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 “?

so if there wasn't any rights how come my mum got help when she took them to court?

Cohabitation and common law marriage

"Cohabiting couples often assume that moving in together as a couple creates similar rights and responsibilities as marriage - so-called common law marriage - or none at all. Both beliefs are wrong.

If you are moving in together, you should know how cohabiting affects your legal position and how you can protect yourselves should your relationship end or one of you dies

Common law marriage - the reality
Many couples believe that moving in together creates a common law marriage, giving you the same rights as if you were married. It does not - the concept of common law marriage has no legal validity in the UK (though cohabiting couples in Scotland do have some basic rights if their partnership ends).

In reality, moving in together does not give you automatic rights to each other's property, no matter how long you live together. And if your partner dies, cohabiting does not entitle you to inherit - with potentially disastrous consequences for a surviving 'common law' spouse.

Conversely, however, if a cohabiting couple separates and there are children involved, both cohabiting partners may have rights and responsibilities - even if only one of them is the biological parent."

@moyesp do you know something that leading UK law firms and the UK government don't, regarding what is and isn't on the statute book?

Again, moyesp, child support is just one of many factors.

If you are an unmarried SAHP and your partner fucks off, you might succeed in getting them to pay child support but you will not be entitled to any spousal maintenance, a share of any property, assets or bank accounts that aren't in joint names, or a share of their pension.

If you have little to no earning capacity because you've been out of the workforce for a number of years, you can't easily get back into employment because of your childcare responsibilities, and you have no real pension provision for retirement, you are at risk of ending up very poor indeed.

Do you mean help when she took them to court as in legal aid or child maintenance? Neither is limited to married couples. Well, legal aid wouldn't cover that now but when it did, unmarried couples used it too. I filled out the forms for enough of them!

But child maintenance and legal aid aren't what this thread is about.

moyesp we're not talking about CSA/CMS. We're talking about legal and financial support for partners!!!!

@moyesp

British Parliament. You literally cannot get a more authoritative source than this

UK House of Commons Briefing Paper on "Common law marriage" and cohabitation (pdf)

"Unless specified otherwise, this paper deals generally with the law in England and Wales. There is also a short summary of the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Although cohabitants do have some legal protection in several areas, cohabitation gives no general legal status to a couple, unlike marriage and civil partnership from which many legal rights and responsibilities flow. Many people are unaware that there is no specific legal status for what is often referred to as a “common law marriage”. This is the case no matter how long the couple lived together and even if they had children together."

You states "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."

Do you really still believe that there is legal recognition in the UK statute book for common law marriage? Where in the eyes of statute do we have this clause to show that 'common law spouses in a thing'

No wonder the stats about the misinformation are so appalling, when you can see here on this thread the wilful ignorance about this area

Choosing not to get married is one thing

Believing you have rights under the law that you don't, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is terrifying

It's all very well to say that both partners should stay in FT work and then there's no issue. But life throws a lot of things at you. One of you may become ill or disabled. You may have a child with additional needs. One of you may lose their job and struggle to get another good one. One of you may get a brilliant work opportunity that means moving to a place where the other has less work opportunities (whether you decide to move or not, one person's work potential is reduced). One of you may work in a sector that declines in the future. One of you may be much more successful at work than the other. One of you may work in a sector that's much more highly paid than the other. One of you may cheat on the other. One of you may put much more of your money into your family than the other. And so on.

There are all sorts of reasons why earning power becomes vastly unequal over a lifetime. When DH and I married, I earned three times what he earns. Now I earn diddly squat (major disability). Perhaps in the future things will change again (I have made much better pension provision than he has). Doesn't matter, we are jointly committed to sharing. When one of us dies, the other is protected. Should one of us leave, the other is protected.

Well said, StrangeAndUnusual.

I currently earn more than my husband. At some point I will (hopefully) be on maternity leave and earning nothing for a while. Maybe I will stop work for a while or go part-time to look after children. Maybe he will. Maybe one of us will become sick or disabled and unable to work. Maybe one of us will get an opportunity to work in another country and the other will give up their job to follow.

For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health and all that. Not just when the sun is shining and it suits you to stay.

I am quite happy for there to be consequences if we divorce, even if I'm the one who ends up losing out financially.

Who's hedging their bets her or him ? Probably him! When a couple are together many years and not married, it's almost ALWAYS the man's choice to not get married. Very rare it's the woman's.

People are so opinionated about not getting married. After reading this, I can't help but wonder why. Living together was supposed to make the break up easier should it come. Yeah, right.

People who live together but refuse to marry. Hmmm....still makes me wonder why. All their reasoning could just be bluff and bluster.

OK some people don't marry because they can't because their partner is still married and divorcing the previous spouse is just to hard/will rock the boat.

I think it's hilarious that people live together, so smug about not getting married. Until the wheels fall off. Then there's the hue and cry about who owns what / who gets what and all the etc. Just because they were to good to get (old fashioned, outdated, sexist, patriarchal) married. Whoever said society is based around marriage is absolutely correct. Even if it's not right for the people co-habiting. Lets face it the people who live together long term without getting married are either shy of commitment or there are trust issues.

I've thought for the longest time - just get married. Registry office, £120 job done. Most people's problem is the reception, being bridezilla (or not) warring factions in the family and everything else that makes it to hard.

I had a friend who willing got married in church etc but still described the wedding ceremony as about as romantic as buying a tax disc at the Post Office. (Which dates that remark but hey.)

I knew someone who refused to divorce her husband when he left her, just waited the years out and outlived him. Collecting everything of their joint marital assets when he died as she was his legally married spouse. (Yes, that was lucky then but it happened)

if there wasn't any rights how come my mum got help when she took them to court?

Because, as several posters have explained, it was a child support issue. Parents are legally responsible for their kids whether they're married or not. The watchdog for that one needs more teeth, but the law already exists.

It wasn't your mother who was entitled to the support, it was you.

If you do believe in the myth of common law marriage and are happy for it to apply to you, why on earth would you object to statutory marriage and going to sign the papers?

For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health and all that. Not just when the sun is shining and it suits you to stay.

This^ in neon letters ten feet high.

What commitment is there in living together. I mean really ? It's just play acting isn't it ?

I don't understand women who get so excited about getting a proposal, an engagement ring and to plan their own wedding after living together for years and have had children.

I thought they were anti-marriage. Marriage is just a piece of paper etc etc etc.

I thought it was telling who ever said that the 'don't need to get married' brigade turn into the biggest bridezillas going once they get their marriage proposal.

I'm now understanding that what a lot of living together arrangements are really is......'he hasn't proposed has he ?' and now probably won't because / if you live together and have kids. What's his motivation to propose now ? He's got it all. Nothing will change, in his view, so why bother with the aggravation of the wedding ?

If you were good enough to marry, you would be married. End of story. IMO.

I think that's rather unfair.

Didn't want to get married when I fell pregnant accidentally in a relatively new relationship. Did want baby. Decided baby should have her father's name to recognise and value their relationship as much for her as for him. Glad I did, twenty years on, as their relationship is very strong (although obviously for many reasons, not just because of a name). Three children on, and now married, glad I still have MY name though...

RCN1 Out of interest, are you married to him or to someone different?

What's his motivation to propose now ? He's got it all. Nothing will change, in his view, so why bother with the aggravation of the wedding ?

If you were good enough to marry, you would be married. End of story. IMO

You’re doing cohabiting couples and all men a massive disservice here. That’s^^ a hop, skip and a jump away from “why buy the cow when you’re getting the milk for free”, which I find pretty odious.

"You’re doing cohabiting couples and all men a massive disservice here."

And also implying that the women (OK the lower earning partner, but most often the woman) is stupid and uninformed whereas the man higher earning partner knows what the score is and is deliberately pulling a fast one.

I am sure there are plenty of cohabiting couples who both mistakenly believe that "common law spouses" have legal rights and would both want to get married pretty sharpish to protect themselves and each other if they knew the reality.

If you were good enough to marry, you would be married.

I really, really hope that that was ironic rhetoric supposedly from the man's perspective.

*I'm now understanding that what a lot of living together arrangements are really is......'he hasn't proposed has he ?' and now probably won't because / if you live together and have kids. What's his motivation to propose now ? He's got it all. Nothing will change, in his view, so why bother with the aggravation of the wedding ?

If you were good enough to marry, you would be married. End of story. IMO*

What about if he has proposed but the woman has said no?

Not every woman is pining to get married.

Yes nothing will change why bother with the aggravation of a wedding. I dint need to get married it works equally well for the woman as the man if you care to see women as equals.

I dint need to get married it works equally well for the woman as the man if you care to see women as equals.

If you look right up to the sky, with the Hubble telescope, and a lot of neon lights, you might just about be able to see the point as it whistles over your head.

@oliversmumsarmy

I dint need to get married it works equally well for the woman as the man if you care to see women as equals.

I ask again

Do you have a cohabitation agreement in place?

bananafish81

It's funny. No one on this thread who is an unmarried cohabiting partner has answered your question yet, despite you asking multiple times.

Nor my question about whether their partner has paid into a pension on their behalf if they've been a SAHP or worked part-time.

@LoveInTokyo precisely. I'm banging the drum quite deliberately because it is very obvious that the question is being studiously avoided

Funny that

No bananafish I don't

I know what I own. I have no illusions that I wont get spousal maintenance or a part of dps pension etc if we split. But most if not all the divorcees I know don't get anything either.

Unmarried cohabiting partner here.

No, I don’t have a cohabitation agreement in place. And I won’t be getting one either. I don’t need one. I really am bang up to date on all the points made on this thread, but if you are going to ask specific questions, I’m going to answer about my specific scenario.