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.

So they're not married legally, but it's a parallel legal system. OK then.

Absolutely.
This is what I love about the Internet. People speak the truth more.

The number of truly unplanned pregnancies amongst averagely intelligent (at least) consenting adults is very, very, very low if contraception is used correctly.

I'm not talking about happy accidents here - where the couple are sorted and it would be fine if a pregnancy occurred, they usually stop contraception, anyway-I'm talking about situations like 'anchor babies' in order to keep some tosser by the woman's side.

Why should responsible people suffer for the irresponsible?
It is ridiculously easy for an averagely intelligent woman not to get pregnant through consensual sex.
Ridiculously easy.

Wonder what the main goals of this suggestion are.

If for example it’s to seek to reduce the costs to the state of benefits for women with DC, it could be better to introduce measures to try to make fathers pay maintenance, higher rates, penalties if they don’t etc.

I don’t agree with this at all. It makes the concept of marriage pointless. I lived with my husband 5 years before we married. It’s a legal contract that we CHOSE to enter into. I don’t see why it should be forced upon us.

we should be educating people (mainly women) to ensure they understand the implications of being married and not being married are.

therefore if they commit to children etc without being married, they fully understand they are potentially vulnerable if they leave their work or stall their career for children.

It may not make sense for some people for example if they each have their own wealth they want to protect or if they are on second long terms relationships later in life where they each want to provide for their respective children.

people need to take accountability for their own decisions and if you choose to embark on a relationship with someone and have children withiut marriage, then that’s a risk you take

I'm not desperate to do either. Quite the opposite. I am a single mum who walked away from an abusive relationship. But I also have a son and I want the law to be fair to both sexes.

I want my son to have the freedom to make conscious decisions about his relationships and finances just as I made decisions about my relationships and finances without the law forcing my hand.

I chose not to marry when I found myself pregnant and society didn't require it. That is how it should be. I chose to carry on working, to retain my career and pension. I chose only to have one child because I knew my financial limits. My ex paid cms as he should. We provided properly for our child.

We all have free will and can make our own choices. Better financial/relationship education is the answer. And better enforcement by the CMS. I'd rather see passports and driving licences removed from parents who refuse to support their child.

I disagree with the cohabiting for 3 years however I kind of agree if you have children together assets could be shared. I've seen some absolute horror stories of women who have had children and are unmarried be left absolutley desolate because they were trapped, and at the financial mercy of their partners.

I'm not sure it will actually.
They've been trying with this bullshit on and off for decades.

I can see the problem of men who (presumably knowingly) own a house in just their name, have children, promise the mother he will get married in the future but never get around to it. Then some years later, as the relationship is breaking down, and she is not working or working part-time, she realises she has little money, no assets and no protection.

In these cases it seems reasonable for her to have acquired some rights over his assets.

However, there are plenty others (like my situation) where there has been a long period of cohabitation and I am happy for my partner to have residential rights if I die first, but my inheritance is entirely for my children.

Also women here who don't get married specifically to protect their assets if the relationship breaks down.

It will make people much more wary of cohabitation if just 3 years means a financial obligation to a partner.

Ireland introduced something similar about ten years ago and I think that approach makes sense- core differences are:

• it’s not automatic, you have the right to apply after either five years living together if no children and two years if there are children. So you have to prove you have a need
• in no case does the court treat the financial process as the same as a marriage, so it’s not an automatic fifty fifty, its based on need and what was promised - so for example, if you move in with your boyfriend for five years, and you contribute to decorating his kitchen etc etc, the court might dictate you get that money back and a deposit on a new place, not 50% of the house

you can also opt out which I think would work well for people where they are in second relationships.

The issue is people who make financial choices based on promises that can be backed out of - the couple who are engaged, then postpone the wedding because she is pregnant then can’t get a childcare place then suddenly it’s five years on, he’s changed his mind about marriage and she has no options.

In one case where a substantial amount was transferred the couple were together decades, ran businesses together, and it could be proved through their correspondence that all assets were regarded as joint but some things were moved to his name.

A much better protection for women, married or unmarried, would be to sort out the inefficient shambles that is CMS.

And that is what will happen. I am single, I have a child who will inherit when I die.

In the (hopefulĺy) intervening 30 years, I hope to find a new relationship and perhaps cohabit, but if it means risking my son's inheritance, I'll continue to live alone, with all the additional costs to society and the strain on housing stock that will involve.

As someone about to get married after 25 years together, simply to avoid the 40% death tax, I think 3 years is ridiculous. It needs to be minimum 10, lowered to 5 if there are kids. With kids, people ought to be married or civil partnered anyway.

Most couples do cohabit before getting married these days. It’s rare for people to only live together after getting married, most will live together first to see if they want to then take the step of marriage. Sometimes those relationships break up before getting to the marriage stage.

i get what you’re saying but surely you prevent pregnancy until you’re in a relationship where you have someone whose going to give you that legal commitment if that’s what you want?

people will say accidental pregnancies happen but contraception is broadly 99% effective if used properly.

If you’re in the unfortunate small percentage where it fails then I would be doing a registry office wedding and getting the legal commitment from my partner asap. If he refused then I wouldn’t double down on the issue by giving up my career etc and making myself financially dependent on a man who clearly has no intention of marrying me.

The complexity will develop around blended families. It will be interesting how the consultation looks at that.

I think that what you're very politely saying here is why should the sensible have their lives and freedoms curtailed for those that aren't? I completely agree.

Well yes. They are not legally married under British law and therefore don't have the rights that as a country and a culture we have deemed as fair protection for British women (and men, but let's face it, this is about the rights of women).
Sharia law is being run as a parallel legal system with different rights that has not been tested by British legal precedent.

For many people, not getting married is a deliberate choice because they don't want to share assets in that way.
It certainly shouldn't be possible to 'accidentally' end up having to share your assets when you haven't made an active decision to do so, regardless of how long you've been with someone.

Children should, of course, always be taken into account and provided for regardless of whether the parents are married or not.

Women are adults and like all adults they should face the consequences of their actions.

This includes stopping their contraception to get pregnant by a man who won't marry them.

Why are we still infantalising women in 2026?

I think it’s a terrible idea. There are no barriers to getting married - it costs about £100. It is clear legally binding intent to form a contract and merge assets.

if you want those protections then enter the contract.

Ultimately the government will bring this in if it saves them money.

I'm not sure that it will though.

The so-called underclass of unemployed people having babies will cost the same regardless.

And how many women are there actually left penniless anyway?
I should imagine most cohabiting couples have joint mortgages, renting and working.
How many unmarried women giving up work for years to raise children are there?
Not many.
As for Muslim people what's the rate of them breaking up?

And, frankly, the government really have no f*ing business at all getting involved in the love lives of couples without children.
That really would be overreach and worth marching against.

I think it should be used to encourage cohabitation agreements/ contracts and in the absence of them be a fall back option.
I think it should probably be limited to cohabiting couples with shared children (including adult children and deceased children).

Exactly. But people want a

✨wedding✨
✨party✨
✨to be a princess for a day and feel so special✨
✨fancy photos✨
✨a day that is all about me me me me✨

Often ppl want to be married - but confuse getting married with having a party and say "it just isnt a priority right now with the kids"

It should be, you idiot.

Men are adults and like all adults they should fact the consequences of their actions...

This includes stopping their contraception to get a women pregnant who isn't married to them.

Why are we still prioritising men in 2026?

I was waiting for someone to say this.

It called CMS.

Whether or not you think it is fit for purpose is another matter but it is there - CMS.

Perhaps we should scrap this proposal (that interferes with childfree people) and look at the one is designed for parents - and make CMS fit for purpose.