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 “?

But our mum before she married did get compo from ex partners that were awarded by courts. If as you are stating she had no rights how come she was awarded assistance?

She didn’t get compo or spousal support or anything else other than child maintainance which is not the subject being talked about and is not in dispute. You have been repeatedly told that CM is nothing to do with marriage or co habitation.
You could get knocked up by a random in a alley and assuming you could locate him in the future you could still claim CM.

It’s not hard to understand

Apparently it is!

If as you are stating she had no rights how come she was awarded assistance?

As has been said several times before, the assistance was for you and your half siblings. It was child maintenance. All parents are legally responsible for their kids whether they are married or not.

It was not for your mother. If she hadn't been resident parent or whatever it was called back then, she wouldn't have got it.

There was a great thread a little while back where the OP was pregnant with DC1, unmarried, and was planning to give up her job to become a SAHM. Her OP asked what she should be thinking about finances wise to get in order before she did so

Yep, and yet they still keep coming. There was one last week featuring another unmarried couple with a baby. Mortgage was in his name. She was planning to jack in her job to work for him doing all the admin/shit/donkey work for his business and expected to keep all the house ticking along and do all the childcare. He was going to pay her, and from that she was expected to pay bills, but not contribute to the mortgage.

It was utterly shocking that anyone would even contemplate doing this, much less being with a partner who actually offers this to the mother of his children as acceptable.

But she still didn't appear to take on board that such a situation was putting her at extreme vulnerability.

In another marriage thread a few months back, there was a young woman, pregnant with her first child, whose partner refused to marry her. She was quite happy, though, because he had graciously allowed her to take his name anyway, and, as he had said, they didn't need a piece of paper to prove their love. She even finished with a little smile, so content was she that their love was so far beyond the understanding of married couples.

I would have told her I left the computer to go and scream into my punching bag, but you know she'd only have seen that as proof that she was right.

God I hope she's ok.

"She even finished with a little smile, so content was she that their love was so far beyond the understanding of married couples."

God, how depressing.

This whole "we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love" shit is just the worst, isn't it?

On the one hand, as we've repeatedly pointed out on this thread, marriage is a contract which has got fuck all to do with love and everything to do with legal obligations.

On the other hand, if you're the richer/higher earning partner who would stand to lose out in a divorce, there are few things you could do which would truly demonstrate your love and commitment than getting married.

If marriage is "just a piece of paper", why won't your "DP", quite literally put their money where their mouth is?

Every time some deluded person talks about how 'It's just a piece of paper' I point out that so is a will, a title deed, a degree certificate, a DNR.

appologies apparently my interllect is in question. No, it was not only child maintenance. our mater was award monies for herself. No she never married them. And she changed all our surnames by deed poll to the last boyfriend she lived with, because she did not want them asking questions about her past.

I'm not disputing that certain people have no rights. But as I said even on the tv in that programme the couple that was mentioned co-habituated for 3 years and the ex-girlfriend (no kids), was awarded so much that the poor bloke went out of business. He owned a pub by the way.

Mitigating circumstances do allow for some people. Another guy I know lives in the USA and his partner (not married), did the same to him. Only on this occasion sense and Judge prevailed as she was not awarded any part of the house he built but she moved into. He also got custody of not only his kids but hers as well.

I agree with expatinscotland its more a question of vulnerability here. Because surely if they set up home together and are equal on the finances then when separating they should be entitled to a share of the assets after a co-habitating for say years or more?

moyesp no offence, but everything you are saying goes directly against my understanding of the law in England and Wales, and the fact that you can't spell many of the words you are using doesn't make me any more inclined to take your word for it. (Especially after the Canada gaffe.)

If marriage is "just a piece of paper", why won't your "DP", quite literally put their money where their mouth is?

Or, to put it another way: if it means nothing, why won't you do it?

On the other hand, if you're the richer/higher earning partner who would stand to lose out in a divorce, there are few things you could do which would truly demonstrate your love and commitment than getting married.

I just thought this should be said again. Preferably with neon flashing lights. Mean with money, mean with love....

moyesp, we would need to know more about the case and details to say what went on there. If she wasn't married, her partners had absolutely no legal obligation to support her financially. Perhaps she had some ownership of a property or a cohabitation order or something.

@bananafish81 we're saying the same thing* yes sorry I realized that after !

Well there's TOLATA. That's mid 90s legislation so it's been possible I think since then for a cohabitant to get a share of equity in a property (I dont go back that far). But difficult, expensive and not generally worth doing except when there's quite a lot of cash to fight over. So I'm afraid I dont believe that someone has had repeated TOLATA judgements in their favour in the past 20 years with different partners, apparently without learning anything from the experience either. I call bullshit and/or troll.

And nobody said anything about what can happen in the US. It has fuck all to do with the UK situation. Also, once again,custody of and arrangements for children aren't what's being discussed here either.

' Because surely if they set up home together and are equal on the finances then when separating they should be entitled to a share of the assets after a co-habitating for say years or more?'

And again, NO, they are not at all necessarily. There has to be demonstration of sharing of assets, payment into the assets not just co-habitation. It just doesn't exist in the UK.

The US and Canada are a completely different kettle of fish especially because the US has devolved some powers to states, including some powers of legislation and different states can have different laws regarding co-habitating couples, divorce and division of assets upon divorce, even laws regarding divorce (in Texas, for example, a couple with children has to have gone through mediation before a judge can grant them a divorce).

There is NO legal protection enshrined in law for unmarried couples who co-habitate in the UK. If they want it they have to get married or pay for it via a solicitor - ringfencing investments, for example, tenants in common on a house, wills, pension beneficiary, all sorts.

You just don't seem to get it, though, there are NO automatic rights for people who live with someone.

And for the most part, it appears people are happy with this because some have a point, why should a live-in lover have automatic rights to another's assets? Where do you draw the line? A disgruntled flatmate could claim to have been in a co-habitating relationship, all sorts.

Drawing a line in the sand by making it a fact you have to be married to confer certain legal rights makes it very clear.

There is no compo just because you lived with someone for a certain amount of time or even had kids with them. No matter how many telly shows you watch (do you really believe all the sob stories people who have High Court Enforcers at their door on Can't Pay are all telling the truth?).

@chavtasticfirebanger Channing thats why i said double barrelled then all kids have their mum and dads name
Well I suppose to some degree but it would be a pretty complicated set of family names-
Mum = Smith
ExH = Jones
Orig DC = Smith-Jones
Do Mum and dad also get to be Smith - Jones or do they keep their original names?

Mum = Smith-Jones
New DH = Davis
Does she go with Smith-Jones-Davis?
New DC are they Smith -Davis ??

See how that (doesn't) work?

The existence of marriage keeps it all simple. It means the ex I lived with in my first year of uni doesn't have a claim to my assets now, nor I to his. It means there's no legal wrangling in the case of house shares or flatmates or old boyfriends and girlfriends from years and years ago. It's just very simple: do you wish to legalise this relationship and therefore have it treated in law as a joining of assets with the presumed intention of maintaining a household together? Is that what you want?

Yes? Great. Get married. Cheap as chips, very simple.

No? Great. Leave things as they are. The law won't hold you to a commitment you didn't make.

What's that? You want to have an institution that's a perfect duplicate of marriage but has a different name so you can kid yourself it's not the same thing? Oh get over yourself. And get thee to a registry office.

The law won't hold you to a commitment you didn't make.

Correct.

Co-habiting with someone is not a commitment. You may feel that you are in a committed relationship, and maybe you will in fact stay together until one of you dies, but in the eyes of the law you have not made any legally binding commitment and your "DP" has no legal obligations towards you whatsoever.

Unless you have, for whatever reason, gone for the much more expensive and even then less "committed" option of a cohabitation agreement. Which - and I am happy to be corrected on this point - it appears that no one on this thread has actually done.

LoveInTokyo - no offence taken dear its a damn rickety old laptop and an American spellchecker that does not understand colloquial English.

Aside from that you have completely ignored my practical experience on the matter. As stated I have seen many people/couples go through English courts and get awarded. You do know about the golden rule right not everything is strictly according to statute but what statute is trying to say. Or did I get that wrong?

They are not being awarded just because they lived together, moyes, what part of this is so hard for you to understand!? It's possible to ring-fence investment you've made, say, into a property, to claim it back, and that's true even if you buy a house with your mate or your sister or your friend from uni. It's possible to demonstrate investment into a business or property and again, be awarded such monies or said percentage of equity or the like. But it is NOT compo just because you co-habitated, again, this can be awarded to a person who can demonstrate significant investment in said asset regardless of any type of romantic agreement. Living together as unmarried partners does not confer any sort of automatic legal protection.

channingtatumspecs - lol, lol, here don't think double barrelled names would go down well with nutt-job.

I agree with expatinscotland its more a question of vulnerability here. Because surely if they set up home together and are equal on the finances then when separating they should be entitled to a share of the assets after a co-habitating for say years or more?

If they've signed a legal cohabitation agreement to determine the appropriate share of assets, then yes

If they haven't made any legal arrangement for share of assets, either by a legal cohabitation agreement or through civil marriage, why should they?

Don't blame the insurance policy for not paying out when your house burns down if you never took out a policy!

expatinscotland could be right there but all I know for a fact my mum split from her ex-boyfriend (not married to him as was his mistress) and was awarded financially via the courts. She was also given custody of his two sons from his first marriage. So CM was awarded for them as well. This was back in the 70's and the judge awarded for each child and split assets. She got the house.

He was angry as he did not want to pay maintenance and had deliberately left his executive job to go unemployed when going to court. It was my mum and I was a teenager at the time. Its fact not heresay. I was there.

Aside from that you have completely ignored my practical experience on the matter. As stated I have seen many people/couples go through English courts and get awarded. You do know about the golden rule right not everything is strictly according to statute but what statute is trying to say. Or did I get that wrong?

Christ this is hard work. There are no AUTOMATIC rights to any financial support by virtue of cohabitation in England and Wales. This is the law.

As expat has pointed out, there are a number of individual circumstances whereby financial awards may be given based on investment in a given asset. There are all sorts of individual circumstances where a court may rule within the letter of the law

But there is no automatic right to any kind of spousal support and no automatic legal protection for unmarried cohabiting couples within the law of England and Wales

Been with my DP for 13 years. No children as yet but they will have both names when we do. We have everything split equally and have had a lawyer to draw up the necessary paperwork to protect each other.

"Aside from that you have completely ignored my practical experience on the matter. As stated I have seen many people/couples go through English courts and get awarded. You do know about the golden rule right not everything is strictly according to statute but what statute is trying to say. Or did I get that wrong?"

Yes I do know about the "golden rule". (I'm a lawyer, as it happens.)

The golden rule is an approach to statutory interpretation. So which statute gives co-habiting partners a right to a share of their partner's assets upon separation in the absence of a co-habitation agreement?

Rules to help with statutory interpretation are only useful if there is a statutory provision which needs interpreting.

Specifically out of curiosity, what particular assets etc are not covered by a couple co-habiting unmarried with children if:
A) mortgage is in joint names
B) They have a joint life insurance policy
C) They are each named as the 'beneficiary' (??? Not sure of wording) of each others pensions.