Unmarried couples to get same Rights as married couples

[caramelwaffle]

Just heard a news clip on the radio about a Case heard/decided yesterday that will point to giving unmarried couples the same rights as married couples (precedent/case law).

Has anyone heard further?

Hi - googling that sentence it seems to come from the Daily Mail - I think they might have misunderstood the proposals slightly (if you can believe that!) I think the FT has it better here FT and they are referring to the Law Comm report above.

Wamster, it is in the taxpayers interest to encourage (force) men to pay maintenance payments. The whole co-habiting thing does have large financial implications - single mothers without maintenance need more benefit and many can't work because too busy with children. Then the legal cases start up regarding contact and parental rights and the taxpayer ends up with a huge legal aid bill.

I suspect these changes are less to do with morals and duty, and more to do with the huge number of families that split into two homes that often end up being funded by the taxpayer.

If Dilysprice were in charge life could be so much better...

If I were Home Secretary I'd do a brief campaign (possibly put pressure on one of the soaps or the tabloids to run a story about tragic homeless bereaved girlfriends) and I'd put a downloadable pack on the government website with basic wills, property agreements, and a full guide to the full guide to the other things you need to consider.

You're right Dilys, it's only complicated because we make it complicated.

But if MARRIED a woman may get nothing. You're being too simplistic realhousewife. Meant in spirit of debate not too sound aggressive.

It is not in the taxpayers interest to force men to pay maintenance payments at all! Do you seriously think that if people are going to effectively be married by default they'll live together in first place? .

They just won't even cohabit anymore. Thus prompting a government plan to build new homes. Costing the taxpayer money!

Besides which, realhousewife, does your plan apply to couples without children? Because, seriously, if it does it stinks to high heaven. It would be
totally, totally anti-feminist treating women like cows to be maintained by men.

The government has resisted these laws and have stated that cohabitee rights won't be entertained in this parliament. They're not stupid; they know that the UNINTENDED consequence will be the mass break up of cohabiting couples before the laws come in.
Who in their right mind who has worked their bottoms off to buy a property will risk a casual partner moving in if it meant losing their home?
NOT entertaining these laws save money.

The very fact that only 4% of unmarried cohabiting couples are together after 10 years strongly indicates that for most people cohabitation is a kind of trial for actual marriage and not the end point.

wamster where is that stat from please?

I assume such a law wouldn't be gendered in any way though Wamster. I guess it would be more often men 'maintaining' women in reality of course, though there's no reason it shouldn't work the other way round, same as the current marriage/divorce situation.

I do agree it's a terrible idea either way. We're talking about adults here, I think it's fair to assume that if a couple have not entered into a legal arrangement (whether marriage or something else) about finances, houses etc, it's because they don't want to.

I think that we need to separate out the co-habiting part of living together and PARENTING. I can see no reason why co-habitees with no children should have any recourse to property or maintenance or a share of assets beyond what they put in. Co-habiting can be covered by owning a house as tennants on common, where each can own as separate entities the exact share of the house which reflects their deposit and mortgage contributions.

What is complicated is a co-habiting arrangement where there are children and a mis-match between financial contribution and childrearing contribution. DP and I co-habit and there is no issue - none of us gave up paid work, we make an equal cointribution to every area of our family lives. However, I think that there should be provision for the protection of PARENTING within co-habitation, just as there is within marriage. Not a repliciated marriage, but an accepted agreement that if you have a child you have responsibilities to the parent of that child just as you do to the child. That a parent who has stayed at home and brought up a child should not be made homeless the minute a relationship breaks up - and those rights are die to the parenting of the joint child.

Your situation is typical of most people, Blu, both unmarried parents working and contributing equally. This is why I don't see a need for a change in the law.

Anycase, while I totally agree that the children of any relationship should be provided for regardless of parental marital status, unmarried women who give up work to raise children who have no money of their own are being foolish I think but ultimately they are adults.
Their choice.

The bottom line for me is that either ownership of property has meaning or it does not.
NON-financial contributions should never be used to determine a share in the other person's property. Only tangible, financial ones should such as paying for an extension.
People talk of 'fairness'. TRUE fairness means giving people piece of mind and that is very simple: they get what they pay for.

I don't see that marriage provides much protection, either. A lot of married men don't even pay up. Marriage is no golden cure and extending 'marital' like rights is no cure, either.

completely disagree blu, if you have a child with anyone of course you have legal obligations and ties to that kid.
If as an adult you want legal ties to another or to have shared responsibilities with another then you should enter a contract to reflect that.

I agree with you Blu.

If people want to have shared legal contracts they should either sort it out themselves or get married.
Bringing in 'cohabitee rights' would effectively end cohabitation in the UK. If I were a man or woman (I'm married so none of this applies to me) who had worked my bottom off to buy a home there is no way that I would have a partner live with me if this came in.
The only time I would allow it would be if the relationship were serious and if it were I would probably get married, anyway.

I repeat: either property ownership has meaning or it does not.

Children = serious to my mind

Once you throw children into the mix it does change things IMO and that needs to be taken into account

Absolutely for people without children there should be no assumption of commitment.

I think it is different when there are children involved, but then the focus needs to be on the child's needs and wellbeing, i.e. the disruption of having to either leave the family home or be separated from their primary carer.

Yes, and there is already provision under the Children's Act to provide for the children so really any further state interference is unneccessary.

And children are taken into account.
You have a legal responsibility to that child.
You don't (and in my opinion nor should you) have legal responsibilities to any adult who you don't willingly bind yourself to through a legal contract.

So that is all agreed then.

What I was thinking was there might be situations where it could be judged in the best interests of the child for the primary carer (e.g. a SAHM) to be allowed to stay in the family home, even though (s)he doesn't have legal rights to the property. Maybe that sort of thing is covered already though?

Yup agreed. If you have a kid when not married you absolutely have a legal responsibility to support that child and provide for them. However you have absolutely no legal responsibilities or duties to your unmarried partner unless you elect to enter a legally binding contract with them.

Epiphiny it is covered.
You have a duty to house your kids to a certain age (18 I presume, but not familiar with the intricacie of uk family law) as such it may be deemed that in a shared home an order may be made where by the child has a right to remain in that home with a the primary carer until they reach the age of majority, then the house is to be sold and split in accordance with the % monetary contribution of each side.
I do however believe this is contingent on the primary career having some legal share of the house, so either name on the title or else having made financial contributions. If the House is owned 100% by the other party and in their sole name I don't think you can get such an order (or at least that was the case in Irish law when i last studied family law, a subject so tedious it will make you instantly forget all you have learned)

I think that there needs to be an allowance if someone has given up work / career / money to raise children if that decision was the decision of the family unit at the time.

In this case the OP talks about it seems that this sort of thing has been taken into account.

For people with no children it is ridiculous to introduce any cohabiting rules.

However given that they can't get most NRPs to cough up even laughably small child maintenance payments, I don't know that there is any point.

I do think that enforcing a real financial commitment when people reproduce would be a great thing for society.

Something we'll just have to agree to disagree on their SardineQueen I suppose.
If you decide to give up work and you are not married or have not contracted for the event with the other parent then for me the law has to treat that as a decision of the individual as they have both obviously made a decision to remain individual and unconnected in the eyes of the law. If they want to be treated as a single entity then marry/contract for it.

I guess I can imagine a situation where someone might end up inadvertently in that position - unplanned pregnancy, partner refuses to get married, mum has to give up work because she can't afford childcare and he won't contribute...not sure that hypothetical situation justifies introducing 'cohabitee rights' for everyone though, it would likely create more problems than it would solve. As long as the best interests of the child(ren) are taken care of, I think that's enough.

And I never thought I'd find myself saying this (I sound like my parents ), but maybe it would save a lot of difficulty if there was still the expectation that people would get married before living as though they were married...