You can't claim for this?

[Hop27]

That you can't make a claim for spousal support and half of someone's pension if you were never married, and split up over 10 years ago?
CM paid in full, above legal obligation, plus additional expenses, private school, holidays, clothes, holiday & birthdays etc.

My friend had this conversation with me a few years ago. She was upset she wasn't getting spousal support. I gently pointed out that this was, as the title suggested, for spouses. They weren't married. She'd assumed as she was 'a common law wife' she was entitled to it.

She wasn't.

An significant number of women are the higher earner in a relationship and would be worse off married. Even if they were not, Telling women to marry so a man can provide financial “security” for them is outdated sexist crap. You will never truly have security if it’s based on someone else giving you money. Make your own financial security- you will be so much better off.

and @TheBigWangTheory you jog on. You might want to be a stepford wife but I don’t and it’s sexist crap.

You cheeky fuck. Stepford wife? Shove it up your hole

Lol, you first.

I can make my own money thanks and don’t need to marry a provider. I’m going to encourage my daughters to do that too. A life as a helpmate is no life at all.

Telling women to marry so a man can provide financial “security” for them is outdated sexist crap.

It’s a common sense way for women who aren’t the highest earner and all women who have kids not to suffer financially. If failing to financially protecting yourself is fashionable feminism I’d advise women to stick with the outdated version.

I have kids and i did not suffer financially by not being married to my ex. In fact it left me better off as it stopped me having to give him my cash when we broke up. It means I kept financial security for me and my daughters.

drop the sexist assumptions- women can and do provide for themselves and their families. Marrying a man doesn’t give you “protection” from anything.

Really? Truly?

Are you honestly saying that anyone can go to court to apply for access rights to any child and the courts will consider it?

I mean, fuck it, I'm close to my best friends children, I think I should have the 2 days a week, yep let's head to the courts.

I can.understand if the children are in Foster care because the biological parents are unfit, so family and close friends can apply for guardianship. But your pushing the boundaries of reality with thinking my family member had any chance of getting visitation with children he is not related to or even was a step father to.

Yes. Anyone can apply (with the exception I believe of the birth parent of an adopted child) for access and even parental rights (unmarried and married step parents do so from time to time). Of course not anyone will be granted access but a step parent who had been a big part of a child’s life would be in a strong position. A biological link is not necessary.

its sad that you gave your family member misinformation like that. He should have sought proper legal advice and it would have helped if you had admitted that you didn’t know what the position was instead of assuming and giving him poor information. It’s really beneficial for kids to keep a good relationship with parental figures, even if they are not biologically related. It also sounds like it would have been good for him to stay in touch.

He wasnt the step parent

I’m not sure why you say that (perhaps you think unmarried partners are not officially step parents or something) but you said he lived with the child’s mother and had a parental role. There is no legal definition of step parent that requires the person to be married (certainly not in this context). He has no more or less rights to see his step kids or ex step kids if married or not. It’s purely decided by the court on the basis of the best interests of the children concerned.

In fact it used to be common pre gay marriage for gay couples that one partner would adopt a child and the other to apply for parental rights under the childrens act. Neither parent in this case would be biologically related.

Note that it’s the same for biological children- access or parental rights does not depend on marriage.

He didnt/doesn't have parental rights or a parental role.

The court could give him parental rights if it chose to do so (as I said on the basis of the child’s best interests) You did say that he lived with the mother and had a parental role but you seem to be back tracking on that now.

why was he so upset not to see the children then? If not on the basis that he had a step parental (ie a carer child relationship rather than eg peer relationship) relationship with them? Why did he want to apply for access?

In your earlier post you did say he lived with the mother and was “essentially the dad” for a few years and was devastated after you told him he couldn’t apply to see them. So it does seem he would have been a good candidate for parental rights or access.

shame you gave him such poor information.

A judge has to agree you can even apply for access first...

I didn't say he had parental rights or a parental role, his idiot friend said he was essentially thier "dad"

Which he wasn't.

But if you think ex boyfriends (not the father) of children have any hope in hell of getting access to children, then you carry on.

No further education as opposed to higher (Uni) does count.

Its age 20 if further not 18.. not in this case as its uni but in others. Its on the gov.uk website.

I meant uni, whatever it's called, it doesn't count.

I know what it is in other cases, thank you. I literally just wrote the wrong word.

If a ‘child’ can’t go to uni without parental support then they can’t afford uni and should go and get a paying job. An adult shouldn’t be relying on adults to support their life choices as uni is not a necessity. These days you can do paid apprenticeships into very professional jobs E.g. allied health professionals, project managers, the list is huge. If these ‘children’ weren’t so reliant then the PWC and NRP could be relived of their financial pressures far sooner.

That's the reality of the student loan system. Not all adult children are dependant on their parents income as some get full student loans. The government, as elected, decided that parents are responsible if they earn over a certain amount. Complain to your MP if you want it changed.

I thought it was complete nonsense, but she is so bitter I wouldn't put anything past her anymore tbh

@WigglyGlowWorm most students I know (my contemporaries from back then, my stepsons friends and my former 6th form students) absolutely do still rely on their RPs as "home" where they return to in the holidays and may or may not be able secure holiday time. Legally they are adults bit it is absolutely the norm for uni students aged 18-21 to still be reliant on the bank of mum and dad. Maybe that should change, with more loans available, but until it does, the situation with nrps being able to simply stop providing support if they choose, while realistically, RPs are not going to sling their still teenage kids out and so have to continue to provide single handedly.

@LaLuz7
Why morally? If you want the legal and financial protection of marriage, you get married. You don't have kids with someone who won't marry you and then act surprised.

Women need to smarten up

Why morally? Because times have changed. I think the UK is very backward with this. Australia has recognised defacto relationships for a long time. If you have lived together for 2 years OR have a child together you may qualify, etc. you have to intend to live together as a couple though.

But that would fuck over women who out earn their partners by a lot and don't want to share finances or get married. Why should it be imposed? Surely it's better to be able to opt in or out?