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?

I don’t disagree at all. I was simply responding to the poster I quoted about her situation and how she can protect her assets for her children herself, without having to rely on a surviving spouse to do the sensible thing.

…and I totally agree with this.

If people want the financial protection of marriage or civil partnership they should have to opt in. People making stupid choices is a concern (unmarried SAHM for instance) but the answer to that is education.

But they do already? IHT is an issue for some, but not many. Next of kin isn’t a legal term. You can nominate anyone as POA or add them as “NOK” for hospital purposes.

Well call me cynical but I don't think the whole point of this consultation is to get feedback. I think one of the main points of having this consultation is so they can say they have had a consultation.

It does not make it easy to say that you disagree with the whole proposition. There is no easy 'do you agree that the current law on co-habitation needs changing' question.

And I also think that one of the benefits to the government from all of this is that the financially weaker party will benefit. Which spreads money around and presumably may help lower the benefits bill. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I also think some of the main beneficiaries will be lawyers, as a whole load more people need to take things to court.

It’s mad to me that anyone thinks this is a good idea. Marriage is an active decision that a couple makes to become legally and financially joined (and of course, all that comes with marriage!) and, as has been said, it seems bonkers to basically override anyone’s free will and force them together legally. There’s any number of reasons to remain unmarried and so many reasons to get married, but there isn’t a right or a wrong, or a one size fits all!

No I don’t think so. For all the reasons mentioned already on this thread, mostly to do with inheritance and protecting their children. If people have been together for 20+ years and haven’t got married I would assume they have done that for a reason and have thought about it carefully. I don’t believe legal contracts should be forced upon them.

the only situation that gives me pause is sadly something I see fairly regularly. One half of a happily unmarried couple ends us incapacitated with us in ICU and is unable to advocate their wishes. Then comes an estranged child who refuses entry to the patients partner or any information to be given to them because of some family feud. You then have a loving long term partner heartbroken not knowing if their partner is alive or dead or dying and we’re not allowed to tell them because they aren’t next of kin. It’s heartbreaking but this is obviously not common and not a reason to override people’s legal rights but it is something for unmarried people to think about!

Really? I was under the impression that didn't really happen in the UK these days. Do you see it much?

not hugely common but it does happen on occasion and it’s very sad. If the person is awake when they come in and name their NOK then it’s fine but if unconscious and the whole family including adult children are naming themselves as the next of kin and are saying they don’t want any info given to anyone but them and don’t want so and so to visit then our hands are tied unfortunately. We can really override the family despite our opinions. It can unfortunately get very messy with family dynamics at times in the ICU when stress levels are high.

Do you ask for proof of ID/ marriage certificate etc. from people claiming to be NOK? Sorry, a bit off topic but very interesting.

Wouldn’t be much of a protection if both parties had to agree to it. The kind of deadbeats who screw over their unmarried partners and walk away without a backward glance would just deny the relationship.

That all sounds very difficult.

I think there would be a lot of unintended consequences and it could lead to increased elder abuse/coercion

rather than change the law I think it would be better to educate people on the risks of entwining yourselves financially without legal security

I have been a long term labour voter and I am feeling so disgusted by this proposal that I don’t think I will ever vote for them again if this goes through. They are overstepping massively with this and I feel it could be against the Human Rights Act. They would be utter fools to go ahead with this when so many people are against it. PLEASE fill in the consultation if you feel the same way. We absolutely must fight against this. They have no right to do this with people’s private assets when many have consciously chosen to protect them in the many cases of second relationships when you have children of your own to consider in terms of inheritance, not to mention protection of your own assets when you have worked so hard for them.

Yes. That's how it is where I live and I agree with it. I got married because I wanted to, not because we needed some sort of contract.

I hope we've got enough housing stock to house all those people who were or would be happily cohabiting but don't fancy being 'married off' by the state because they accidentally hung around too long?

I'm in Australia, who has these laws already. They work well to protect unmarried women who have children, and often have very little 'penson' (our private pension is defined by what you put in, govt pension by asset/income test). They can get a chunk and can't be kicked out without anything.

However, if DH were to die, I'd never be able to live with anyone again. I have a mortgage free house & decent pension/ would have insurance money as well. But a live in partner can claim some of this, and will likely win, in the event of a split or inheritance. My DC could end up with nothing, or I could end up going from comfortable to never being able to afford to own a property again.

It's not worth it. I love the UK laws where you can't claim unless married, although I do think provisions where children/default parenting are involved, could be included. Perhaps women should be taught to never put themselves in that vulnerable position.

No. I don't agree with this. It is very ill thought out.

If people want these rights then they should either marry or make a civil partnership. If, for valid reasons, they don't want this then they shouldn't have it forced on them by default.

It will end up creating a situation where those who don’t want to marry will end up having to enter into some sort of legal contract in order to protect their assets surely!

This exactly.

More work for solicitors

Surely I’d people don’t get married they chose so for a reason? Many people choose not to get married specifically to keep their finances separate.
I just don’t understand the logic, if you want the protection of marriage then get married. It’s not as if a traditional religious service is the only option.

They’re trying to fix a problem there’s already a solution for.

if people aren’t marrying and making themselves financially vulnerable then maybe they need to consider better education (so people don’t believe the common law nonsense).

if there are no kids involved I don’t really understand why one partner should be entitled to more than their contribution if they split

if there is financial abuse then perhaps there should be the ability to sue on that basis