To think that you should be able to register civil partnership at time of registering a birth?

[darkpearl]

I'm sure there are flaws in this that my tired brain isn't seeing, but at the moment it seems like a good idea for people to have the OPTION of a civil partnership at the same time as registering a birth. What led me to this thought was reading about the mother in Northern Ireland today who won her appeal to receive a widowed parent's benefit.

I think a lot of women would prefer this option. While some may go on to a full wedding/marriage, others will at least be protected if they don't for whatever reason.

I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts..

In theory this could be a good idea

But if someone really wants a civil partnership why don’t they do it before the baby arrives

Civil partnerships aren’t avaulable to heterosexual couples are they? You are proposing introducing this but only for people who’ve just had a baby? How could that be legal?

In the Scandinavian country I just moved from they had something called "registered cohabitation" which was a kind of halfway house legal protection for couples living together. It didn't give you the full benefits of marriage (like sharing of assets) but it did mean you had some protection - you couldn't be thrown out of the home if your relationship broke down, for example, and you were legally obligated to financially support your non working partner. It was basically the bear bones legal protection that an unmarried SAHM would need, but no one had to risk their assets. You could apply for it after living together for a few years, or immediately if you also shared a child. You had to reapply each year by going to the tax office and ticking a box before the end of the financial year. Initially it was just a form and the signature of two witnesses. No fuss, no cost, no party, nothing scary or lifetime commitmenty about it - just another form that gave you some protection. I think something like that would be a brilliant idea in the UK.

I think it's a good idea OP, if / when CPs are extended to opposite sex couples. People need to have it spelled out to them that 'common law spouse' is just not a thing, and given the option to register their partnership legally

I think it's a great idea (and civil partnerships for all is also a good idea imo). Marriage doesn't necessarily occupy the central position in people's lives that many Mners think it should, but having a child together focuses minds and it would be good if all the 'benefits' of marriage could be acquired at the same time so that far fewer people fall between the cracks, given the time and complexity (for most) of sorting out your personal affairs adequately if you want to remain unmarried.

But someone will be along in a minute to tell you that they got married and then planned their families responsibly afterwards and therefore all right-thinking people everywhere should do it like that too.

The Scandinavian option sounds wonderful / well thought out in terms of legalities and practical too. I'd never heard of this!
Which Nordic countries is it in?

We were in Iceland, I'm not sure if it's in other countries as well but I think it's a great idea. Dp and I aren't married and I'm really put off marrying because of the horrible family politics it'll set off, but we didn't think twice about ticking the "registered cohabitation" box. I know some people sat "just nip to the registry office, it doesn't have to be a big deal" but it is a big deal to almost everyone and it's disingenuous of people to deny that. Ticking a box alongside your tax returns though seriously isn't a big deal and I bet even the most reluctant of partners could be talked into it.

That's really interesting OP! Do you know if the bit about " you were legally obligated to financially support your non working partner* is only in case of children or is it a form of spousal maintenance?

Bold fail! You were legally obligated to financially support your non working partner

As far as I know it wasn't related to whether you had a child, if you were living together and one partner was out of work you had to agree to support them financially. You also paid a reduced amount of tax on your income if one partner wasn't working. The arrangement could be dissolved at the end of the tax year though so it wasn't an ongoing form of spousal mainatence if you broke up and didn't renew the agreement. Having a baby just changed how fast you could register - you couldn't register with someone you just moved in with for example, unless you had a child together. Otherwise you had to wait a few years. I can't remember all the details on what it entitled you too though I'm afraid. Obviously it wasn't a perfect system, you could probably get around it by planning to break up with someone and just waiting until the new tax year to do it. But you couldn't have a big fight with your partner, dump them in the heat of the moment, and turn them out penniless onto the street.

Thanks everyone. NordicNobody, that's interesting, I should have known there'd be something like this in Scandinavia :) It sounds like a sensible system, the tax benefits make sense too.

I feel under the current system here, it is quite easy for a mother to grant parental rights to the father during birth registration (which is quite a big commitment IMO), by naming him on the birth certificate. However, it's a relatively more complicated process to marriage. It seems a little unbalanced to me; I think it should be just as easy to register a partnership as it is to sign over parental rights.