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?

get over this silly idea of wanting to call him a 'husband' (when he's not), or you marry and accept you may lose money if the marriage fails

Well frankly, OP can call her partner anything she wants. she can go around with a ring she's bought from Ernest Jones or Argos or whatever if she feels embarrassed that shes not married. Thats her business. Nobody cares but her whether she is married or not, so who cares if she pretends? It is not, however, shameful that people have to, if they want to have the benefits of marriage have to actively enter into a contract. Not a massive wedding ceremony or a church ceremony, but turn up to a registry office with some people off the street or registry office workers, say some legal words and go out for lunch or go back to work or whatever. As PP have said, if my marriage ended for whatever reason, my assets go to my children. Not another grown adult who should be looking after themselves.

OP doesn't really want common law.

Because that wouldnt have allowed hee to stay in the country as easy as actual marriage.

Basically she wanted to be married have a fairly long marriage but not share assets.

Now she wants to call hee partner husband and share some perks of marriage not all. Again, which wouldn't be covered on common law.

All while saying her husband was abusive. That she knows what she wants would impact lots of vulnerable women ( ie marriage not making you entitled a fair share of assets) but she is ok with that. Because it would benefit her.

Cant work out wether OP is incredibly selfish or one wind up.

@HennyPennyHorror the same problem still applies. Not being able to try living together without incurring serious legally enforceable financial responsibility is very restrictive. I understand attempts to have a law that recognises vulnerable mothers in long-term cohabiting relationships in which wealth is unequally owned and in which they have significant caring responsibilities that limit their economic independence. I don't understand a law that shackles a 20 year old or overrides the last will and testament of an elderly widow or widower who had a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend at their time of death.

It's up to people to be personally responsible for themselves and their financial and legal decisions. There is already legal framework in place to give some, but limited, protection to people who are foolish enough to stake their financial well-being on another person: marriage and civil partnership.
This!

People should freely enter legal contracts, not have them forced on them for the convenience of those who are too naive or lazy to sort their affairs out.

I agree Ilikethisone

Either you're married or you're not! No such thing as common law, and quite right too. Get married! And if dp refuses, don't have children with him.

There isn't a common law relationship law in Britain, but if you are living together you are treated for benefits purpose the same as a married couple. The Government need to sort their ideas out, if a couple are living together they should either have all the rights of a married couple or should be treated as single people for everything.

Bloody hell, no !

If I choose to live with a bloke without marrying him, then this is because I don't want him - or me - to have the rights of a spouse
e.g. to split a lifetime's assets and pensions if we break up

If you want the benefits, get that "piece of paper"

Only 13 states in the US recognize common law marriage and it requires that the couple present themselves as actually being married to the community by taking the same last name, opening joint accounts, etc. They must also have an actual intention to marry, so it wouldn't apply to long term cohabitants.

family.findlaw.com/marriage/common-law-marriage.html

That does confuse people a lot and I think it might contribute to inflated ideas of the rights of cohabitants. The state essentially do want it both ways. You move a partner in and immediately it impacts on benefit entitlement. So your new partner could move in and immediately you lose your child benefit, for kids that aren't his, because he's earning 60k and if you live together that counts. You keel over a few weeks later without having a will that names him, that doesn't count and he might as well be some bloke you shagged behind a bus stop.

WellButterMyArse
One is about assessing adults adults in the household for accessing state services.
The other is about legal rights and obligations between the couple.
They are different.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people concerning their assets. It's totally different to benefits claims.

So OP wants marriage and cohabiting completely changing, to suit her situation. Where she wants to be a little bit married. A little bit not married. But only as long as those little bits suit her and fuck everyone else?

Fucks sake Op. You can not be this dense.

As an aside didnt you take the piss out of your sister for believing something about breast feeding, that you believed was incorrect?

Taking the piss because she didnt know everything, despite having a degree.

And yet you know fuck all about this situation, got married without understanding how it all works and ended up having to give your husband his fair, legal, share? And dont understand, the concept of common law in the countries you have named as proof it works?

Pot, kettle and all that.

You move a partner in and immediately it impacts on benefit entitlement. So your new partner could move in and immediately you lose your child benefit, for kids that aren't his, because he's earning 60k and if you live together that counts.

Benefits are decided on household income. Marriage and its rights are not.

It's not even similar.

As with pretty much all the pps, I think if you want the rights marriage gives you, get married. If you want your partner to inherit from you, write a will.

Of course they're different, but it is hardly shocking that some people find it confusing. Which they do, whether anyone thinks that's sensible or legitimate. There's no way I'm the only poster on here who's had clients make a similar point when advising as to rights etc,

Op you are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly selfish.

Cohabitation and common law is not marriage and does not equal marriage.

If you want a marriage then get married.

Of course they're different, but it is hardly shocking that some people find it confusing. Which they do, whether anyone thinks that's sensible or legitimate
The fact some people find "marriage is a legal contract between two people and living together isn't" to be a difficult concept says a lot about the intelligence and general common sense of some of the population I'm afraid.

When I got a car, it was my responsibility to find out about tax and MOT and insurance etc. I didn't expect the car laws changing around my ignorance.

If people choose to cohabit and have children and make financial and career choices without bothering to get themselves informed then they can't expect the laws around marital rights to bend around their own ignorance.

With the best will in the world, you don't even have to go far to research it. Just browse Mumsnet for a few weeks and you'll see the same advice time and time and time again.

@WellButterMyArse I am not disputing some people are ill informed.

Theres a barely a week without a thread where the OP is in the shit because she gave up work, looked after the kids, loved in dps house and didnt get married and now they have split and they have fuck all. Some genuinely believed they would be entitled to stay in the house. Some knew the risk but just thought their dp wouldnt drop them in the shit.

However, I do find it shocking that someone assumes benefits taking household income into account must mean they have some sort of legal entitlement to shared finances.

Ita not shocking that some people get confused. What is shocking people making major life decisions based on assumptions.

This is odd.

If you want the rights of a married couple, you get married. It's simple.

If you come into some money whilst married (by inheritance or otherwise) then realise that you don't want to be with your spouse any more and therefore don't want to share the money, tough luck. That's a risk you take when you decide to commit to someone through marriage.

I very specifically did not marry my ex for various reasons. I would have been very pissed off to find I'd been essentially forced into a 'marriage' by default after x many years when we both made the decision not to do this. Plus, how would you police this, you could get someone who lived at the same address as their landlord for x years lying and claiming they were in a relationship and had split, then claiming common law marriage rights over the landlord's assets (just one far fetched but possible scenario, sure there are others). How to avoid issues like this? I know, let people chose whether they wish the legal protections to apply - you know, via a wedding, perhaps?

There are already methods for ensuring you are protected legally - set up shared ownership of property accordingly, nominate pension beneficiaries, write a will and so on, if you don't wish to get married but want some benefits.

There should not be common law marriage because marriage is a specific kind of very intentional and serious contract between two people that they will become a social unit and run a household together. They will also have legal and financial responsibilities toward each other. In many cases, they may form the backbone of a family and raise children together. Contracting to provide for each other's, and potentially their children's, welfare, is beneficial to society, and therefore the government will in turn provide certain benefits to people who choose to take on that legal responsibility. It's not about religion. It's about making a serious and committed choice with another human being about taking lifelong responsibility for each other.

The amount of misinformation on this topic generally is astonishing though. Even on MN, where it seems fairly well known that common law marriage isn't a thing in the UK, virtually every thread on the topic of marriage nonetheless produces claims that having a baby with someone is a bigger commitment than marrying them. And to be fair there's usually also an inaccurate claim about unmarried partners being excluded at bedsides and having no input in medical decisions or something of that nature: not as harmful as the mistakes that underestimate the significance of marriage, but it's still misinformation. And this is before the deliberate bullshitting, denial and derailing that the subject almost invariably inspires and that further muddies the waters. With that in mind, I'm kind of surprised that anyone could be surprised.

Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it, OP, you want it all ways.

Even on MN, where it seems fairly well known that common law marriage isn't a thing in the UK, virtually every thread on the topic of marriage nonetheless produces claims that having a baby with someone is a bigger commitment than marrying them.

I think this is undeniable.

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