ago.
www.gov.uk/looking-after-children-divorce
Making child arrangements
You can choose how to make arrangements for looking after your children if you separate from your partner.
What you can do is different in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
You and your ex-partner can usually avoid going to court hearings if you agree on:
• where the children will live
• when they’ll spend time with each parent
You can use a solicitor if you want to make your agreement legally binding.
You can agree on child maintenance at the same time or separat

pousal Support and Child Support in Common Law Relationships

Though people living in a common law marriage are not considered married in Canada, many of their rights are the same when the relationship ends.
Spousal Support
When it comes to spousal support, both married and common law couples are generally treated the same way. The bigger difference during separation when comparing a marriage and a common law union is in how the division of property is handled. This is where the legal advice of a divorce lawyer is best sought out.
Child Support
Child-related issues are approached the same way, whether it’s a common law relationship or a marriage. The first question the judges always ask is: ‘What is in the best interests of the children?’ They first determine the primary residence of the children and then issue child support according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines. A grid outlines the expectations of the payer based on their income, regardless of the other person’s income. Whether married or unmarried, the biological parent is obligated to pay child support.
Children from prior unions
If someone comes into a relationship with a child from another relationships and their common law spouse takes on a parenting role, that person could be required to pay child support. This is called standing “in locus parentis”. When considering whether someone stands “in locus parentis” the court considers how long they’ve been living with the child, their involvement with discipline, attendance at important meetings like parent-teacher interviews, whether the person was called “dad” or “mom” and whether they helped to financially support the children.
Taken from : www.galbraithfamilylaw.com/spousal-support-and-child-support-in-common-law-relationships/

They’re talking about divorce I think @moyes.

And the second link is Canadian I think.

Yes, the inability of a married father to overtime the mother on choice of name for the child is for some people a relevant factor in their decision about marriage.

Over rule not overtime. Auto correct is killing us on this thread today!

@moyesp

Yes. That is child maintenance. That is not common law marriage

It refers only to child support. It does not make any financial provision for the partner. It does not make any provision for legal and financial rights, responsibilities and obligations outside of child maintenance. It's about the COUPLE.

Why a cohabitation agreement is essential for non-married couples: Unmarried couples have no legal rights if they separate – so without an agreement, one of them could be left with nothing

A cohabitation agreement sets out who owns what and in what proportion and lets you document how you will split your property, its contents, personal belongings, savings and other assets should the relationship break down. It can also cover how you will support your children, over and above any legal requirements to maintain them, as well as how you would deal with bank accounts, debts, and joint purchases such as a car.

The agreement can also be used to set out how you and your partner will manage your day-to-day finances while you live together, such as how much each contributes to rent or mortgage and bills, and whether you will take out life insurance on each other.

THERE IS NO COMMON LAW PROVISION FOR COUPLES

moyesp we're discussing UK provision here. Links to the Canadian system aren't relevant.

That is to say, the gov.uk link is about Child support only, in the UK

The spousal support link refers to the Canadian statute book. That is irrelevant to UK law.

We don't have Federal law. We are the UK. That information is about common law provision in Canada. Not here. Where is it on the UK statute book?

Why do you think so many UK legal firms are specifically telling UK couples who are unmarried to get cohabitation agreements in place

THERE. IS. NO. UK. PROVISION. FOR. COMMON. LAW. SPOUSES.

moyesp

Your gov.uk link relates solely to child maintenance. It does not give the unmarried partner the right to claim anything in their own right, to compensate for any non-financial contributions they might have made to the Relationship, such as being a stay at home parent.

Your second link relates to the law in Canada, and as such is only relevant to couples who live in Canada.

Slow handclap for you.

Co Operative Law on Planning for the Future with a Cohabitation Agreement

"Over the years, it has become more common for couples to live together without ever getting married. Many people believe that once you have lived with a partner for a certain length of time, you have the same rights and legal protection as married couples. This is not the case. In English Law (the law in England & Wales) there is no such thing as a common law husband or wife, and the law in relation to property and other assets is very different to that for married couples."

I am at a loss to see how this could be any clearer.

auto correction notwithstanding the above was cut and paste from webpage and link was government and law society UK.

But on a personal reflection as a child of a mother of five by five different men never married any but did live with them. She received CSA for each child and was awarded assistance when they left family home.

As said other members of family left partners and were awarded by uk courts and csa child maintenance u ntil said children went to college.