To think that this is fair?

[squashedalmondcroissant]

I know that this has been done to death but I read another article today relating to 'common law spouse' stuff.

Essentially, this woman's long term partner died suddenly in his late 40's and she was upset that she's lost approximately £45,000 in bereavement benefits in the intervening years because they weren't married.

Obviously I have sympathy for her, it must be awful to lose your partner (which whom she had a young child) but she is starting a petition to say that the rules should be changed because she and her partner were 'living as husband and wife' and so she should therefore have the same rights/get the same benefits.

I disagree. The simple solution to these things is to get married! It can be cheaply and simply done if the legal and financial protection is what you want. If you don't get married then therefore you don't get the benefits. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Do you qualify if you have been together over 5yrs but don't live together? What about if you've only been together 2yrs but have a child together? How do you determine who qualifies and who doesn't?!

I disagree. If they live together, they're treated as living together as man and wife. But why not for bereavement benefits?

I agree. I think it's fair OP.

It annoys me when people want the legal contract of marriage but then don't get married (or the equivalent civil partnership) because it's just a piece of paper or they don't agree with it.

Either form a legal contract or don't but don't expect to be able to retrospectively change the terms for everyone else because it doesn't suit.

What are bereavement benefits!

Cant unmarried couples take out insurance?

@Quartz2208 , I found your posts so helpful, thank you.

If people want the protection of marriage then they need to get married/civil partnership

if you choose not to, for whatever reason, you’re choosing not to have that protection.

For how long?

Now there is the option of Civil Partnership I have very little sympathy for those who choose not to enter into a legal relationship and suffer the consequences.

I agree there should be more education about finance and lifecycle options for everyone.

I disagree with @QueenoftheNimbleFlyingCat , why should my rights to live with someone and remain unconnected be taken away? Now civil partnerships exist even more so,

@cleareyesfulhearts

i agree entirely. Sharing assets should be opt-in.

There are plenty of reasons for that and wider education would potentially stop (usually) women sleepwalking into financial dependence with no protection.

But legally they are not treated as being married, that's the whole point. We don't have a 'common law' rule.

It's very quick and easy to become married or joined in a civil partnership. It's also not particularly expensive either.

If you want the benefits of being a legal couple, then that's what you need to do.

If you want the benefits of remaining single, then you have to accept that you lose some benefits and rights which are only for those legally together.

If we went done the whole common law thing, at what point is the relationship defined as that? A year, 2 years, 10 years. If 2 years, why not 1 year and 364 days? And how do you define living together as partners? Do you have to declare a definite moving in together day and have this verified somehow?

Totally agree OP. I think it's really important people retain the ability to live together without financial ties. Those who disagree can't you see any circumstances where this would be important?

As an example my DF (widower) spent his latter years living with a lovely lady who had also been widowed. Both had adult children and grandchildren. If they had been treated as if married she and her children would have had rights over my DF's estate on his death and vice versa. Neither DF nor his partner wanted this as both wanted their own children to inherit from them. If such a setup had been in place they would have chosen to remain living apart which would have been a shame as their relationship brought them happiness.

If you want the rights that marriage brings get married but allow those who don't want them to remain separate.

YANBU.

It shouldn't be automatic that you are legally and financially tied to someone just because you have lived together for x amount of time.

It should be an active choice.

If you want the privileges and downsides to marriage or civil partnership, you can choose that.

If not, nobody should make that choice for you.

If I lost DH I wouldn't want to remarry. I would want our assets to go to our DC. But I wouldn't want to never cohabit in case the Government suddenly decided we were 'as good as married'.

There was a brilliant case in Ireland when civil partnerships came in.

Two male friends. One was a carer for the older other guy. Absolutely not in a same sex relationship, they were straight.

Anyway to protect the younger guy against inheritance tax, they had a civil marriage.

Absolutely brilliant and legally beat the taxman to boot.

I totally agree. It should be a choice to opt in through marriage or civil partnership. Lots of good examples here of why people may want to live together yet keep finances separate.

How would you define this special partnership? I was with a boyfriend for 7 years, although we never lived together. Or would it only be for peyote living together? How about if you have a child together but you're not actually in a relationship, does the child automatically put you in a relationship? Plus, how would you then undo the partnership? And what if you were in a relationship you wanted to get out of but your partner refused? Would they then be entitled to half of whatever assets you own?

Can you imagine, if after two years you automatically were put into this special partnership, you'd end up with couples approaching this date and having to decide about the future of their relationship: be in a partnership, or split up? Couples would no longer have the luxury of choosing when to take that next step, they'd be forced into a partnership.

Too many variables, too many questions!

I have sympathy for the lady, but I thought it was common knowledge that being in a marriage or civil partnership entitled you to certain rights. If she really didn't want to be tied to this man in any way, apart from having a child together, then she should have researched the pros and cons so she was aware.

If the benefit is linked to supporting the child, I think it unreasonable to expect the parents to be married in this day and age. If the benefit would exist without the child existing then yes, you can't expect to get it if you are not married.

Agree totally OP. We shouldn't change perfectly fair and adequate laws on marriages/CP to accommodate ignorance, but we do have an urgent need to educate the populace about the Common Law Spouse fallacy. I suspect the £45k "benefit" that the bereaved partner feels they missed out on may be a widow/er's payment from an occupational pension scheme? Many occ pension schemes allow members to nominate a recipient of death benefits regardless of marital/CP status. I've always said there's a lot less admin involved in being married (and now CP)

I agree educating that there is no such thing and the ease at which you can become a civil partnership is the way forward.

Otherwise exactly how would it be regulated. What rules do you have - how do you create a system that automatically does it. By signing something? Which we have in a civil partnerhsip

If you want to be recognized as an economic unit by the state, you have to go fill out the paperwork to make that happen. People can layer on religion or romance , but from the perspective of the government, it’s really no different than a drivers license , a birth certificate, or a permit to run a business.

there are some fringe people who object to things like birth certificates, but for the most part people are able to separate out the emotion from the paperwork of living life in modern society. It’s only marriage that people get hung up on.

I’m generally of the opinion that if you want the benefits of marriage or civil partnership then you know what to do, but it takes the other person to agree, which may be an issue for some people; however, I do wonder if it’s unfair for the government to treat couples as though they were married or civil partners when it suits for benefit claims etc. but suddenly not when one of the couple dies.

You’re a bit out of date there presuming you are referring to English law. Now there is a system of no fault divorce there’s no need to show adultery, unreasonable behaviour, etc. So civil partnerships and marriages now have parity in terms of the reasons for them to be legally ended.

That was in reply to orwellwasright but for some reason the quote function didn’t work.

Adultery is not a valid reason for dissolving a civil partnership.

It does seem silly that she misses out simply because they weren't married. Even just going to the registry office to get the certificate costs over £200 (where I am, anyway, not sure if it's the same everywhere). I don't have any need to be married, but I don't think lack of marriage certificate should mean a partner loses out, especially when many will have been together for longer than many married couples.

The point in having marriage or civil partnerships is you are making a legal public commitment to combine finances.

Saying it isn't fair is basically saying people haven't the right to decide legally to combine finances or stay independent.

Want to benefits of marriage/CP then sign a piece of paper.

Confirmed by Rishi Sunak in November 2021 budget.

The Government announced in July 2021 that it will extend eligibility for both Bereavement Support Payments and Widowed Parents Allowance for people with children who were cohabiting with a partner but who were not married or in a civil partnership. This will likely come into effect in summer 2022 once the Remedial Order is approved by Parliament. Payments will go out from the date of the Remedial Order coming into force, which is assumed to be September 2022. However, this date may shift depending on Parliamentary timing.

Bereavement Support Payment is £2,500 lump sum and £100/month for 18 months, or if you receive (or are entitled to receive) Child Benefit it is £3,500 lump sum and £350/month for 18 months. Widowed Parents Allowance is a legacy benefit (applies to deaths before April 2017) and is £126.35/week whilst you receive Child Benefit.