No such thing as "Common Law Wife" even when you have a family together!

[MollyMumOf4]

I am new to mums net... So I am testing the waters...

Having finally completed a long journey to resolve the situation I shockingly found myself in, a few years ago, I am resolved to start campaigning. I would, at least, like to raise awareness of the holes in the archaic laws that determine the welfare of our children, ourselves and what accountability there is for unwed parents who chose to withdraw their support and fight their responsibilities. The dream would be to see a change in the Law in England to be more in line with that of Scotland and France.

I want to know what interest this issue can generate to help us change the system so we are not so dependent on CSA, Legal Aid (now withdrawn for unmarried parents) and ultimately the state benefits who mop up the financial responsibilities of unforthcoming parents.

Do you know someone who has had children and receives little or no support from their former partner? Have they lost hope?

With 6.5million couples in the UK choosing cohabitation over marriage, I suspect there is a large percentage of those, like I was, who are totally unaware of the dangers they may face.

Today, more children are born out of wedlock than within marital status. For most people, it is either impossible or not worth the litigation to try to change the situation. I was very lucky but I had seen 5 disappointing lawyers before my friend convinced me to try the last. I feel the weight of the masses of parents (mostly mothers) who are unable to attain any support from their ex-partners, let alone enough to lift them off, at least some of, the benefits they need to sustain family life for their children.

The media gives single parents on benefits a bad wrap. I had children with a multimillionaire, whom I loved and totally trusted, so to find myself homeless and destitute with two children (2 and 6 months old) was unbelievable. I was so grateful that the benefit system finally helped us, after a difficult initial introduction to their systems. After a whirlwind we have finally resolved our case to meet the needs of the children only but I think that is more than most people in my situation get. I hear a number of single parents say things like, "its not worth it" and "I want to prove I can do it alone".

I now want to make a difference to even a few other people who are ignorant of their true position. with the help and advice of my solicitor I will be initiating an undertaking to highlight these issues in the media but it is a long, arduous and scary undertaking if the other stories and support are not out there for us to connect with.

If it needs it, I am prepared to follow the charismatic and inspired lines of Fathers for Justice, who did so much for shared access. I have my superhero costumes at the ready. Are there people out there ready to support this cause? or do I have to dress up and visit the capital to help make a point many have tried to make before me.

Molly

Ab

Absolutely in favour of extending CPs to anyone who wants them (hope to avail of this myself) but not in favour of an automatic legal status being conferred on a relationship. And yes I have met people who think that common law status exists

I'm in favour of this campaign as I'm currently in the same position

I agree that there is far too much confusion about what rights cohabitees have & more accurately don't have. I'm glad your personal situation has been sorted out OP & you found a good solicitor. I think your idea for a campaign sounds great. I think there is a real need.

I think there is a great deal of confusion - maybe people on MN don't use the term 'common law wife' but across the country, plenty of people do, and even on MN there are very many posters who don't realise how vulnerable they are when having children outside marriage and doing the lion's share of child-rearing, putting their career second.

Just because some women are higher earners or are informed about the risks of cohabitation, doesn't negate the issue. It exists. And affects a lot of people - largely but not exclusively women and children, who suffer the consequences when relationships break down and the primary carer is impoverished.

A way of enabling legal rights for people who choose to co-habit but want some security would be a good thing. And a campaign to make people aware of the risks of cohabiting once you have children. People are free to choose how to organise their family, but need to be aware of the risks they may be taking.

(And we could add in something about giving the child the father's surname 'because we are going to get married at some point...')

We have cohabited for 12 years, with two children.
If we split up I would move back to my house (which we rent out), dp would still have his house. We have two children but I never gave up work and we earn about the same. Marriage would not make a jot of difference to us financially in the event of a split. Oh and the shares and savings are in my name so it would be dp getting worried in our case.

However I see time and again couples where the mother becomes sahm and lives in a house that is in the father's name only because he bought it before they met. Now in those instances it would be sensible to protect yourself re the house, by getting married. If the mother isn't working and chooses to become financially dependent on their partner, then in the event of a split she will be much worse of and dependent on csa/benefits whether married or not.

I do not want to see any legislation to give non-married couples the same legal protection as married, because as with the example given of the roommate students above, where would the courts draw the line?

OP I think you are looking for legislation for a problem that doesn't really exist. You are projecting your own naievety (sp?) onto other people who are generally more clued up than you give them credit for.

TheGirl - nothing religious about our marriage. Not in church, not by a religious person, nothing religious in ceremony. Just a legal contract. It's not archaic either. It makes us each other's next of kin, makes us both responsible for each other and our child. There's no difference between marriage and civil partnerships is there for a man/woman couple who are in a romantic relationship?

I wouldn't support a change in the law either. As well as the flatmates issue, I believe people should be free to choose to ringfence their assets, as your ex did (although I agree it's a great shame he's being such a cunt about supporting his children). I do support CP in general, but in your case, for instance, I can't see that it would have made much difference- if he wouldn't marry you, why on earth would he enter into a CP with you? In short, sorry to be so harsh but I think that if anyone chooses to make themselves financially dependent on another person without the piece of paper that will give them security, it's very much their lookout.

If people cant afford to see a solicitor before having children to find out what their legal status is then they really have no business having children have they? Theyre in for a shock when baby arrives needing clothes, pram, cot, childcare if they cant save up enough prior to that to see a solicitor.

I can't comment on any of the legal matters discussed but I was amazed when I left my ex partner at the amount of people that believed that rights as a common law wife existed. Maybe mumsnetters are more aware because of threads like this but there is certainly lots of people who have no idea.

I disagree Basket.

I think that a marriage contract just doesn't cut it in terms of what many people actually want to achieve from said contract. They get married as its the only option available to them.

A more pragmatic look at what the union/contract needs to address could be made into a CP type thing in my world

Yourebeingasillybilly not all pregnancies are planned in advance

Is it ok to be poor and pregnant if it was a contraception failure for example?

Yeah it is- i have had two unplanned pregnancies. Does that mean i think people shouldnt plan for pregnancies? No it doesnt- i had no business having children without making sure i had money to support them and was sure of the lagal situation i had put myself in. I didnt run around wailing when my relationship ended that the law should be changed because i didnt educate myself on my own legal status.

I think if you have assets or property and your partner doesn't it is not in your best interests to get married and vice versa. Luckily I realised this and didn't get married.

I think I am possibly misunderstanding you Youre but I'm certainly not running around wailing. Nor do I think Op is actually.

But from your last post you seem to be saying that mothers (by default of being the pregnant one) should be able to afford to have dc. Or else they have no business in having them.

The OP wants more legal clarification in terms of financial responsibility towards shared children. Or that's how I've read it. She felt she had to beg for school shoes from a millionaire ffs. That is just wrong in my opinion, married or not.

Many people do believe that by having a shared child that they are jointly responsible (financially in this discussion) for that child. The truth is they are not. Marriage goes some way to protecting the shared financial responsibility, but it really doesn't help at all anyway if one parent simply decides to absolve themselves.

happy dead right I am going through the process of getting rid of exP from my (financial) life. We have a declaration of trust from which to negotiate a settlement, but divorce would have cost me far more.

You are misunderstanding me.

Anyone intending to have a child should be planning on how they are going to fund that childs survival. I didnt mention mothers.

OP is bemoaning the fact that one of those parents decided to fuck off and not pay for his child anymore though.

She believes that many (not all) parents do not realise that if the other parent decides to fuck off they have no financial recourse easily available (unless married)

I mentioned mothers as quite clearly they are the ones having the child - my eldest child was planned, her father later decided unilaterally that he no longer wished to go halfies on paying for said child and that he wanted his freedom back I was literally left holding the baby. A marriage contract may have helped with this, but would almost certainly have also cost me half my assets.

I needed a different contract than what is available. I'm sure I'm not alone.

"She felt she had to beg for school shoes from a millionaire ffs. That is just wrong in my opinion, married or not." Of course it is wrong - but you can't legislate against people's nasty low nature. You can force them to pay a proportion of thier income for th upkeep of the child, and that law already exists - implemented via the CSA. Unmarried as well as married parents can apply to the CSA.

The big difference is that unless you are married a parent who has given up work to take on the childcaring repsonsibilities cannot claim maintenance fro themselves in a split, and cannot claim on the assets (house) unless named as an owner / joint owner. This is what makes some parents vulnerable if not married. And the lack of entitlement to a share in a pension (but that is included in assets).

I agree Blu

My first post in response to OP was I think a campaign to make it more socially unacceptable to just walk out on offspring without so much as a backward glance might possibly help. Or even just a less toothless/more robust organisation than the CSA for making sure that absent parents are held financially responsible

"She believes that many (not all) parents do not realise that if the other parent decides to fuck off they have no financial recourse easily available (unless married)"

This does not require a change in law- this requires people to educate themselves on the existing law in matters a important as financial responsibility of both parents. Its fine to choose to parent with being married but be responsible yourself for finding out what legal status that decision allows you.

without being married that should say

If I'd have married my mr-leave-without-a-backwards-glance I'm sure dd and I would have become homeless on top of him absolving his financial responsibilities towards her.

Would have helped no-one (except him).

Why do you seem so against the idea that the current one size fits all but doesn't contract of two people uniting may not be the best option for everyone?

I see no reason for anyone to lose if more modernised CP's were available to all.

Only much to gain for those who may currently be 'unprotected' for want of a better word.

None of this is compulsory.

The fact that you and I understand legalities surrounding relationships doesn't mean that everyone has the same knowledge.

Thegirl you have again misunderstood. I dont think marriage is necessary for anyone. It wasnt my choice either and i made the right one. What i am saying is anyone who is choosing to have children with someone (and therefore create a financial responsibility for themselves) should make themselves aware of what their legal status is in relation to the other person responsible for that child. Whether they be married or not. You should be aware of your own rights and responsibilities and those of the person you are choosing to be the other parent of your child. If you choose marriage- find out what that means in the event of the relationship breakdown. If you choose CP find out what that means in the event if relationship breakdown. If you choose no legally recognised commitment find out what that means in the event of relationship breakdown.