To think that it's shameful that England (I think Scotland does) won't recognise common law marriage?

[Rainbowhairdontcare]

I've never understood why that's the case. Some States in the US do, the same as Canada and even some Latin American countries. Given the statistics of cohabitation it would only make sense?

You think that having a baby with someone actually is a bigger commitment to them than marriage or that it's undeniable there are people who people think that?

nonetheless produces claims that having a baby with someone is a bigger commitment than marrying them.

In some ways it is. If you are married with no kids you can divorce and never see eachother again. Yes there are finances to sort. But with no kids there is foonf ti be a clean break.

If you have kids with someone or not, you will always be connected and HAVE to have something to do with them. Kids graduations, weddings, grandkids birthdays, christening etc.

WellButterMyArse
I'm not surprised that some people get confused because I think there's a decent proportion of the population who are total dumbasses who don't bother to take responsibility for their own lives and affairs.

The misinformation occurs when idiots start chatting to idiots.

The whole "but a child is a bigger commitment" thing on MN is probably (most of the time) a defence mechanism from women who spend time on MN and know fine well the situation they're in but choose to promote this naive idea to others because it means they can bury their head in the sand and not confront the precarious nature of their own situation and their own vulnerability. It's much better to shoot the messenger and reaffirm how good your DP is and how you don't need a piece of paper.

Look at women on this thread who've said "I chose not to marry and this is why". They're clued up. Men who kick the marriage can down the road and keep having children are clued up and know. Women who refuse to alter their financial stability without the legal protection of marriage are clued up and know.

The people who don't get clued up are the ones peddling crap and wanting the law change because it's inconvenient to confront their own nativity or stupidity.

It isn't.

Parents, and by that I mean mostly male parents, quite commonly have no or minimal involvement with the children once they've split. Even when this isn't the case, what you're describing is a relationship with your co-parent stemming from your commitment to the child, not a commitment to them.

Whereas marriage is innately a commitment to the person you marry, that is literally what it involves. It's a contract you enter into that you have to go through a legal process to end, and that the other party can potentially keep you in against your will for a period of time. None of this is true of having a child with someone.

What exactly are the RIGHTS of married couples? I'm not aware of any..

google sorts. This took less than two minutes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_consequences_of_marriage_and_civil_partnership_in_England_and_Wales

www.teeslaw.com/article/legal-rights-unmarried-couples-living-together

echt
No rights at all, which is exactly why some cohabitees who choose not to marry want all the benefits and those who are clued up actively avoid it.
It's impossible to see any benefits

Even when this isn't the case, what you're describing is a relationship with your co-parent stemming from your commitment to the child, not a commitmentto them.

If you notice I say 'in some ways it is'. Not it is. By through the commitment to the child, you commit to coparent. When getting married you commit to the other adult, but that commitment can be undone.

Yes some fathers (and mother) dont honour their commitment to the child. But when having the child most intended on committing to a life of co parenting.

I agree its nor a commitment in the same way. Not does it provide any benefits of marriage. But in some ways the commitment is longer lasting.

Unfortunately I think too many people dont really think about any of this before deciding their parental commitments or what their relationship status really means.

Unfortunately I think too many people dont really think about any of this before deciding their parental commitments or what their relationship status really means.
I agree. They also don't think who the commitment is towards, or for whatever reason they start conflating different types of commitment (with the help of a DP who is quite happy to avoid the legal ties of marriage)

What exactly are the RIGHTS of married couples? I'm not aware of any...

For the purposes of capital gains tax, a married couple/civil partners can claim private residence relief for only one dwelling, even if they live apart.

Married/civil partners can possess joint property without needing to agree a contract.

A spouse of a British citizen is entitled to a residence permit if the spouse is from the EU. If not, to apply for residence the British spouse must meet a minimum income requirement of at least £18,600 a year for the past six months.

A spouse may not be compelled by a criminal court to disclose private communications with their spouse.

When a married couple/civil partners separate, the courts have wide powers to divide their property and may set aside prenuptial agreements.

No inheritance tax is payable on an estate inherited by a surviving spouse/civil partner, if they are UK domiciled.[2]

The surviving spouse inherits part or all of the estate of a spouse who dies intestate.

The surviving spouse is paid a proportion of their deceased spouse's pension.

Women who become spouses to male peers and knights usually receive titles which last for the length of a marriage.

(Took me like 8 seconds to google that btw)

I saw the in some ways, but having a child with someone isn't a bigger commitment than marriage in a relationship in any way. Marriage is a commitment to the other person that can be ended, but having a child with someone doesn't innately involve committing to them at all.

There are situations where an unmarried couple who have a child ultimately end up more committed to each other than another couple who marry and then don't stay together. It might form part of a generally more committed package, iyswim. Which I think is what you're getting at here, and that's true. But different.

There might be some truth in the defence mechanism claim.

Strip away all the nonsense surrounding weddings and civil partnerships and what you really have is a legally binding contract that gives you rights and responsibilities. If you choose not to enter into that contract that’s up to you, but you can’t expect to then seek rights you’re not entitled to, and you can also evade responsibilities because you haven’t signed up to them. It works both ways.

If you choose not to enter into that contract that’s up to you, but you can’t expect to then seek rights you’re not entitled to, and you can also evade responsibilities because you haven’t signed up to them. It works both ways.

Except op did enter into that contract and wasnt happy about what it entitled her exh too.

Now she wants bits or marriage and bits of cohabiting.

Are there any countries in the world where the exact parcel OP wants is on offer? Would be interesting to know

Nope get married if you want the same rights.
Why would you have children with someone who won't make a legally binding commitment to you?

Common law marriage isnt recognised here in Scotland.

I don't understand an aversion to marriage. If you want the legal rights associated with marriage, just get down the register office. Any baggage that people think comes with a legal union is just in their own heads.

Are there any countries in the world where the exact parcel OP wants is on offer?

This one. It's called a will.

There might be some truth in the defence mechanism claim.

There might be. But I have never had a child with someone I was married to. And also I have always been able to independently finance myself.

But I can still see why some people think in some ways the commitment to always being connected through the child, is bigger than marriage. But only in some ways. It's not a legally binding commitment. I agree.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'bigger commitment'.

"What exactly are the RIGHTS of married couples? I'm not aware of any."

The main ones are if you get divorced you may be entitled to spousal maintenance. If not married you won't get a penny.

If you are married and then divorce you may be entitled to half or even more of your spouse's assets and if not married may not be entitled to any of them in plenty of cases

If you are not married and there is no will you may well not get a penny. etc etc Vast differences of huge importance.

..although if neither of you have any money and no income or property then I agree there are not so many other than a duty to financially keep the other spouse whilst you are married and other automatic rights - to be next of kin, decide the funeral arrangements, rights connecting to children etc

OP is after a bit more than just a will though isn't she? Some kind of state recognition and I thought the implication was wanting the same IHT provisions too. Plus there's more scope to challenge a will than a spouse's rights wrt inheritance tax.

The defence mechanism comment wasn't aimed at you ilikethisone, just to clarify. Was in response to a previous poster. And I can see why people get that idea, but I think that's a different point. We go back to the issue of general misinformation.

Ilikethisone
I would imagine though someone like you who has sussed out what's the right situation for you, ensured your own financial stability etc wouldn't be the sort of person who tells women in a financially precarious position "well DP and I aren't married and our DC are a much bigger commitment... We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love.. so many people get divorced anyway so what's the point in a big party".

Thats what I was meaning. More often than not the people who trot out the same old clichéd bingo lines are women who've stuck their head in the sand and it's almost like they're in denial and trying to convince themselves as much as the poster they think they're advising.

Those who are sensible enough to do their research and make whatever is the right choice for them would tend to say something else like "exDP and I didn't get married and because I kept my FT job, had name on the deeds etc it had limited impact on me when we split. You don't have to be married but you should look at your financial situation and make an informed decision".

Glad to see a lot of other didn’t understand this thread either. A common law marriage isn’t some magical one in which your assets are suddenly safe if the relationship breaks down. In fact, if anything, they’re MORE dangerous because so many situations in which people would have had separate assets, one partner is suddenly arguing that they were common law “married” so they’re entitled to half assets. This happens OFTEN in the US states where this is legal; a common law marriage, it seems to me, is actually used more for this purpose of legal argument during relationship breakdown than in the event of death, as OP says.

If you want separation of assets and the legal protection of marriage, your best course is probably to put your assets in a separate trust and then get married.

RightYes but I'm looking at the benefits of common law or as it's called in Oz, "Defacto" relationships from the point of view of women who end up with nothing when they have children and cohabit.

Having children sets women back....then if not married, their partner can kick them out of the house and they're entitled to nothing.

If someone's good enough to set up home and procreate with, then they're good enough to share a life with.

In Australia, if you move in with someone, you're aware that your assets might be at risk....so people don't move in with one another lightly.

OP is after a bit more than just a will though isn't she? Some kind of state recognition and I thought the implication was wanting the same IHT provisions too.

I think it's very unclear what OP wants. For a partner to have no claims of shared ownership at all then suddenly automatically become heir at death is not common law marriage- it's asking the state to read your mind.