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?

It’s easily solved though and not through a pre-nup

I think we need to fight very hard against any change in England. People make active choices. If a man moved in here no way would I want him getting a penny of my house or assets - that is all for the children.

@GlasshouseStoneThrower mine wasn't . It was deemed as "unfair" even though when we married all assets were mine.

I may be wrong but I was sure common law was fine in this country until about 40 years ago.
I remember my parents talking about someone they knew who were splitting up and { cant remember which one } but because they werent married the other had no claim on anything they built up as a couple together and that`s why common law marriage was then not accepted or acceptable anymore.

Absolutely not! It isn't expensive to get married (despite what some people think). If you want protection - get married.

But how would we even define 'common law marriage'?

Then separation of assets should be recognised. Surely people getting into relationships after divorce but with children would appreciate that.

It is. By not being married. Why remove that protection for women - the protection of choice not to marry their abusive live in boyfriend? Why make leaving even more difficult?

Wills and power of attorney suffice to solve most issued arising from unmarried relationships.

Common law marriage has applied in Australia for many decades. Time frame is two years without any separation. The parties ( same sex or opposite sex) have to have lived in a "genuine domestic partnership", doing all the normal domestic things together.

I do think that the law in Australia makes people aware of the implications when they decide to move in with someone. It's less likely that a couple would move in if they are not looking at a commitment, since after two years they are viewed as being in a "marriage-like" relationship for matters such as claiming benefits , family law matters and finances.

Also traditional common law marriage for many women meant a legal obligation to have sex when your husband wanted it in return for his money, in a sense. The two obligations kind of went together like a horse and carriage and no rape in marriage of course either.

We are better off with informed choices today. I am not against more publicity so women could say I won't have sex with him or move in with him until he has married me or so they decide I will always work full time no matter how hard it is to protect my children financially

Or do you mean you want the freedom to split and not share anything but the protection of his inheriting everything should you die and are still together.

This exactly ^^

But some people actively avoid marriage because they want their children to inherit but not necessarily their partner. Why should they be forced into a 'common law' marriage because you don't want marriage and you don't want to draw up a will?

I for example don't want any of the "rights" of marriage. However if my relationship were to last til our senior years I would like my partner to have the protection that marriage entails.

So you do want some of the ‘rights’ of marriage to apply to your relationship.

It doesn't benefit me at all at the moment. But if we were to stay together til death I'd like him to inherit from me (which can be solved with a will) but saves that hassle.

So again, you want some of the ‘hassle-free’ benefits of asset management that come with marriage, but not the bits that don’t suit you?

So, you want what you want, and you don’t want what you don’t want, and there should be legal recognition of that in terms that suit you, is that the general gist?

Also for those that question common law marriage it's not a defacto thing. It has to be proven by years of cohabitation and testimony that life was of a married couple. Again, mostly used when death comes.

No, because I lived with my partner for 8 years, from 16 to 24. We lived as a married couple, I suppose - he would argue that, anyway! - both on the tenancy, shared bills etc. I wouldn't have wanted to be married by default because I didn't want to marry him.

I move in with my boyfriend. How long do I have to wait to be a common-law wife? A day? A week? A year? Two years?

Surely it makes more sense to educate people on the legal implications of marriage vs cohabitation and then let them decide for themselves? Why should couples who'd rather not be married be forced into a legal contract?
This.

And it's also amazing how many men know EXACTLY what marriage entails and how many women seem to fall for the "give up work, we have a child, why do we need a piece of paper" lines.

There are threads and threads and threads on this where people give advice, encourage financial responsibility and independence, encourage women to get appropriate protection before depending on a man. And time after time the advice is ignored.

There is no common law marriage, I have heard female lawyers talking about this on Woman’s Hour, I think the concept was invented by men so they had all the benefits, but could walk away. Suppose you lived with someone for 10 years then you split up and he went on the have a baby with another woman within a few months - who is the common law wife?

I don’t understand the whining about this, as said above, spend £100 and go to a register office.

Marriage means he gets your pension after death, or you get his. Inheritance tax is payable on assets if you are not married - live in London in a £1m house - that’s maybe 40% of the value gone. More if people are stupid enough to vote for Comrade Corbyn

Australia ha defacto relationships which is the equivalent of a common law marriage, and it is recognised after 2 years of living together OR sooner if you live together and have a child.

You can, however, draw up a cohabitation agreement/prenup and opt out of it. Prenups are recognised and legally binding, even if they are a 'bad bargain'.

You cannot recognise something that does not exist. There is not and has never been such a thing in English law as 'common-law marriage,' and there is not and has never been such a thing as the common law in Scots law.

The lack of effort is more to do with not wanting to do a will rather than registry office. It would resolve this issue.

Marriage only screwed me over financially, something that to this day I still have to deal with. I shouldn't have got married but had two options (I'm an expat, choices were to either get married or my daughter to be raised without her dad).

My family bought us a house, and that wasn't recognised to the eyes of the judge the house had to be split 50/50 even though we had a prenup.
My exH is a as he should have been a decent man and given me what's mine, but he didn't.

I love my partner but I wouldn't be able to go through the same financial ordeal again.

I know a few people who live with their partners (15years +) and have children etc and whilst they aren't against marriage they 'haven't gotten round to it yet' or 'cant afford it'. A marriage ceremony in a register office takes a few minutes and doesn't cost much - what they actually cant afford is the huge wedding party they want afterwards with all their friends and family. They bang on about how committed they are to each other and how much they love each other. Yeah so are me and my DH but it doesn't mean that might not all go up the shitter if we were to split or fall out of love. We made the conscious decision 14 years ago to get married.

You never know how spiteful someone can be until you split or your partner dies/is in hospital and their legal next of kin won't take your wishes into account.

You wouldn't expect the benefits of house insurance without actually taking out house insurance and that is what marriage can be seen as - an insurance against being unfairly treated should things go tits up

It doesn't benefit me at all at the moment. But if we were to stay together til death I'd like him to inherit from me (which can be solved with a will) but saves that hassle.

Saves the hassle for whom? Obviously not all the people who would need to come up with all the permutations of the new laws required and the processes that would be needed to operate them. Who is going to pay for all this?

If you don't want to get married then don't, go and see a solicitor for your unique requirements.

@Rainbowhairdontcare you can't have it both ways!! You want to cherry pick the benefits, without any of the obligations....

No. What time period would mean it stops being boyfriend/ girlfriend and changed to common law husband/ wife? Surely both parties have to give legal consent ( ie get married) if they want to get the resulting legal benefits/ obligations? Otherwise people would sleepwalk into it.

mine wasn't . It was deemed as "unfair" even though when we married all assets were mine.

I obviously can't comment on your particular circumstances, but a court will look at the broader picture (I.e. not just who paid for what assets) in determining fairness.

What seems strange about your position is that you've already had a bad experience of marriage, where you feel you were financially compromised. Why would you want the law to impose the same situation on you again? Surely you more than anyone would want marriage to be an active choice, and not just something born of circumstances?

Common-law marriages or 'irregular' marriages can no longer be contracted in Scotland. They are only recognized in certain limited circumstances if they were entered into before 2006.

Some US states also recognize common-law marriages. They have to be agreed on by both parties and are subject to certain criteria. Rather like marriage.

If common law marriage existed wouldn’t you just be bound by same financial ties as last marriage?

Which is what you want to avoid