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.

Again that makes no sense.

Tories haven’t been in power for 50 years. I think they definitely should have done it while they are in powers but they didn’t. Like Labour didn’t.

But Labour are the ones wanting to bring this in. So they think it’s an issue and jumping straight to ‘we can’t trust women to be educated and make their own decisions so we will change the law.

and the education isn’t about the virtues of marriage. It’s about education and making a choice appropriate for you.

I don’t see Labour as less concerned with marriage. But they are the ones wanting to tie people into legal relationships they haven’t actively entered. But if they are less bothered about marriage, then education should definitely be the go to. Know the facts and make up your own mind and if marriage is the best decision, do that.

I think it makes perfect sense. I blame both parties for not educating people on the non-existence of common-law marriage.

I'm only surprised that the Conservatives didn't do it because it would inevitably be seen as promoting marriage. The Thatcher/Major government could have done it, I can't see the Blair/Brown government doing it.

OTOH adults are apparently so dense, they require this measure to protect them.

OTOH, 16yos are apparently so mature, they despite not being allowed to lawfully marry in England and wales, they should have the vote.

Which is it?

An Australian news article about a young woman who had a relatively short de facto relationship and it cost her 20k to break up (and it was amicable and the guy doesn’t sound abusive - just income disparity)
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11174252

I’ve been reading articles from Australian law firms. All the downsides are definitely present.
I found this one especially interesting because it seems that the law doesn’t even protect “the financially abused, unmarried SAHM” that well. Apparently it takes time to prove the exact dates and that the relationship even existed. Unlike with marriage, there’s no spending injunction so the abusive spouse can just run down/hide his assets until there’s nothing left to split anymore once the court date comes.
https://www.zandelaw.com.au/uncategorised/legal-loop-holes-to-cause-major-problems-for-de-facto-couples/

I agree blame both. But that wasn’t your original point. You talked about Tories not doing anything in 60 years. Then about how it would align more to Tories values than Labour.

Educating isn’t about promoting marriage. It’s about educating to make your own decision.

It's really incredible like people don't understand the difference , married and unmarried?. More like they are not allowed to understand ,it's incredibly stifling.

Sn opt out would pay money.

You can't just "sign a fork" as sone people would then claim they didn't understand it or were coerced.

This both sides would need independent lawyers. And probably full financial disclosure made.

And of course the timing means you'd have to sign before 2 years up or split up. So significant undue influence on the one about to be kicked out.

So who wants to be the first woman to "trust the process" that it will work out?

We have had pre nups for years but even now they are not to be relied upon. So it's safest not to marry. Now we won't be allowed to live with a partner either without risking assets.

However these men are generally getting a great deal-not paying rent )as mortgages paid off or we don't want issues of property claim) so plenty of money can be saved. It's highly unlikely we would be living with men who don't work at all. Just lower income comparatively.

I would like to know this, too.

Very, very often childless women in the workplace or in any financial sphere are almost seen as being like men, because they aren't affected by the mummy track and don't have the financial burden of children. I'm opposed to that, because we are women, so suffer the disadvantages of patriarchy, and being seen as de facto men leaves us vulnerable.

I'd be very concerned that women who have financially profited from not having kids would be vulnerable to having claims against them from men when she deliberately tried to protect herself against this by not getting married or entering into a civil partnership.

This will inevitably be handwaved away because nobody gives a shit about feminism or misogyny or patriarchy unless it's about women who have kids, but it's a very real concern for me.

I strongly believe this policy is not about protection of any sort and it def doesn't think about high earners/ high net worth. It's a sneaky way to control benefits claims and ensure the separating cohabiting couples can be forced to share assets so lower earner isn't able to claim.

Higher earners will be screwed on this front as well

In all honesty I don't think so, but I don't know. I do know many many couples who have broken up who would legally be considered de facto and yet it would never occur to them to consider themself such, or seek a legal division of assets (as opposed to just, I'll take my car and you'll take yours, see you later). It's just not the cultural norm.

However for people who have purchased property together it may be more likely.

Or where one partner is just a dick.

I totally get the concern and am not seeking to say "oh that will never happen". I'm just finding it interesting to see a really concerned conversation about something I had never thought to question or be concerned about!

Also- you made really good points generally. I work in a sector with a proportionately high amount of childfree women (law)- but by nature of the sector they're also very equipped to protect themselves, so my sample is skewed.

How would the opt-out work if one partner wanted it and the other didn’t?

As a couple of PP have raised 'most women don't claim' is only 1 side of the coin. How many men do claim?

I've seen many times how controlling and abusive men can use the divorce process to continue exerting their power. What safeguards are there to prevent them doing the same with the cohabitation split process?

Yes- it's a good point. I do know that where division of assets is concerned the whole of the context is taken into account by the court- it's not just "you lived together for 2 years so cough up half your assets". It is supposed to be fair and what both people brought into the relationship (asset wise) is usually excluded.

On the flip side, of course all this means having to go through the heartache of a legal process, paying for a lawyer, having your own life adjudicated; a horrible process for anyone.

Sort of the same as when a marriage ends then?

So as I already did this once and believe me the solicitors got more out of my divorce than either of us, I am not of a mind to do this again.

If labour do bring out this proposal into law, I'm dumping my long term fella out.

Just how stupid are some MPs/political parties that they think this big stick will solve any problems?

Itll solve a few, not many I'd guess. And as a pp noted, this is only proposed now as more and more women earn better.
Heres the new patriarchy, same as the old patriarchy.

The same as when one partner wants to get married and one doesn't I assume - they both decide whether they can compromise, and if not they split.

*You're talking about not wanting to have your choice removed in order to protect others, and that's perfectly reasonable.

Would you be happy to have this introduced if there was a simple opt out process which you could choose.*

No, because there are already opt ins I.e. marriage/civil partnership.

People need to take responsibility for their own decisions, we should educate people on what the different options mean but why penalise everyone because some people are unable to behave like adults and consider the potential impact of having kids and giving up work with a dickhead that won't commit properly.

Inevitably those dickheads will talk their partner into signing an opt out, or will just kick them out at 1 year 11 months , because they do tend to know their rights

I'd guess the one that wanted would just have to give a 'sign it or I'll end the relationship' ultimatum

What’s the point, then? If they were prepared to make that ultimatum, they could do it over marriage. They could do that now. They don’t.

No of course they don't do it now, because it's an opt in rather than an opt out.

So they just string their partner along with 'we will get married we just (enter excuse here)' for years instead.

Do we really believe these same men who are so against marrying their SAHM partners will walk blindly into sharing assets by virtue of living together for a couple of years?

@SoEmbarrassed2024 Do we really believe these same men who are so against marrying their SAHM partners will walk blindly into sharing assets by virtue of living together for a couple of years?

I think a lot will actually. We shouldn't underestimate the power of apathy.

I disagree. Men are often well informed about what a relationship will take from them.m and the risks it poses. I think the men who don’t marry a partner to protect their assets will continue to do so.

I think we will, eventually, see an increase of women shocked they pregnant by their boyfriend that they don’t live with and he still won’t live with her. Or women that have kids with a non live in partner and fed up then end up doing most of the childcare while the man goes back to his own house when he fancies. The second type already appears here from time to time.

and actually, if they don’t live with their partner we will likely see these women claiming benefits where they might not have been able to before.

@Itsonlymashadow Yup there will be that group of men who avoid marriage for those reasons, that's why I said 'I think a lot will', not 'all will'.

Would you be happy to have this introduced if there was a simple opt out process which you could choose.

If there's one thing you can be sure of, this process won't be simple. Anyone remember the much-trumpeted introduction of the 'flat rate' pension? except when you examined the detail it wasn't as simple as it was made out to be. This'll be the same, you can bet.

Yeah, itll cost loads, you'll need all kinds of id, you'll have to prove your mortgage is paid and you own the house. You'll have to pick a date that you started seeing each other or moved in together and that will be the date.

Usually with things like this, the proposer needs to tell us why its needed. Or we stick with the status quo.

I still dont know why its needed, except for some women. Why cant a law be made for those women, instead of this broad brush approach that will see more people homeless.

I'm sure there are better ways to go about this that doesnt involve a load of non consenting women. I don't consent to be faux married, if I wanted marriage, I'd damn well be married.