Views on proposed cohabitation rights changes and the opt-out model

[PokemonQueen]

NC for this, as I've been pretty vocal about it in real life.

How do people feel about the fairer end to relationships consolation? Especially changes to cohabitation rights on separation.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships

I don't dispute the problem, women who've sacrificed careers, done the childcare, or been financially controlled in long cohabiting relationships are genuinely left exposed. But I have real issues with the automatic opt-out model, especially for people already cohabiting. Lots of us (including women with assets to protect) have already deliberately chosen not to marry because we wanted to keep finances separate. That was a conscious decision. An opt-out scheme just reverses that default and makes us go through hoops to preserve it.

What if one partner refuses to opt out? That suddenly gives enormous leverage to whoever has least to lose. And there's a horrible irony where a financially controlling partner could use the opt-out process against the very women this is supposed to help. There's also a pretty obvious perverse incentive: if your savings become claimable, why save? Especially if one of you is a saver and the other a spender.

I'm also a bit annoyed that the whole consultation reads like the decision's already been made and they're just sorting the details (what qualifying period, what if someone's still married to someone else).

On a personal note, the opt-out framing is already causing tension in my own relationship. The assumption that wanting to opt out means you're expecting it to fail, or don't trust your partner. I suspect I'm not the only one who would have that problem.

They could start by enforcing child maintenance laws.

🇬🇧 ‘s the last refuge of the deadbeat dad - you don’t get away with it in Europe. 50:50 residency and £, always monitored and enforced.

I agree, OP. If the new laws are essentially meant to get women and DC off welfare (they are, the 🇬🇧’s exceptionally bad in this area) then write them with that aim in mind.

The other option is tell people to marry-with-pre-nups that are on their to becoming legally binding. Prenups have existed since 1200 in this country to protect women.

A few problems consultation not tackled:

Cohabitation - it’s bloody easy to claim
you don’t, partic if your parents can say they house you, you work away or you’ve got family and property abroad. Or if the relationship’s going badly and you’re off every 5 min and/or living with another partner.

Stepchildren - What makes one? What makes a step-parent? How many can you have?

We all know kids who are brought up under one roof in separate social classes cos their DFs vary in income. Sibling bonds need strengthening in society, not weakening.

Intestacy proposals: Anyone vaguely aware of the UK’s major social changes in the last 30 years?

The biggest are the huge rise in dementia/huge rise property prices/mega rise in will challenges.

Proposals team haven’t heard a word.

What could possibly go wrong?

This is a ridiculous idea, it gets pushed every few years and normally governments are sensible enough to refuse it.

People end up having a more complex relationship because they didn’t employ lawyers to stop them getting in to the mess. Imagine having to go through a psudo-divorce because you lived with someone for 3 years and a day.

If people want to be legally bound then a marriage or civil partnership is less than £200, what will it cost to draft a cohabitation agreement to not end up in a quazi-marriage? According to the consultation you both will need independent solicitors, so two lots of legal fees?

Marriage laws are already am mess because people tack on “but what about this obscure case” to cater for those who don’t just do the simple thing. This is adding endless complexity to life. A cynic would point out the body who represent divorce lawyers have been pushing for this for years…

@Supersimkin7
@LlynTegid

The issue of the crapness of the CMS is a totally different point form this consultation. It was nodded through years ago based upon “good intentions” and produced a mess.

I have heard horror stories on both sides of payer and payee, much of its work could be simplified by making more use of HMRC records for assessments of income (particularly the self employed and business owners) and a simplified system for collection on the back of that.

But don’t confuse the CMS issue with this issue.

FYI you've been quoted by the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vx4dvgzno

A very biased report from the BBC. They’ve barely mentioned any of the pitfalls. There are already several options to protect unmarried partners, but people who have consciously chosen to keep finances separate should NOT have this forced on them as a default and certainly should NOT have to opt out.

I agree the proposed law is ridiculous. We have also been together for many years and have two children and we have consciously decided not to marry for these reasons. I would hate all my savings to go to him if I die, he then marries someone else and my kids could end up with nothing. Laws are ridiculous and outdated, they must change. Default law should be that your children (or next of kin) inherit at least 50% of your estate and the other 50% then ok maybe your partner/husband. But not all £322k to a partner.

And everyone should be allowed the same tax free allowance whether married or not, but that is a different issue

I wonder what numpty came up with this ridiculous idea. Let’s tackle maintenance. No time needs to be wasted on something which can already be sorted easily by marriage / civil partnership/ making a will. If dh dies before for me, I have absolutely no wish to marry again, I don’t necessarily want to be celibate or on my own, but I have no wish to be in a ‘formal’ relationship. This would have been disastrous for my mum in law, who was widowed very young, once her dc were adults she found herself a partner, they lived together very happily for 15 years, but she made it very clear from the outset her house would be sold on her death and all monies, once all debts were cleared, would be split equally among her children, as she knew if she died first her partner would very likely want to marry, meaning a complete stranger could end up inheriting her home.

I really don’t see the need anyone has the ability to get these rights by marriage or civil partnership
if you chose not to go down that route then it’s your own fault

I agree. People need to start taking some personal responsibility for this stuff.

There’s probably not that long left for the consultation, so please fill this in if you feel strongly about it. I hope they take on board what must be some very strong opposition to these proposals.

It’s ridiculous.
Couples can have marriage or civil partnerships if they want. If they choose not to then they don’t have have the rights and protections. Very simple.

Maybe womwn need to use their brains more and dont let men make decisions for them? If couples want security get married it's not rocket science

regulations around common-law relationships seems to work fine in canada, and it's really beneficial when the relationship has some abusive elements.
sadly on mn you read so many posts about women trapped in abusive relationships, unwed as the man delays the formalization despite children.
long ago the engagement ring was worth money, here on mn people go on that the ring is a symbol of the sentiment not the cash value...and long ago men could be charged with breech of promise (abolished in 1970).

“regulations around common-law relationships seems to work fine in canada”

You obviously know different Canadians to me. I have heard complaints about it. Not that ultimately it mattered as they all eventually got married, however there was the concern about needing to make decisions sooner than they need to made. If you were living with someone, have any assets and are not sure it will go the distance you are better off breaking up before the 2 year (or 3 year in some locations) mark. Not even it is a bad relationship, just you aren’t certain it is for life.

It is particularly messy when family businesses were involved, even if there was the “eventually you could probably win a court” the risk of needing to fight it was a concern.

If l you look it US states there have been loads who had common law marriage and abolished it because it was such a pain in the back side.

From the proposals, having a codified approach to a few things would be an improvement, but that doesn’t need this change. Also, the inheritance tax exemption would make sense, but that is easily fixed by a change in a budget.

Most of the “problems” are claims about people not understanding basic ideas, like being married means something or it is good to get a will. These don’t need layers of law to address.

I agree that protection is needed for unmarried women with children, I don’t understand why it’s needed for others and it seems like a huge state over reach. When you have children that is the point where one partner often makes a career or financial sacrifice for the joint children resulting in increased vulnerability. I don’t see why in a partnership involving two independent adults the one earning less needs to be compensated by the higher earner. There is no joint undertaking (ie children) which would result in that and therefore require compensation - only personal choices.

I think it’s quite presumptive that a full financial disclosure is required to opt out too. Some partners don’t share finances or have that level of openness, which is up to them! Again, without children then there is no need to share finances if that doesn’t suit the individuals. It seems insane that the state can mandate this.

the protection is already there if you take some responsibility for yourself and get married or civil partnership

There are lots of reasons why this may happen though - unplanned pregnancy, domestic abuse, coercive control, don’t get round to it etc. this leaves woman and children vulnerable and the state picks up the tab through universal credit. CMS is an absolute joke.

I think the needs approach works well though financial remedies and this should be available for unmarried women too.

There is nothing fair about this ridiculous proposal.

Women can protect themselves via the free contraception they have access to. No one is forced to have children with someone that won’t marry them. If people want the protection of marriage they can get married, where there are safeguards in place to ensure both people understand what it means and want it.

I don’t trust that people will be able to opt out easily, or for free, or even that the government will ensure that everyone who will be at risk from this knows they need to opt out. And people
should be allowed to opt out without the consent of their partner. It makes no sense when the problem that exists could be solved by enabling the CMS to do its job.

You know young women out earn young men, don’t you?
I hope you know women own more property too.

Among unmarried couples I know it is almost universal the woman earns more and is much more likely to be the home owner. You seem to be assuming the we live in the 1970s.

I know one couple where we have long worried about her as the guy is basically useless, he stopped working consistently as he couldn’t find anything “of a high enough standard” so her very good career keeps them, as they live in her flat (she purchased with a lot of help from her parents). Her protection has been that she wouldn’t marry him so was safe, under these changes she is really exposed.

They basically split childcare, and if he were to be accessed for “need” she would get screwed. If these rules come in it may mean she shod kick him out before these changes come in. But that is unlikely to happen. He has previously had good jobs but chose not to bother keeping going once he was effectively “kept” and now the government will give him guarantees he shouldn’t be entitled too.

The survey makes it impossible to differentiate answers between marriage and cohabitation. I gave up trying to fill it in.

My approach therefore will be to avoid cohabitation absolutely. Opting out is no protection if the govt thinks they can change the law to suit themselves, which the format of this survey suggests.

My ds is leaving for university in a few weeks and I had been looking forward to the possibility of a new relationship. At least now I am clear what the basis of that relationship must be.

I’ve no idea why you are taking such an aggressive tone with me.

But if as you say neither partner is left vulnerable by taking on more of the childcare while the other progresses their career then it won’t make a difference to them.

needs and sharing principles work pretty well in financial remedies- you’re expected to get a job even if you’ve been a sahp during the marriage (I was previously a sahm, now have a ft job). I think it’s fair enough when people have a child to consider them as a family unit. I disagree that unmarried couples without joint children should be included.

@rwalker both the civil partnership and marriage requires the other party to agree. sometimes they simply refuse and leave a person in the lurch often with a child involved.

And the financial responsibility that each parent has for their child can be dealt with through the CMS if needed. People don’t become responsible for other adults simply by conceiving a child.

Then make the choice not to have the child in the first place