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?

I wouldn't do it through cohabitee rights but through stronger enforcement of the existing arrangements.

That would raise a lot of children (and their mothers - as it is usually the mothers who end up in this situation) out of poverty which can only be positive for society.

It might also make some men think twice before impregnating women left right and centre and then buggering off.

Yes, but you can bugger off if you're married. The CSA (which dealt with married people as well as cohabitees) wasn't fit for purpose.

Honestly, I think that if cohabitee rights came in, only those absolutely serious about their relationship would cohabit.
It would certainly make people think twice. Maybe that is a good thing, however, I'm still against cohabitee rights on principle that people have a right Not to have legally-binding relationships.

'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.'

Is that correct? Most NRPs don't pay?

"I'm still against cohabitee rights on principle that people have a right Not to have legally-binding relationships."

Which is exactly why I'm against them also.
Adults have a right to arrange their own affairs. If people want to get married and legally tie themselves then they can do just that, there's a mechanism and social contract for that.
Equally they have every right to live together and be together without legally binding themselves.
The courts are not there to impose and construct contracts where the parties concerned have elected not to contract themselves.

Most NRPs that are being chased through the CSA youllbewaiting, sorry that wa sloppy!

I have no idea how many in genera pay, or don't pay.

In fact I can't now remember where I saw that, will google and try and find it.

The point that there are an awful lot of NRPs who don't meet their obligation towards their children is still there though. And that this is a key reason for child poverty.

Bleeding heck I can't find it now! OK strike that particular statement - but the point remains.

I absolutely think that when a child comes into a relationship then it changes that relationship. And that both parents have a duty to provide for that child which at the moment is not be met in too many cases.

agree completely and think that there is a shocking short-fall in the steps being taken to make NRP's accountable for their duties to provide for their children.

The trouble with all this is that it's a legal nightmare (as uphill so eloquently put in legalese above- none of which I understood).

When you live with someone you are making small agreements with them every day. I think it would help kick people up the backside if they knew that letting someone live with them long term could lose them their home. They would make arrangements if they had to. And then if people continue to bicker they can always get Judge Judy to sort them out. And Jeremy Kyle can sort it out if there are children involved.