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)?

If the law was changed so that a couple were legally viewed as married after cohabiting for a few years, the main result would be an increase in men refusing to live with their children's mother. Does anyone really believe that most cohabiting fathers want to give their partners and children the protection of marriage, but for some reason haven't thought of just asking their partner to get married (or even drawing up a cohabitation agreement)?

If they're choosing to opt out now, most of them will continue to opt out if the law changes; it's just that they'll have to move out of the family home after a certain point (or never move in in the first place) in order to do so. It would mean a reduction in the number of men who passively remain in "placeholder" relationships, though.

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.

This just isn't true dungeonsanddragons. There is no 'would' or 'whether they like it or not' about it. It's completely possible for one partner to lose their job and the state not be involved, because it's not compulsory to claim benefits you're entitled to. None of the benefits that might be applicable in this situation are automatic: they require an active request to the state. The partner losing their job could have savings or other investments they live off instead.

If the law was changed so that a couple were legally viewed as married after cohabiting for a few years, the main result would be an increase in men refusing to live with their children's mother.

That's a big assumption and probably not correct. I doubt many would end their relationship and not live with their children anymore just because they didn't want to be legally viewed as married. I don't think that there are more single parent families in countries where common law marriage is recognised.

It would be interesting to get some stats on that. I have wondered if the end result would just be more deadbeats who make sure they keep getting their bank statements sent to their mums, but no idea really.

The partner losing their job could have savings or other investments they live off instead.

You are being a bit pedantic. Obviously if they have savings or other means of income then the state wouldn't be involved. I meant that if the person lost their job and had no other means of income, they can not claim benefits off the state (after six months) if they live with their partner and that person has an income.

In Canada, lone-parent families accounted for 20% of families in 2014
In the UK the figure was 25% so higher

www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14202/parent-eng.htm

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2015-01-28

Er, no. It isn't remotely pedantic to point out that your claim that people who want to keep the state out of their relationships will be obliged to let it in if one loses their job is wrong. It's actually very important to the point being made, ie that there are people who want to and do keep the state out of their relationship. There are. We had both already agreed that there are cohabitants who involve the state in their relationship through benefit claims, so you providing another example of where this would be the case is neither here nor there. Particularly not in response to someone pointing out, correctly, that some couples want and achieve both separate finances and zero state involvement.

Er, no. It isn't remotely pedantic to point out that your claim that people who want to keep the state out of their relationships will be obliged to let it in if one loses their job is wrong. It's actually very important to the point being made, ie that there are people who want to and do keep the state out of their relationship.

Yes you are being ridiculously pedantic. My point is just that the state treat unmarried couples as man and wife even if they have not legally married if one partner needs to claim benefits after losing a job for example. Pointing out that there may be people who would never ever have to claim benefits because of unemployment, sickness or whatever else because they have millions in savings or a trust find or whatever else is ridiculous.

Again, it's not pedantic to point out that what you wrote was completely wrong. When you say that people would have to involve the state by making a joint benefits claim if one of them lost their jobs whether they like it or not, in response to someone pointing out that there are people who maintain separate finances and no state involvement in their relationships, that simply isn't true.

If what you in fact meant was that some but not all people in that situation would be obliged to involve the state, that's nice dear, but as it doesn't refute the point that people exist who wouldn't have to, it was irrelevant. As is the nonsense about millionaires and trust funds. I didn't claim the contributions based JSA to which I was entitled during a 3 month period of unemployment because our local JC were vindictive useless cunts, and I needed to spend the time actually finding a job. It was worth losing the princely £950 I'd have got, and yet no trust fund has materialised.

And there's really no need to be so salty about this. You can think people should be forced into marriage after a certain period of cohabitation whilst also admitting that what you wrote about benefits was wrong.

I didn't realise how snobby people were about marriage!!

I'm not married by choice to protect my assets for my daughter, therefore it's not as simple as everyone should get married, some of us actually make the choice based on our circumstances.

Also, I wasn't married to my daughters father and his details were taken during appointments, and guess what, he made medical decisions for our daughter whilst I was unconscious in the operating theatre.

*In Canada, lone-parent families accounted for 20% of families in 2014
In the UK the figure was 25% so higher

www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14202/parent-eng.htm

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2015-01-28*

Very interesting. Alot of people anti de facto will prob ignore it though.

Fuck me, I'm glad I'm a dog!

I was more bothered about my missed miscarriage being called an abortion on my notes.

Op create your own box.

Again, it's not pedantic to point out that what you wrote was completely wrong.

No my point wasn't wrong. You just don't get the that fact that I am saying if someone needed to claim benefits the state would treat them as a married couple whether they liked it or not. The fact that you think you personally would never need to claim benefits under any circumstances is completely irrelevent, as apart from the fact that it does not apply to most people I said if.

I didn't claim the contributions based JSA to which I was entitled during a 3 month period of unemployment because our local JC were vindictive useless cunts, and I needed to spend the time actually finding a job. It was worth losing the princely £950 I'd have got, and yet no trust fund has materialised.

That's nice for you. It doesn't mean that you will never ever need help from the state in your life. I could survive for a couple of years without state help if I lost my job but that doesn't mean I can't envisage never needing help. Grow up.

And there's really no need to be so salty about this. You can think people should be forced into marriage after a certain period of cohabitation whilst also admitting that what you wrote about benefits was wrong.

I didn't say that I think people should be forced into marriage. I actually only said that there are "some advantages" and "pros and cons" to co-habiting couples having some legal rights as in countries like Canada. Certainly it wouldn't all be good but I think it could benefit any children of the relationship.

You just don't get the that fact that I am saying if someone needed to claim benefits the state would treat them as a married couple whether they liked it or not.

That would be because it wasn't what you said when you wrote that it would happen regardless of whether they liked it or not. Backtrack backtrack backtrack, wrong wrong wrong.

That's nice for you. It doesn't mean that you will never ever need help from the state in your life. I could survive for a couple of years without state help if I lost my job but that doesn't mean I can't envisage never needing help. Grow up.

Irrelevant strawmen. Do better.