To be p*ssed off that no option for cohabiting/long-term relationship exists on maternity notes?

[BillieBryson]

I'm newly pg with DC#2, and today had my booking appointment with midwife. Perhaps it's the hormones, but I felt particularly enraged this time round when I forced to choose 'single' as my marital status as the only other option was 'married'. I've been with OH for 12 years FFS! Why, in 2018, when a considerable proportion of couples choose not to marry, is there no recognition of this? Doesn't this also artificially inflate statistics for single mothers (not that there is anything wrong with that of course)?

It should just say: “Are you married to the baby’s father?” with the option to tick a yes or no box.

And Winter I do understand what Single means on forms so no need to belittle

you say that, but you still think you need another or a different box, so I don't quite believe you.
If it said unmarried other people would be complaining it was insulting as it means that married is the default and how dare they assume unmarried was any lesser.....etc etc etc.

Seems to me like people have an issue with being unmarried/single, not being accurately called it.

Using unmarried is like saying married is the default. I would not like that at all.

Eh? That's ridiculous. They need to know if you are married because that will effect whether the father has PR at the child's birth. They don't need to know anything else regarding the parents relationship as it does not influence PR. Therefore married or unmarried is all that is required.

Perfect Queen

You thinking there doesn't need to be another box or a different term doesn't mean it isn't something that needs looking at.

Guess what I don't care if you don't believe me. Stop belittling me and shutting me down by saying it over and again.

Using unmarried is like saying married is the default. I would not like that at all.

Un - just means 'not'. It is a negative to the word it is in front of. It doesn't mean a default or that without an 'un'- that word has a value judgment or is seen as superior.

Unseen, unheard, untouched, unforseen, undiscovered..

It just means 'not'. No other meaning attached.

""In the eyes of the law unmarried means single. ""

It doesn't.

Dungeondragon15

The classification of unmarried or single, means that you then have to be asked if you are in a relationship and notes have to be made. Because all MWs have to be aware of potential DV. If you are single, that won't be an issue.

There should be a "cohabiting" box, as there is in other Health Authorities.

If something were to happen it saves the Staff having to find out if there is a Partner, who the Woman lives with etc. Especially if there are other children, which is a question on the form.

It is a Myth spouted n here that your Partner has no rights under certain Health Acts, on the form it should have the space to give that consent etc.

But they can also be informed if you are sectioned etc.

The adding of the potential father's name also protects Women who may not know of the Partners background in terms of Violence/Sexual Crimes and Child Protection issues.

Sorry, P£onyPenny
I can't believe you really said you don't care what the law says about your relationship. Whether married, co habiting or single, surely you should/must care what the law says?
Even if only it makes sure you name your partner on the birth certificate to give him parental responsibility or make sure you have wills for inheritance.
Would you similarly dismiss what the law says on sending your kids to school, how to drive your car, treat pets etc? I bet you wouldn't.
Up thread you said you where legally entitled to your partners pension, house inheritance etc, can I ask by individual legal arrangements?
As the CAB says legal partnership arrangements aren't proven in law!
I only ask because a friend, who is married, was shocked to find out his wife's pension had been left to her niece, who she deemed to be more needing then her husband of 40 years, and there was nothing he could do about, NHS pension.
Seems you can name anyone to benefit from it, and can change it without telling your other halve. Another person got remarried, forgot to change it and pension is sent to his first wife. Both are extreme but surely it's worrying.
I think whatever your relationship, single, FWB, newly in love, 60 years co habiting, married, divorced or widowed the least you can do is understand what the law says, after all if push comes to shove, that's what the courts work on.
As shown by the Supreme Courts decision on Widow's pension, it still isn't law for the lady in question to get it or another unmarried parent, only government and ultimately parliament are the ones who can change the law.

*P3onyPenny , you are quite right. Other areas do have other classifications, as they should, for the protection of the Mother and Baby.

It does need questioning why the OP's doesn't.

Partners are allowed onto Maternity Wards, late, or over night, not just married Men, so why suddenly don't they count, to suit a few posters agenda?

user1471450935, that's really unusual, or the Wife/Husband hasn't bothered to fight the decision, because under UK law, a Spouse has the right to some inheritance and possibly pension, even if divorced/separated.

The children of the person is always entitled to inheritance.

The classification of unmarried or single, means that you then have to be asked if you are in a relationship and notes have to be made. Because all MWs have to be aware of potential DV. If you are single, that won't be an issue.

I very doubt that is the reason for asking whether someone is unmarried or not and anyway I can't see that only those in a relationship at the time of completing the form would be at risk of DV. They may have only recently split from the babys father, they may start the relationship again or they could be in a new one by the time the bay is born. I would be better to assume that everyone is at risk.

I suspect it's to do with who gets told if (God forbid) the patient dies.

The children of the person is always entitled to inheritance
Not sure that this is true. I think in Scotland it may be the case but in England it certainly isn't. When someone dies intestate, yes, their estate will be divided between their dependents/relations including kids/spouse. But if there is a will, children will not inherit unless specified.

I know what un means, thanks, just don’t see why wording has to declare something is “not”, there is a perfectly good word that means unmarried and that is single. It was like when the Green Party stated men and non-men. Men was the default so non-men were the other/alternative, just like married and unmarried.

""In the eyes of the law unmarried means single.....It doesn't

Yup, it does. Doesn't matter how many people claim otherwise.

delilah what does you propose as an acceptable wording?

Married / single - no
Married / unmarried - no
Married / not married -???
Married / anything else???

It strikes me a simple 'I am married or in a civil partnership" - yes/no would be the route that might cause least offence amongst those who aren't married but aren't happy with the words 'single' or 'unmarried' to denote their legal marital status

But whatever wording is used will doubtless piss some people off!

need is correct. People in English law have freedom to leave your money where you want to if you make a will. (If you do not make a will the intestacy rules If you ensure a spouse however gets nothing and leave nothing to your dependant children then they may be able to go to court to make a claim but if you left them say £100k and your third cousin £100m that might well be upheld. It is not like France where there are strict rules about who gets what that are hard to alter.

I tend not to be asked if I am married or not these days as my children are teenagers so it is less likely to apply. It can be an intrusive question in some contexts but very relevant (eg those claiming benefits) in others.

Using unmarried is like saying married is the default. I would not like that at all.

Surely unmarried is just the opposite of married? The current legal status is married or single. The actual words are totally irrelevant. They could change the names but there is absolutely zero need.

The question is there purely because if you are married your spouse has parental rights from conception and can also register the babies birth (unaccompanied) whereas if you are unmarried your partner has no rights unless he accompanies you to the registry office and is named on the birth certificate.

Birdsgottafly
Been busy, I did say extreme cases, but on my Railway Pension Scheme final salary scheme and DWife's Local Government (police staff) final salary pension scheme, we can nominate the beneficiaries of our pension if we die in service. It does say it is usually a partner, but doesn't need to be. It also requests that you keep them up to date, as they can't be changed after you die.
So with out questioning either person to hard we guessed it was that.

Also after losing my brother to a car crash, without a will, my parents had to go through the courts as described by xenia and need to get his estate, he was 20.
A friend and her son had to fight a horrible legal battle to get the inheritance from her partner, been together 36 years, son was 19, his parents, who disapproved of them not been married, and their grandson been born out of wed lock, put ever legal step they could find in their way. He had a will, which they made when he was in this teens and he made no mention of children, just left everything to his parents or charity. His partner never knew he had made that one. Lost about 55% of their inheritance fighting his parents. Onc again extreme I know.

I sadly think most people don't have a clue, about the legal side of marriage or death, especially if no will.
I am sure Xenia will say if I m wrong, but if no joint account and no will, if not married you can't access your partners money until you go through intestate process. I think it's same for married couples, but the courts can make a special order if you can prove hardship.
I am not a lawyer, but it is really complicated and certainly no such thing as "common law", in the law you could live together from 18 to 102, and if you aren't married and there's no will, you are legal entitled to no more then the next door neighbour or any lodger or pet.
Quite shocking when you think about it and how many people obviously don't until the saddest day arrives. Insult added to injury.

I’m not in the UK, so I don’t know much about the laws but this really surprises me. I would have assumed it would be more progressive.

Here (Australia) De facto is a legal marital status and on hospital forms for instance would be commonly be worded as Married/De facto as one choice. In parental rights, De facto father would have same rights as married (unless there were other family court circumstances). In situations of surrogacy or same sex partner, the status of “intended parent” applies. This is a legal status.

Frogsongs, but MN doesn't see that has progressive. De facto takes away the option of living with someone and not sharing all your lovely shiney shekels.

Personally I believe de facto protects more vulnerable down but that is not a popular opinion on here.

@sofato5miles Ha yes maybe you’re right. I think de facto recognises that sex/procreation/committed relationships happen outside marriage and provides some legal protection for those involved. I know that I felt completely assured of my partner’s parental rights when I had to go into surgery and our daughter into NICU after birth due to complications (we’re not married).

I think there are still benefits to being married here in relation to next of kin etc, hence the recent win for same sex marriage.

Did the OP ever come back to the thread?

I have been thinking about this further. De facto means that rights are conferred automatically and passively whereas marriage has to have two people actively opt in.

Humans want relationships, they happen regardless. Perhaps there could be a third option, where a de facto couple have actively opt put of sharing assets/ legal rights as that would give a much clearer insight to the real intentions of one's partner.

Awww another one not believing a silly dumb unmarried. Re not caring about the law I meant as regards the use of the word Single.

If you're talking about law as regards everything else not so much either- I have my own pensions,joint assets and joint house. Yes I'm named as beneficiary on my partner's pensions too and we have a will. I'm guessing he could have a complete personality transplant and go behind my back and take my name of his pensions but to be honest I'd be fine without it. My financial security isn't dependant on what my partner leaves me. Tobe honest he is the one that has pushed for my name on them,keeps everything together and keeps showing me where it would all be incase of death. He is a lovely bloke,far nicer than the bloke who was the husband of a MNetter on here and left her with piles of debts and discovery of infidelity on his death.

The most important thing is to sort out your own finances,relying on somebody else to give you security in event of their death is insane. They may have nothing to leave i.e. not have pensions or assets to leave in the first place. There are some very complacent married MNers on here.