Consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets when they break up

[CruCru]

There’s a thing in the Times today which says that there is a consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets after a break up. Pretty much, if they separate they could be entitled to a share of a house sale and maintenance. They could also be given automatic inheritance rights if their partner dies without leaving a Will.

The proposal is that people who live together for three years or who have a child together would have these rights.

AIBU to be a bit conflicted on this? On the one hand, I really wish schools covered marriage and the rights and responsibilities it gives you. I’ve talked to women (who live with their partners) who were really taken aback to find out that they didn’t automatically get the same rights as married couples. On the other hand, when I was young (late teens / early twenties), I lived with a boyfriend who was a bit of a sponger - I’d have been really annoyed to find out that he was entitled to any of my money when we split up.

The answer is that we educate young people better. Knowing what the legislation says about various aspects of daily life is better than trying to fix things afterwards. There are still people who think common law marriage exists for example. People who don't understand that all marriages have to be registered. Education of marriage laws is the key. People then make choices in the full knowledge of what they are doing and whether the legal position suits them. If you don't trust your partner, then it's the relationship that's wrong, if you don't agree on the way forward, it's not the right relationship for you.

No.
It is a breach of human rights.

I hope it never sees the light of day.

It probably will see the light of day. But if you’re so opposed to it, don’t cohabit. Simple.

I suspect it is about people in a loving relationship or long standing family one rather than flatmates.

This. Or a Civil Parternship that doesn’t have the patriarchal baggage that marriage comes with.

Really bad idea. It will end up in a mess. If you want a contract you get married.

Probably more money for lawyers. Did they suggest it?

Tough luck.
Why should the rest of society have to have their rights curtailed because some women- and men- didn't sort out the financial situation before getting pregnant in a consenting adult situation?
There is a ton of available contraception out there. It's free!!!
Don't even have to pay for it.

No women should ever (unless it is the result of the abhorrent crime of rape which is of course tragic and excusable ) be getting pregnant without being financially secure first.

I assume you're not a feminist either.

Because, honestly, you can't say what you say AND claim that women are autonomous human beings.

In the absence of a will children inherit. This could deprive children of their inheritance if their parent spends 3 years living with someone. I think it creates as many issues as it solves including, effectively introducing compulsory backdoor marital status.

A registered marriage (and I believe all religious marriage ceremonies should be legally required to be registered too) is a formal public declaration of a contract between two parties. That’s where marital rights should stay.

But what one person sees as a permanent loving relationship, the other may see as a temporary or casual affair.
Marriage/civil partnership ie, signing a contract, forces that truth into the open.
Any status that can be reached through drifting will always be flawed.

The point is that in many relationships, the partner with more money will often refuse to marry, after having promised their partner they will, often when the partner is already pregnant or they have kids. Telling people to get married or educating them is pointless because how do you do that if your partner refuses?

This will do wonders for the housing shortage then.... nobody will want to live with each other.

I'd have to kick my (hypothetical) partner out at 2 years six months.

In my opinion it would create a MORE unstable society.

All to protect the women who want/need legal protections but who are stupid enough to have children with a man who won't marry them. Those women aren't my problem FFS

Don't have children or start trying to conceive before you are married.

If he refuses and your clock is ticking, then you leave.

It's emotionally difficult of course, but to not end up in this mess is practically quite simple.

edit - typo

And yet in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland etc, people do cohabit and it’s not caused some sort of terrible crisis. If you’re so worried, why not enter a contract to provide that neither of you has a claim against the other? Might be better than kicking him out. Not that he’d be likely to have a claim against you anyway unless you are planning on making him a stay at home dad or planning on making him pay for the mortgage but not giving him a share of the house.

Don't have a child first, or at least have that child accepting you could walk away with nothing except child maintenance.

Given that many pregnancies are unplanned I’m guessing the advice is no sex before marriage then. Seems extreme just in order to try to avoid a law that will predominantly benefit women and children and stop men exploiting them.

So many women on here desperate to retain men’s ability to benefit from women’s unpaid labour and to stop children living in poverty post-separation. Quite baffling.

I would be relying on a court to uphold all of those documents and it would be at the whim and will of a judge. Prenups and such are not legally binding in the UK.

Not a risk I woukd take with my financial security and assests that are MINE.

would simply be easier to live together, apart. which is fine of course because there is such a surplus of housing in the country.....

If you want to join in legal union, then get married or civil partnership. If he wont do it, that's not society's problem - it's yours.

I don't know and to be honest I don't care.

To me it is absolutely basic common sense that if you are an averagely intelligent adult in a consenting relationship you do NOT get pregnant until your financial life is sorted.

You need not be rich and yes life happens but at the point at which conception occurs you should be able to support the child.

Contraception is free-free!! - in the UK.
And it's not as if anybody has to do anything much to use it either.
It's not arduous.

'Happy accidents' are all well and good if the couple are financially sorted, quite another when they're not.

Given the choice of pill, mini pill, cap, coil, implant, femidom, condom, vasectomy, morning-after pill or abortion, there is no need for a veto on sex.

I started the thread about the article in the Times. This said that legal rights could be extended if the couple have lived together for three years or have a child together.

These women either need to return to work and earn their own money or get married. I chose the former. It makes me nervous that so many women with children rely solely on the man. Even being married and not working is a risk.

Perhaps the consultation will draw conclusions as to what might constitute a long term loving relationship. Five years? Ten years together? It clearly would need both parties to be committed to each other.
Many unmarried couples are together far longer than some marriages last.

I am willing to bet they are "unplanned" 😉😉😉

But are actually a result of sloppy contraception management.
or
the person just doesnt want to say "he doesnt want to marry me and i dont want to wait"

So it is far easier and less embarassing socially to say it was "unplanned".

this makes you think there are many unplanned pregnancies because many people are saying it. But it is very easy to not get pregnant.

Actual, real, truly truly accidental pregancies where contraception has utterly failed is a lot rarer than you think.

Read the relationships boards to see what sort of toads women procreate with because they want a family. It has fuck all to do with intelligence and that sort of talk is really insulting to people in abusive relationships. People don’t end up in precarious relationships because they are stupid and it’s insulting to suggest it. Anyway I will mute the thread now. Hopefully the proposed legislation will be implemented, as most lawyers I know strongly feel it should be. And the government will listen to them far more than some random voices of uneducated Reform voters.

It would protect the many women who have kids on the promise or hope of future marriage who compromise their careers to look after kids.

Just don’t do this as it’s stupid.