Should long-term unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples?

[EverymanJustice]

I was reading that the government is looking at giving more legal rights to unmarried couples who live together for years or have children together.
Do you think that's a good idea?
If a couple have lived together for 10 or 20 years and built a life together, should they have similar rights to a married couple if they separate?
Or should marriage remain different?

No. I have taken the decision not to marry for a good reason.

I (and most women) are not stupid. I don't want the state over-riding my decision.

I think more needs to be done with cms and the terrible system which needs overhauling as children and suffering massively

Definitely not. If you want the rights of marriage then get married or get a civil partnership. It has huge financial implications and should be done through positive choice, not default.

There is a long thread on this here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5538910-consultation-on-unmarried-couples-sharing-assets-when-they-break-up

No, I don't think people should be able to sleepwalk into legal contracts. If you want the legal benefits of marriage, get married.

Nope. They can get married if they want the same rights fgs.

Absolutely not. I want my inheritance to go to my children if there is an inheritance. I’m currently married and DH feels the same. If either of us died and the other has a new relationship then not marrying is currently the best way to make sure our children inherit.

No. It’s a hill I will die on. And I’m married.

Marriage is a choice to opt in to those rights and responsibilities. Why should they be forced on anyone. If you want them, get married.

It’ll mean people not being able to live together in old age because they need to protect their assets for their children and that’s an absolutely ridiculous infringement by the state.

As someone that was unmarried with a partner and children for many years and recently did a civil partnership after 30 years, I say no. As others have said, some people deliberatley dont want legal a contract, for valid reasons, and when you do, it should be an active choice, for other valid reasons.

We did it purely for the legal protection, but I'd much rather not have had to. It's not necessary in other countries, I don't see why it should be here. We had already been together 20+ years, owned a house together etc, but after seeing how difficult it was for a friend when her dp passed we decided it would be a good idea. There should at least be another option that can be written up by a solicitor, like a cross between a marriage and a will imo.

Which bit of marriage did you object to? What did you want that power of attorney and a will wouldn’t have given you? And why was a civil partnership not an adequate solution to that?

I’m genuinely interested in what your solution is, and how you think that forcing those rights and responsibilities in to people who don’t want them based on their living arrangements is the right answer?

yes but not automatically applied by the state which, as other have said, could prevent people with kids living together post divorce/splits.

I would support anyone that fathers a child having a bit more legal obligation to pay for them though.

No. Unmarried couples already have the right to share property however they mutually agree when they split, what they don’t currently have is an entitlement to the other persons property.

If you want your partner to be entitled to your property then you can formally consent to it by getting married.

That’s what civil partnership is for!

a big problem is defining “long term” in this context - 5 years? 30 years?? It creates a cliff edge for relationships which the unscrupulous could exploit. Marriage or civil partnership is really not difficult, neither is writing a Will.

Civil partnership is available. How would officialdom know you have been living as if married for a long time?

Absolutely not, regardless of length of time. If that is what you want, you marry/civil partnership/specific legal agreements for specific assets etc.

The protections for children do need to be strengthened, but this should be done via increased CMS powers rather than focussing on what kind of relationship their parents had.

Is this a way for our tax hungry government to tax? To ensure that the state doesn't fund non married couples, especially those who have no assets and would claim, but with assets... Just a thought.

Agree. And that's why we eventually did a civil partnership after 30 years (marriage wasnt for me), even though we own property jointly, have always had mirror wills, named on each other's pension expression of wish etc

Well more for inheritance tax planning (theone thing you cant mitigate for as an unmarried couple) and security/ease of processing our estate following a death in the family and seeing first hand what an undertaking it is (I was executor).

Marriage, civil partnerships, cohabitation agreements, wills… there are plenty of options available to cohabiting couples already. You should have to opt-in to any legally binding contract, not sleep walk in. Very dangerous precedent that it sets.

No. They have the option to marry if they wish. Many do not marry for good reasons, such as divorced women with assets who want to preserve those for their children.

I do, however, think there should be more legal protections for unmarried people (in practice mostly women) having children and making themselves financially vulnerable. It shouldn’t be possible for their partners to just throw them out on the street with their children. In a lot of these cases the male partner refuses to marry once they have children.

They're aiming to protect (mainly young) mothers who find themselves doing all the wifework for a commitment-phobe whilst working part time or not at all, who then find themselves in financial trouble when miladdo decides to end the relationship. These newly-single mothers often end up claiming Universal Credit, social housing, free dentistry, free school meals etc etc. which is costly to the taxpayer.

The solution is a publicity campaign aimed at these women about the legal protections that marriage and civil partnership offer. This should go hand-in-hand with forcing fathers to support their kids properly after a breakup.

The solution is not this absurd suggestion that’s going to be a ballache for (mainly older) unmarried couples and a real danger for wealthy vulnerable folks.

No - if you want legal protection then you have several options alreasy available. I'd far rather the Govt put their time and effort into overhauling the system so that parents (mainly men) had to pay adequate child maintenance and couldn't avoid doing so.

No I don’t, marriage/civil
partnership is an active decision. It’s dangerous to be able to slip into those rights when you hit 3 years.

Agreed. If these rules came into force, a long term flatmate could gain rights to your assets! They could claim you were in a relationship, and how could you disprove that?

An awful lot of people cohabit. Of all ages these days. And a variety of circumstances. If people for whatever reason choose to do so but are in a long term loving relationship then they should have rights to leave assets to each other, to be able to be considered next of kin etc.
Many are in relationships that last longer than many marriages.