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)?

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

Which means you utterly missed the fact that in that situation the poor lady had no idea what he was like until after he died. As is the case with many, many mnetters on here - they have zero idea about how their "lovely" husbands/partners have a whole different life going on. Being smug about your "lovely" partner is shortsighted. No one truly knows anyone.

You are obviously very, very sore about your relationship status because you keep raging about it. If you were truly happy, this would be such a non-issue for you, what other people think of you/about a box. I had a very long term partner - I just don't understand why you are so furious. I had to tick the "single" box too - it felt weird, but I certainly in all those years never felt any sort of fury, or even irritation, about it. I never gave it a second thought, but here you are, raging and raging at married people, at boxes, at how things need changing.
I guess maybe because I had worse things in life happen than what a box said/what people might think about my relationship status that it put it all in perspective.

If you are over the iht threshold sticking to your anti marriage stance is an extremely expensive choice for your children. Found some of the staunchest anti marriage clients have quietly get married. Not an issue if low income though

Since the thread has lurched off topic already, I’ve always been an advocate of automatically conferred rights and obligations for cohabiting couples beyond a certain time but with an option for them to explicitly opt out in writing, together. Lots of cohabitees, especially older ones, don’t want to be treated as an economic unit for very good reasons and they should have that option. But some halves of cohabiting couples want to be treated as a flatmate rather than a partner for less good reasons, and there’s a lot to be said for making them put their cards on the table and say so explicitly.

Dilys, but how long then? So eg older man moves in with mother with children who has a house after her divorce (and before it) - when can he steal half of it - how long and how much sex must he provide as a live in lover before he gets his money on it? What about people like Sir James Goldsmith who had a wife in England with children and a more children with a very long term lover in Paris (and that is repeated all over the places actually before we even start on people in religions where they have several wives they alternate between?)

If de facto marital rights were brought in, we would just end up with the same situation we have now but the other way around. Instead of people saying, "But I thought we were common-law married", we would have people saying, "But I thought we had to get married before they got access to my pension, etc." The way things are currently is fairer. Marriage is a big commitment; no one should allowed to sleepwalk into it. You should have to opt in.

That's another thing MN has opened my eyes to: I used to assume that if a couple had children before marriage, it was a mutual decision. And while I'm sure that is indeed the case for many couples, I think there are also many women who are unhappy about being unmarried. I've read so many posts over the years from women who want the law to be changed so they can get the rights of marriage without needing their partner to marry them. Similarly, I can't understand why anyone would object to their marital status being described as "single" unless they wanted legal recognition of their relationship.

They've had "common law" marriages in some countries for many years. e.g. I remember it being the case in Canada even 30 years ago. It doesn't give couples the same rights as marriage but it gives quite a lot after they have been living together for a couple of years in a relationship. If people don't want their partner to have those rights they just don't live together. Having children may reduce the amount of time you have to live together but you still have to live together.

But why shouldn't couples be allowed to live together without the government getting involved in their relationship, dungeon? It's taking the nanny state too far. I can't understand why people want less, not more, freedom to cohabit!

But why shouldn't couples be allowed to live together without the government getting involved in their relationship, dungeon?

They are already involved though in that is people live as "man and wife" they are treated as a married couple with regard to benefits etc

It's taking the nanny state too far. I can't understand why people want less, not more, freedom to cohabit!

I don't know what people who are not married want but I think that there are would be many positives to treating people as a married couple if they live like one, particularly if they have children.

This assumes they're getting benefits.

This assumes they're getting benefits.

I'm not assuming they get benefits at all. I''m just pointing out that cohabiting couples are already treated in the same way as married couples in some respects.

Fury hardly,give over,irritation more like. An irritation I thought I was alone in feeling until I read this thread so I thought I would contribute. You seem to have a problem with that,you also seem to be the one more than a little obsessed with unmarried mothers feeling that irritation and wanting to discuss it.

I think your typo/autocorrect was the problem there then. I guess you meant to say 'if' not 'is'?

But even so, there are cohabiting couples where the state isn't involved. I appreciate that cohabitants might have joint benefit claims, children with both their names on the BCs, jointly owned property listed at the Land Registry etc. Probably the majority of cohabitants have at least one of these, but there are some people who don't, and who genuinely wouldn't wish state involvement.

Also you seem desperately to want me to feel "sore" about not being married.This presumption that unmarried mothers can't possibly be the ones to make that choice and be happy with it is more than a little irksome.

Probably the majority of cohabitants have at least one of these, but there are some people who don't, and who genuinely wouldn't wish state involvement.

But the state would be involved if one partner lost their job for example, whether they like it or not If people want to keep things totally separate then best to live separately.

I think that there are would be many positives to treating people as a married couple if they live like one

Positives for the lower-earning partner, yes, but a lot of negatives for the more affluent one! That's why it needs to be a voluntary contract. People shouldn't make that commitment unless they really want to.

This presumption that unmarried mothers can't possibly be the ones to make that choice and be happy with it is more than a little irksome

Yes! I am perfectly financially protected thank you, and also not in any rush to repeat a legal process which fucked me up monumentally last time.

So not all women are beholden to men.

I think that there are would be many positives to treating people as a married couple if they live like one

I'm not a lawyer but to my uneducated mind, it seems more appropriate for legal rights and responsibilities to be consented to freely and explicitly, through an opt in legal contract - for the avoidance of any ambiguity

It doesn't seem reasonable to me to enter someone into a contract by stealth, requiring them to opt out of a contract they never entered into in the first place.

If you wish to acquire the legal status which affords the rights and responsibilities of marriage, then you sign a contract entering into that legal arrangement (which at the moment for opposite sex couples, is a legal marriage)

If you don't, don't

If you live like one and don't wish to have your relationship legally recognised, why should that be imposed on you?

But it isn't by stealth , in Australia is common knowledge. And you see the amount of people here who believe that common law sposes exist and believe it actually happens now.

You're not married - end of

You're not married - end of

Then that statement should apply in all situations, not just the ones that save the government money.

Positives for the lower-earning partner, yes, but a lot of negatives for the more affluent one! That's why it needs to be a voluntary contract. People shouldn't make that commitment unless they really want to.

I was thinking of the children when I said that there were some positives. I don't really care if that is negative for the higher earner.

If you live like one and don't wish to have your relationship legally recognised, why should that be imposed on you?

They can easily avoid having anything imposed on them by not living together as man and wife. As I said there are pros and cons. If a couple have children I think that there would certainly be advantages to having the relationship legally recognised regardless of whether both partners want it to be.

But it isn't by stealth , in Australia is common knowledge. And you see the amount of people here who believe that common law sposes exist and believe it actually happens now.

Exactly. In countries where common law marriage exists people certainly know about it. It is when it doesn't exist that people seem unaware.

YABU to be annoyed, it's asking if you are legally single, which you are. If they wanted to know your relationship status then I'm sure there would be a question about that.

Then that statement should apply in all situations, not just the ones that save the government money.

The government aren't interested in marital status for benefit purposes, just as they aren't interested in medical diagnoses for care-related benefits. They just want to know how the people concerned are affected by the need. If they're two adults and two children living in the same house then that's how they will be assessed. If they have MS and can't walk, or have MS and can walk, they will be assessed differently.

The legal status isn't important in the case of living-expense benefits.