Legal advice needed for cohabitation split

[Diamondback]

A sister of a friend is going through a bad break up and I need some expert advice, so anyone with experience of the legal area would be great!

She's lived with her partner for 12 years and gave up work (with the agreement of both) 11 years ago to be a SAHM. Her support has enabled him to build a career where he earns well in excess of £100k. They have three children. The house is in his name only.

Now that he has suddenly decided to leave and swan off with a new girlfriend, she has been advised by her solicitors that - bar child support - she can claim absolutely nothing and is basically stuffed.

Is this correct? I know that there's no common law entitlements and that being unmarried does leave you wide open, but is there absolutely no chance that she can sue him for some kind of support? I know she has no automatic rights, as in a marriage, but is there nothing she can do?

I'm afraid she has no right to any ongoing support for herself. The only question is whether she is entitled to a share of the house or any other assets.

Looking at the house (which is likely to be the main asset), the fact that it is in his name only will make it harder for her to claim anything. If this went to court, they would look at what she and her ex agreed, whether she made any contribution towards purchasing the property and who paid for the mortgage, repairs, etc. If she hasn't made any significant financial contribution towards the house (e.g. by paying part of the deposit) and can't prove there was an agreement giving her a slice of it she won't be entitled to anything.

So her solicitors are probably right. Sorry.

yes she can only claim child support. but 3 children is 20 per cent of his earnings (but be careful if he self employed/owns his own comnany...)

nothing for her.

and as her name was not on the house then nothing from that.

Three children is actually 25% of his earnings after tax, National Insurance and pension contributions if you use the CSA. It will, however, be reduced if the children spend an average of 52 nights a year or more with him.

Crikey - what a mess! Thanks for all your help though. I'll let her know about the childcare thing - maybe he'll be a bit amenable to an amicable arrangement money is going to become tied to access - no wonder people end up using their kids as ammo :(

Be careful about tying money to access. The courts take a very dim view of that. Their starting point is that the children have a right to see their father. That is completely separate from the mother's right to child maintenance.

Thanks babybarrister - her solicitors attitude seems to just be 'you're screwed, get used to it', so I was wondering if it was worth getting second opinions.

I'll pass the info onto her about Schedule 1 (but not about access relating to maintenance - it's just too awful to even touch and besides, I hardly think he'll be bothered as he's just got himself a 1 bedroom, super-expensive bachelor pad miles away from the kids and announced he's working all over Christmas - knobtastic).

I love mumsnet: you learn something from it everyday.
Babybarrister (or anyone else), does the phrase, 'use of the house' mean the woman (or main carer) gets to actually OWN the house or is it that she gets to STAY in house but is asked to leave when child reaches adulthood?
After all, if she has no rights and it is only the children that do it seems illogical that she gets to stay there once children are considered legally old enough to care for themselves IYSWIM.
Or does it mean something else?

Sadly, if a demonstration was needed that "common law marriage" doesn't exist, it's a sad story like this.

I think (though I'm not a legal person) that it may be possible for her and the DC to stay in the house, supported by the ex, until the youngest is 18. (The owner could then sell it, or move back in, or whatever.) It's worth exploring?

Maybe, tokyonambu, but not all cohabitees wish to be tied legally to one another in any way and this needs to be considered.
After all, there is the option of marriage available to those that do wish the legal binds of wedlock.

"not all cohabitees wish to be tied legally to one another in any way and this needs to be considered. "

Yes, but in the OP case, there's an asymmetry of power. If the woman in this case knew she'd have no recourse, then fair enough (although that she's with solicitors implies she's not happy with the outcome). But if she believed in some sort of "common law marriage" to protect her, as an awful lot of people do (my father did CAB advising for some years, and says it was a common misconception) then it's as well to point out that no such thing exists.

And if it's a man who doesn't want to marry and a woman who stops work to have children, that may well not end up well. As in this case.

tokyonambu I am not sure I agree with you about 'asymetry of power'.
IF the relationship is to be viewed in purely economic terms, then while the sahp has indeed spent a lot of time physically looking after children the father has also made an equal contribution to children by working to put roof over the family's heads.

So assuming looking after children is equal, then we are left with the economic transactions of sahp and working parent and I am afraid that what the sahp HAS received is free board and lodgings for the duration of the relationship.
So, in my view, the sahp has already been 'paid' for her work as sahp.
If people then go on to say that it is the quality of the relationship that led the man to earn lots of money, then-sorry to be frank- but seems to me to be implying that women should somehow be 'paid' for emotional and sexual services .
Therefore, as regards each other the sahp and working parent owe each other no monies.
Sorry to be brutally cold, but that is the way I see it.
I don't personally like seeing relationships in this way- but it is hard not to when people get down to the nitty-gritty and financial 'rewards'.
Marriage is different because the couple made a formal declaration of coupleship so I suppose it is assumed that both members of couple -in everything they do- are working for the benefit of family.

But there we are- the opening poster has been told there is a glimmer of hope in all this and that is all that matters.

agree with prhbridge re maintenance and also babybarrister with regards to the possibility of a schedule 1 application. Definitely worth a try but of course she will have to bear in mind that once the youngest reaches majority she will need to vacate the property so would need to think about her long term plans