Labour and common law marriage pledge

[SlamPunked]

I heard about this today, and I'm keen to know what non-married childfree people think of it? Especially how it applies to childfree people.

It's essentially a pledge from Labour to give cohabiting couples similar rights on separation to married couples. The pledge lacks details, but there are models in other countries that could be followed.

Obviously I understand the benefits for many individuals (people with children, people who are victims of abuse). However, I (40W) have purposefully decided not to marry my partner (55M) to protect my assets (been together over 10 years).

We both came to the relationship with nothing apart from debt. But now I have a really well-paid job that has allowed us both to pay off our debts and buy a house (get a mortgage) as equal owners.

But I earn a lot more than him (4x his salary) and save a lot of money in my pension. He tends to waste his money on clothes and hobbies, and has no pension to speak of. Day-to-day I cover bills, holidays etc, he pays for food and trips to the pub. If we break up (you never know what the future holds), I don't want him to have a claim on my pension too when I've already been bankrolling him for many years.

It isn't clear what a reform would do exactly, but it also feels a bit unfair in my case. If I wanted him to have a claim on my savings, I would have married him.

I would love others' perspectives, especially for how it applies to childfree people. Maybe I'm just being an arse, but when I read about the pledge I automatically thought "oh no". The pledge is pitched as something to help women who have sacrificed their career for children. But what about career women who have climbed the ladder, and have a lower earning partner? I'm not saying I want the former to suffer for my sake, instead I'm asking for nuance in how it's applied.

That’s a terrible idea and a disaster waiting to happen.

Similar position to you op, and against this for the same reasons. If someone wants to share assets, get married. If you don’t, you don’t! I am happily in a relationship, no kids, I have a good job, house, etc. No way is my partner getting a chunk of my house or pension unless we decide to marry, in which case it’s an agreed part of the deal.

I disagree. This should be something you opt in to (maybe we could call it marriage) not something you have to opt out of.

sharing any assets acquired during the living together period

How would this be defined, though?

We own our house 50:50 already, that's simple. And we put equal amounts into the joint bills account, so splitting that down the middle would also be fine.

But part way through our relationship my partner took several years out of the workforce to retrain for a new career (which he financed himself, but I took on more of discretionary spending until he was earning again). He now has higher earnings than I do but is significantly behind on pension. If we split assets equally at this point he'd end up with a good chunk of my pension, and be able to earn more than I do in future. So he'd end up a lot better off.

its the same as anything these days - shaft the informed to protect those too lazy to do their own research

Energy price cap - was brought in to protect those who stayed with the same supplier and never shopped around for a new deal. All that happened was the price rose for everyone.

Removal of low quote incentives for insurance new policies - to protect those who never shopped around. all that happened was the people who did their research end up paying more.

So here we have - cohabiting common law to protect those whose blindly walk into a situation with no research. Those who know their situation and have researched get shafted again.

there is only so far you can go to protect the terminally lazy.

It's a frightening reach into your private life. What's next?

If you want to get married, do it. Don't if you don't. The idea adults can't choose for themselves but the state will make that choice for you is bordering on criminal.

A form that you download and sign together in front of a witness that says "although we have lived together as romantic partners for two years, we want to be treated as flatmates, and neither of us will have any claim over any property in each other's name"

Everyone's on the same page, everyone knows where they stand

And what happens if and when they split? do they have to officially revoke that agreement? do they have to get legal advice each time? what if one side doesn't want to make it official? does that mean that they have the same legal protections in case of a split as a married couple? because if they do it strikes me as a lot less complicated just to get married.

I have kids. Hope it’s ok to comment.

But I also live with a partner, in my own home and we do not want to share assets. Why should we (anyone who chooses the same) have to go get a legal document to opt out, when you there’s several choices to opt in?

and saying ‘oh women just don’t understand they have no rights over the property if they aren’t married’ is infantilising women. Women can find out the information they need to when making decision about where to live or wether to have a baby. Why would anyone think they are entitled to something they don’t own? Women aren’t stupid and don’t need laws put in place to mitigate every bad decision they might make.

and I don’t think this will protect women who have kids with men and live in a house owned by the man, have kids then split. I fully believe the men know what they are doing. They simply won’t live with them and there will be plenty of women still willingly having kids with them.

It will be damaging to women (with or without kids) when they are the ones with assets.

100% agree.

This comes up every so often and I’m not in favour.

Now that same sex marriage is legal, the rights of marriage aren’t denied to anyone. It’s an active choice to not get married.

There are also so many questions about how this works.

Are the rights from day 1 of a relationship?
what about if the relationship started before both parties were 18, does that time count?
why should couples who don’t want to legally register their relationship have to legally register their relationship (opt out)?
how do you prove when a relationship started?

I completely agree. It's infantilising one group of adults and protecting them against their own inaction in obtaining what they want, whilst simultaneously expecting another group of adults to be aware and informed and to ensure they put themselves out to maintain their actively chosen status quo.

What will they suggest next? Automatically pay child benefit to all adults, and make it compulsory to ensure you send the money back if you don't have children - just in case those adults who do have kids can't quite be bothered to submit their simple claim for it?

and saying ‘oh women just don’t understand they have no rights to the property if they aren’t married’ is infantilising women. Women can find out the information they need to when making decision about where to live or wether to have a baby. Why would anyone think they are entitled to something they don’t own? Women aren’t stupid and don’t need laws put in place to mitigate every bad decision they might make

I have to disagree on this one. I've see numerous threads on here of the 'we've been together 20 years, have three kids, never married and I'm a SAHM, now he wants me out, what rights do I have?' variety to know that a lot of women don't bother to find out this information (because, you know, it's a bit sordid and cold-blooded to think about stuff like that when you're in love) and/or think they don't need to know it because it will never happen to them. And the 'we're free spirits, it's just a bit of paper,' types, as well. So a lot of women DO make stupid life altering decisions and then wonder why they're being shafted. (And in fairness, I see a lot of women who are fully informed and eyes wide open to their situation).

I just don't think that legislation that will almost certainly turn out to be a complete dog's breakfast is the answer.

What happens if a couple disagree on their relationship status? If one says "partners" and the other says "flatmates"? Especially as you can have sex without being in a relationship, and be in a relationship without having sex. If you break up before the deadline but don't move out until after, are you still defacto married? What if you're legally married to A, but living with B? What about polyamorous relationships?

I can see arguments for (and against) something like this when a couple has a child, but not for something as ambiguous as living together.

I've see numerous threads on here of the 'we've been together 20 years, have three kids, never married and I'm a SAHM, now he wants me out, what rights do I have?'

Yes. See also the "he keeps saying he's going to propose but it's been five years and we have two kids now. He gets angry whenever I ask about it because he says I'm ruining the surprise". 🙄

My late father used to make the point that marriage is in effect a contractual relationship as it gives the partners certain rights over each other in terms of money and property.

The issue it seems to me is that you could end up with a former partner being able to make a claim against you without you having any intention to enter into an agreement with them.

We have this in Sweden, we refer to is as being sambo, the default is 50/50, one limitation is that it doesn’t cover inheritance, so property would go to next of kin, rather than a partner in the absence of a will. You can define your sambo status rather than 50/50, so if I moved in with a partner who owned a property they could have this completely excluded from a sambo agreement.

Which is what a lot of people don't get about marriage - essentially it's a contract between two people with legal protections if it breaks down.

And let's not even start about issues of intestacy and inheritance and how they'll be affected.

Why not enforce child maintenance payments like every other country does?

Men don’t need more rights.

Deadbeat dads don’t need more rights. Really.

They do enforce child maintainance.

I agree with you OP - maybe the compromise is to have it as an opt in, rather than opt out but as PP said, why should the well informed be sacrificed for the ill informed?

70 per cent of absent fathers don’t pay maintenance. Or equal 50/50 custody.

Fix children’s rights first.

We already have opt in, it’s called marriage.

Surely, if a government really cares about unmarried parents being properly informed about how they stand, there are multiple ways that they can get the word out - letters, social media, promotions on MN or in magazines, TV & radio adverts etc.

If they have money to spend on TV campaigns to inform people that, if they break down on the motorway, they should try to get across to the hard shoulder and not just yank on the handbrake in the outside lane, they must also have money to protect unmarried people and children.

Sadly, I think there are a lot of people out there who just point-blank refuse to listen or assume that 'it's obvious what I want to happen', however much you try to hammer the information into their heads.

Without wanting to derail or re-open old threads, look at pension age changes and how many women have claimed that they never received any letters, never saw anything online, never saw anything on TV, never noticed billboards. They will quite happily admit that they never watch TV news or adverts, don't read newspapers, don't glance at current affairs online, never look at Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc., don't listen to what topics people around them are discussing.

In spite of everybody else's best efforts, some adults just refuse 'to adult' regardless - but it's still always somebody else's fault that they haven't done anything for themselves.

An opt in means your relationship is regularised by the state and you might not want it to be (as in 'marriage is just a bit of paper'). If you've chosen not to get married, recognise the downsides to that, and have it arranged to your mutual (and informed) satisfaction, what business is that of the state?

That’s because they haven’t bothered to find out. When I bought a house, or rented or bought a car, or sent my child to school, started a new job etc I have looked into my rights and responsibilities.

Where you live is a huge decision. If you just decide to move into a home you don’t own, why wouldn’t look at your rights? Why would you assume you are entitled to a portion of something you don’t own? When does that ever usually happen?

and yes, I believe that plenty of women know when they enter this sort of relationship. But when it doesn’t suit they claim ignorance. Because it’s easier to say I didn’t know than I did know but believed this would never happen to me

But also, where are the parents or parental figures in this? Should we start laying down compulsory parenting lessons that you must give your child and prove that you have done? Have your child take an exam? Consequences if they fail? That way you could include this as Subject matter then no one can claim ignorance.

I don’t think they should do that but That makes more sense that taking away some people rights because some other people make choices that were bad ones.

people should have the right to choose wether they want a relationship that combines finances and assets. Women, even those with children will not be the winners here.