To be horrified at the number of women financially vulnerable

[Mammalamb]

Every time I’ve been on mn recently, there is yet another thread about a woman being financially abused : used by her “d” p.

do we need some sort of financial literacy or something for young women? Do we need some more help around self esteem for women to stop them putting up with this shit?

personally, I think if you’re going to be having kids or living together, then get married. Appreciate not everyone wants marriage. But if you don’t, make sure you are financially protected

But that is exactly what a register office marriage is. You sign a form to say that you are married, and two people who know you witness it. Anything else is a trimming which you can add at will ( although you are not allowed to make any reference to God).

Marriage law in the UK is secular. It's just that some people, a minority, also choose to have a religious ceremony too. By all means argue that the Australian system is preferable if you want, but it's not because the relevant laws in the UK aren't secular.

Nope, there’s a standard set of vows you have to say. With witnesses. That’s not the same as me and my partner in a room with a solicitor signing forms.

In a register office ceremony both parties make a declaration that there is no impediment to the marriage and then call upon those present that each takes the other in marriage. Both sign the register and the witnesses sign. That is it. The records are kept to show a marriage took place. It's a matter of public record. I don't know what records are kept in respect of de facto but surely there have to be?

@SirMingeALot fair enough, thank you for clarifying. I always thought it was like a mini marriage.

@BadLad and @Ginmonkeyagain again I think that's a different way of looking at relationships. Rather than a state dictating to you something, it's more that the law recognises different relationships. As I stated before whatever comes into the relationship is the individuals. So what is divided in property settlement is anything accrued during the relationship depending on the contribution. So if A&B were in a defacto relationship with no children and split, A contributing 20% and B contributing 80% then that is what settlement will reflect based on only the assets made in the relationship. If C&D have children and split with D bring a SAHP and C working then the SAHP is counted as contributing and (depending on nuances) the split could be anywhere from 50% to 80% of assets from the relationship for C. If, in some more outlying situations, you don't want to share assets made in the relationship the parties can sign a binding financial agreement but this has to be updated regularly to reflect changes in circumstances and you both need independent legal advice. In certain states this is withheld more than others.

However, I would argue that if one member of the relationship wants to stop the other from getting their contribution to it in a split then it's not a healthy relationship. There's no such thing as taking people for what they've got it's based on a fair and equitable result.

Also legal fees come out the financial pot at the end so a number of companies allow people to pay at the end. That's why there's no use arguing that it's not defacto- it just costs you more money and is easy to prove otherwise through text messages, social media, phone records, holidays, people's affidavits that witness a relationship and for a length of time.

Upheld not withheld- typing at work in a rush!

That's interesting. Thanks

Well, to me the UK law seems better at recognising that there are different types of relationships. Under UK law, you can live together in a relationship for as long as you want without having to put assets accrued into a pot. Anybody who wants their assets to be legally pooled can do so by getting married or a civil partnership. I see the Australian system described on this thread as the more restrictive of the two.

You said "If, in some more outlying situations, you don't want to share assets made in the relationship the parties can sign a binding financial agreement but this has to be updated regularly to reflect changes in circumstances and you both need independent legal advice. In certain states this is withheld more than others." Previous posters on the thread have insisted that the Australian system is simpler. How on earth is the above way of opting out simpler than getting a civil partnership, which need only be once, as a way of opting in.

I think people should decide for themselves whether their relationship is healthy or not, and if they conclude that it isn't, they leave it. In my opinion it isn't a good thing at all for the State to decide that, after two years, you're either all in or your relationship isn't healthy and you should leave it.

There's no chance at all that you and I will ever agree about this in the slightest. As well as the points I've just made, I will never believe that people should drift into marital (or similar) obligations. They should make a conscious choice to enter into them.

You're correct in that we will never agree @BadLad.

I think that your view parrots those that do not want their partner to have a legal right to what they contribute to a relationship. It is this that allows people to future fake and say that they will get married/ civil partnerships when they actually won't at all, it's this that continues to allow inequality. You may defacto is more complicated but I think yours is antiquated and harms parents and children.

We've had it for over 45 years, it's a working example of how to approach things differently for the benefit of the more vulnerable party. It's one that works across society. As I said it's not difficult, maybe you think yours is more simple but it doesn't protect people who need it so its lacking.

I don't think my view is antiquated at all. On the contrary, with the recent introduction of civil partnerships, it has been modernised so that people who don't agree with the religious side of marriage now have an option. I think the state's over-involvement in people's relationships is antiquated.

Protection for parents is available. That people choose not to avail themselves of it is on them. If people aren't getting marriage or CP and they want it, they should leave the relationship. People are not passive passengers in their own lives.

I agree that there should be more enforcement of NRP's obligations to children - the CMS at the moment doesn't seem to be up to the job.

It's best to see this australian law as a safety net, it's not the be all and end all, it has its pros and cons, and restrictions to freedom (but isn't that what society is, balancing freedoms and restrictions for the general good of the population), and some people will find themselves on the wrong side of it, like any law, but in terms of this particular topic, women (and men) who find themselves financially vulnerable through ignorance or circumstance - and this will always be the case - I think on balance it's a good thing. Again, Australia tends to be called a 'nanny state' but maybe in some circumstances they just go a bit further in protecting the vulnerable.

@BadLad as we've both said: we'll never agree. It is clear by the numerous posts about this subject that the modernisation of a civil ceremony hasn't improved a lot. How many posts about this do you think there are on Australian forums?

I think the Orwellian defence in this case is a straw man. The law recognising different forms of genuine relationships is about diversity and acceptance of differences rather than restricting people. If a friend or relative came to me and said their partner didn't believe that a person had any right to what they authentically contributed to a relationship and that they think that people should be left destitute in some cases. Then I and others would be shouting that this was a massive red flag. I don't see how these views or the continuation of them in a modern society can be called anything but antiquated.

The solution is put, albeit not very eloquently, in the opening post.

"do we need some sort of financial literacy or something for young women?"

I'm all for information being made more available to people about the dangers of giving up a career to stay at home without marriage. I'm all for stricter enforcement of CMS rules. Those are the ways in which we should be protecting the vulnerable.

I'm completely against the state deciding that a relationship suddenly has to pool assets after two years, and that there's no way of living together and keeping assets separate after that. It is taking away choice, even when you dress it up in benign dictatorship language. This choice should not be taken away because other people don't research the basic benefits of marriage or CP.

It can be unavoidable. I left my job when we adopted DS. 15 years later I am still a carer for both DS and my mum

I will add that tax credits are ending as people are moved to Universal credit.
Tax credits have given me enough to pay for my bus pass and other necessities. When they end, I will then have to ask DH for money for everything. DH still paying tax on a low income job but because we have been careful and saved, I will lose out

@BadLad it's not benign dictatorship language. Australia's residents are made up of approx 30% immigrants. The defacto law recognises a genuine relationship so that people and families can stay together if they want to live and work here. This means that if the country of origin doesn't recognise say gay marriage, if the gay couple had lived together in a sexual relationship for 2 years they could be recognised as a couple in a relationship for the purpose of a visa. As I said before, it's myopic to just talk about splitting up as a reason it has a knock on effect for all aspects of law.

I'm Australian but I disagree with our DeFacto laws. I don't believe just because you've been living with your boyfriend for two years that you should have any rights. It's why marriage exists. People want their cake and to eat it too, you should either do it the right way and get married, or you don't have the benefits that marriage brings.

Having said that, I do believe the UK laws are far more restrictive and archaic than Australia's. They don't even have marriage celebrants over there, unlike here in Australia where you can get married on the beach or a clifftop or in a forest, the only two choices in the UK are church or registry office. That's the only two choices. If you aren't religious, your only choice is a tiny registry office. That's sad in 2022 that you can't get married on a beach or mountain, it MUST be in a church building or government building. In Australia if you aren't religious you don't get married in a registry office (I don't even know if they exist like that to perform marriages) you can hire a celebrant and get married on a beach with waves crashing around you or a mountain top, or even in your own backyard. You don't have that option in the UK. The UK is definitely far more restrictive, backward and old-fashioned.

By benign dictatorship language, I meant how you seem to be trying to cover up that the Australian removes the choice to live together without assets being pooled. The rights of immigrants to bring their unmarried partners with them is a separate issue from imposing the pooling of assets onto any couple who lives together for two years.

Having said that, I do believe the UK laws are far more restrictive and archaic than Australia's. They don't even have marriage celebrants over there, unlike here in Australia where you can get married on the beach or a clifftop or in a forest, the only two choices in the UK are church or registry office. That's the only two choices. If you aren't religious, your only choice is a tiny registry office. That's sad in 2022 that you can't get married on a beach or mountain, it MUST be in a church building or government building. In Australia if you aren't religious you don't get married in a registry office (I don't even know if they exist like that to perform marriages) you can hire a celebrant and get married on a beach with waves crashing around you or a mountain top, or even in your own backyard. You don't have that option in the UK. The UK is definitely far more restrictive, backward and old-fashioned.

I would support that being introduced in the UK.

@BadLad assets from the relationship pooled, assets that were made together and distributed according to contribution. The immigrants isn't a separate thing, it's a result of the acknowledgment of a genuine relationship and what that means. Your reasoning follows far too closely to those that seek to benefit from others and deny them their equal part for me to ever be comfortable with that. As I said a cover up or benign dictatorship argument is a distraction, I think you're seeing shadows where there's none and I'd be concerned about your true motives if I met you IRL. However, that's my opinion and I'm just a random on the internet and I really need to get off it now.

Changing immigration laws so that an immigrant no longer needs to be married to their partner in order to bring that partner to the country has nothing at all to do with the state making couples pool their assets after two years. I have no objection to the former at all. But I don't want the state to decide for me whether or not my relationship is serious after two years. This immigration tangent is the distraction.

I'd be concerned about your true motives if I met you IRL

I've got to admit, this is a more sophisticated attempt to shut down disagreement than the usual "cool wives" comments we get on this forum.

I have a number of friends whose dps financially support them so the women don't work. These men are not abusive but hold control in the relationship.

I've often heard the women telling their own dds that they should find a rich man to support them (all be it jokingly sometimes). The women are proud to be 'kept'.

If these relationships were abusive the women would be trapped so bad advice for any girl/woman. I don't think we've come far as women to still hold antiquated ideas like this.

If you've been together for 2 years. You don't even have to live together.

I love Aus for that.

We do in Scotland? I've been to weddings on a beach, in the ruins of a castle, by a lake.

If you aren't religious, your only choice is a tiny registry office.

This is just not true at all. You're decades behind.

the only two choices in the UK are church or registry office. That's the only two choices. If you aren't religious, your only choice is a tiny registry office. That's sad in 2022 that you can't get married on a beach or mountain, it MUST be in a church building or government building

Not sure where you're getting your info on the UK from but that's not the case at all 😂

I've been to many weddings over the years, only two in a church and never in a registry office.