Please help. Separation, unmarried he owns house and we have kids

[mosel]

Posting here for traffic

We have two kids, we need to split, he owns the house. Do I have any rights to stay at the property? I am main cater and we've lived here for the childrens whole lives

Pedantry I suppose but she's betting on the "0" on the roulette table. I'm not sure how you calculate the odds when saying "clearly" and "potential" in the same sentence - she is in a shockingly worse position than someone who is married.

There was a thread on here the other day where a woman wanted to get married but she already owned a house. Everyone was telling her not to get married because it would become a joint asset. Would the same advice not apply to the man in this thread?

You actually do have rights as you were a common law couple and you have kids. However I think morally it’s wrong to take his house.

Was that woman's partner a SAHD to their joint children?

No. In UK law (certainly in England and Wales) there is no such thing as a common law marriage. That is an urban myth.

"Common law" is not a thing.

No, because common law isn’t a thing.

There is no such thing in English law.

I think the OP is woefully misinformed. Going on her second and final post, I think she’s planning on using the children as pawns/withholding access to punish the boyfriend. Please don’t do this - the children will be hurt the most. Just focus on your job/getting a job and getting a tenancy.

No such thing as common law

You seem to know a great deal about the OP's partner's income

What is it that makes the situation meet the criteria?

Well if the OP had got married before having children like most people are suggesting then neither would she be

Prh says 'potential claim'. Not definite absolutely 100% certain claim, but potential claim.

Frankly that the best bit of legal advice OP has had so far - and she would be strongly advised to pay for an hours consultation where she can give the full circumstances, and get the full range of options.

From Citizens Advice about the "Schedule 1 Children Act 1989" people have mentioned.

Transferring property for the benefit of children

He has every bit as much 'right' to his children as you do.
Yes, it's easier if he's on the birth certificate but even if he wasn't, a quick trip to court would ensure he has rights and responsibilities.

Re the house. If you aren't married and you haven't contributed to the mortgage or put in significant amounts of cash for say repairs or renovations then it's hugely unlikely you have the right to be given part of the value of the home.

I have no idea whether a court would rule that you can live in his house until the children are adults, given you aren't married and it's not your property.

This is why people should not put themselves at a financial or security disadvantage without the legal protection of marriage.

You will be entitled to child support assuming they live with you more than 50% of the time. Hopefully he will be a decent human being and contribute fairly towards his children's needs.

I take it that's a no.

yes, no in both cases

Don't want to derail the thread. What did your consent order deal with? Was there a schedule 1 application, just badly dealt with? If yes then I don't think you can overturn it but you can enforce it. If a Sched 1 application was never made then you can still make one while the DCs are still minors.
assuming the claim has already been dealt with, just badly, your remedy would be a negligence claim but that would be tricky. I've seen some appalling and incorrect advice given by very good Cardiff barristers, one of whom was also a part time District Judge. Thankfully the big money cases go in front of a High Court Family Judge and where I am they ship them down from London so at least the judge knows the law.

And to add, she would still, presumably, be a SAHM, just a better protected one.

Schedule 1 application never made.
The Judge was highly critical of the fact that a single mother who didn’t have money for beds for the children didn’t take legal advice before the consent order was agreed. That pretty much set the tone for the trial where I was lambasted for basically being poor.

Well legally, I don't know what difference it makes - better informed posters have spoken. In terms of societal attitude, which I am assuming was the purpose of the old "flip the sexes" thing...the point is that most people feel differently about the risks and purposes of marriage and asset sharing when they know one partner is staying home to raise mutual children and, in all likelihood, do all the domestic work.

If people are reacting differently to this situation, it might be because OP is a woman, but it's more because she's a SAHM, as the vast majority of SAHPs are. And as your "flip the sexes" thing bears out.

My point was, the advice pre-marriage was different for each thread. No one knows who is going to have kids and who is going to look after them. Everyone in the other thread (which I can't find) said she should not get married because she owned a house so why the man from this thread not have been wise to follow that advice.

Yes, and they were probably working on the assumption that if there were going to be kids, she was statistically much more likely to take the hit.

Well he isn’t married so I’m not sure what point you’re making.

If one half of a couple has assets and the other doesn’t then getting married will be disadvantageous for the asset owner and vice versa

As my lengthy first post makes clear, she may have such claims. I can't give a definitive answer as I don't know the full facts. In the context of my reply to the other question, these claims, if she has them, would still apply whoever the children live with. Nobody, without knowing the facts, can say that she definitely doesn't have a valid legal claim. We can only say that if certain facts apply (ie direct contributions and possibly if there was an engagement) then she might. That's is the legal position.

Exactly, he didn't get married

So if there's a childless couple and the man owns a house then they should get married but if it's the woman who owns a house then they should not get married?