Legal Advice for single mom

[lovingmomof3]

Hi i am new to these boards and need a little bit of advice.
I have 3 children with my ex partner who i was with for 15 years we never married (thank God) and we split up in january after he cheated on me.
Past few months have been a nightmare regarding CSA and getting him to pay for anything towards his children. Im currently fighting for my half of the house which i am still residing in with the children and im in the middle of a residency battle with the father. My Question is Am i legally entitled to claim any part of his pension? Im really not sure on this as we were never married.
I plan to visit my solicitor again in the next couple of days, but would love to speak with anyone who has any knowledge of this please (smile)

Sorry no Pension entitlement or maintenance for you as you were not legally married. However, he has no entitlement to any of your assets either. You are ofcourse entitled to CSA for your children. Some fathers seek a Residence Order in order not to have to pay CSA. How old are your children? Who do the children want to live with? Were you always their main carer? If they live with him will they have to change schools, loose their friends etc.? They have lost one parent, the courts will want as little change for them as possible. If living with you means less change, that is a big plus for your case.

I hope you have pension provision of your own. I hope you have a very experienced solicitor who specialises in family law.

Sorry you have split with your DP but do you really think you are entitled to anything apart from child maintenence?? Just having kids, and not being married, with someone is legally not enough to have any call on their assets apart from a specific amount dependent on their income. Unless your name is on the deeds to the house you can give up on that one as well. It doesn't matter if you have "contriubuted" to the household expenses, it belongs to those whoes names are on the deed. If you don't get married you are always going to be in an exposed financial position. It's harsh but true.

I thought it depended on how long you were living with someone? (assuming you were living together). Unless the law has changed, there is something called commonlaw wife. I think it is when you are living together for more than 7 years?? Maybe google the term and look into it.
You would be entitled to something if it does exist....

What a charmless post Over40 .

So sorry to say loving your rights are very very limited as you were not married. There is no such thing as a common law wife and you will have no claim on his assets or savings but the house may be a very different matter.

Dont leave these questions to us go to the CAB as a free starting point and go from there.

Good Luck

Hi The house is up for sale at the moment and he has just served me with a severed joint tenancy document so i guess we are now tenants in common. Ive lived in this house for 13 years with my three children and was gutted at first when the house went up for sale, but now i cant wait to move out and start afresh with my beautiful children. The kids have always lived with me, and he currently has contact with them twice a week for four hours and alternative weekends. He has constantly tried to get a reduction with the CSA payments, he pays the mortgage currently but is trying to force me into letting him pay only the interest which im not prepared to agree to as i need the profits from the sale to rehouse me and my children, plus i bought all the furniture and contributed to deposit of four grand and bills. Im scared to death i wont get full residency of them, the only plus i can think of is that he currently resides next door (nightmare) with his mother who has adequate beds for the children but not a lot of space and he doesnt have his own place. My hearing is on the 29th September and im hoping and praying i get full residency

ps Over40 Why does it matter if we were married or not? the law is an ass regarding common law and i do think the law should recognise people that choose to live together. marriage to me is only a piece of paper and im sooo glad i didnt marry him coz he is and always will be a cheating arsehole.
My name is on the deeds to the house, im soo gglad i had to fight to get my name on them in the first place

Freedomfrom: The concept if common law wife has been eroded to the point of inutility by various marriage acts.

About the only circumstance that cohabitation can be regarded as a common law marriage is if you are in a place where marriage is physically impossible (eg two castaways), and even then it applies only until you reach a place where a legal service can be performed, and the expectation is that the marriage should take place straightaway.

Lovingmomof3: marriage is just a piece if paper in a similar way to the sense that a £20 note is just a piece of paper. It has value which transcends its inherent worth, and in the case if marriage it's a legal contract on property, not an atteststion of love.

loving I went to a solicitor with a friend in similar shoes to yours ie long relationship 3 kids and when we left it was the first time I felt glad to have been married to my cheating exh. Its amazing what in legal terms that piece of paper represents.

As I said I think you have a case regarding the house but see someone qualified to advise you.

Why would you lose residency of your children ?

So sorry you are going through this keep strong !

There is NO such thing as "common law wife" in english law. The law doesn't care if you have been together 2 mins or 20 years unless you are married. Whether or not the law should recognise the time you have lived together or not is not the question here. If you aren't married or your name on the deeds you have no claim to the house. If you are not married you have no claim to support. Only the kids have a right to anything and that is the funds for their care.

Loving. Well done you for getting your name on the deeds. A very wise move. I actually don't have a particular thing for or against marriage. Each to his own I think. However for those that choose cohabitation it really should be done with both eyes open and a serious look at the concequences for when/if it fails. All the financial safeguards that marriage tries to give, can be sorted with co-habitees with a little thought in advance.

As a divorcee myself there is NO WAY I would ahve anyone move in with me if it meant they could have any financial claim on my assets just by living in the house. Had the rug ripped from under me once and not letting that happen again.

I'm sorry you're going through this, and glad to hear your name was on the deeds of the house. But re: why we don't have common-law marriages, the whole legal point of marriage is to share assets and make sure they are split fairly if you split; it protects the partner who does the most childcare. Everyone has a choice whether they marry or cohabit - it's not for the law to declare a couple married without their permission, just because they lived together. Imagine if you had a house, met a man, he was coming to the end of his tenancy so you thought he may as well move in, it's fun for a couple of years but runs its course, and then he turns around and says he wants half of your house. Very different to your situation, but how is the law to know unless they pick through the details of every single failed cohabiting relationship?

That probably came out harsher than I meant.

There is a Legal section on here, maybe if you post there you'll get some good advice about all the legal stuff in your OP.

The law is NOT an ass as regards cohabitation.

I'm sorry but if you wished to have same legal rights as marriage, you should have got married.

It is not fair on the countless cohabitees out there to have some kind of 'marriage' imposed on them by the state because people like yourself couldn't be bothered to marry.

It's not about commitment or believing that cohabitation is inferior, it is about freedom of choice.

Cohabitees moaning that they don't have same rights as married people is like a fully able-bodied person who has £20.00 to spend on what they like moaning that the corner shop won't deliver them a loaf of bread - it leaves most people thinking, 'Why don't you just walk to the shop?'
Well my answer to cohabitees who moan that they're not seen as married is:
'Why don't you just get married?'

No, you're not entitled to any of his pension, any maintenance for yourself, or anything like as much of the equity as you would if you'd been married.

TBH, until the law on cohabitation changes, it's really not a good idea to have children outside of marriage, from the woman's point of view.

The plus side is that the only wrangling you'll have is over JOINTLY purchased assets (very wise to have name on deeds) and the provision for children.

UNLESS your partner named you as a pension beneficiary- or indeed named you explicitly on any OTHER financial document- I don't think you'll be entitled to anything at all.

Legally, you're strangers.

Disagree with mumblechum but only partly- I mean, if woman is millionairess/ rich in own right, don't see that it (marriage) matters (in terms of finances that is).

Even if he named you as a beneficiary under his pension, he can easily change that, you have no actual entitlement.

I agree with Marantha, that if the woman is significantly better off than the man, then she may be better off not marrying. That is rarely the case, though.

Thank you for all of your answers i like to hear peoples opinions and thank you all for giving them.
I couldnt have married my ex,and when i started living with him i made it quite clear i didnt want to marry him,i am an athiest so would feel like a complete hypocrite getting married in a church etc.
Everyone is entitled to beleive in what they want and i can respect that, but to me it is a piece of paper and means nothing, at the end of the day i have my three gorgeous children and i hope the courts will see that i am the best parent to have residency as they have always lived with me x

You don't have to marry in a church; being an atheist has nothing to do with it.

I would echo what other posters have said. If you are going to have children with a man, marry him, otherwise you risk compromising your earning potential with very little security or compensation if you split up. Marriage is obviously not just a 'piece of paper', it opens the door to all kinds of legal protections and entitlements - unless and until the law on cohabitation changes, and no sign of that any time soon.

Presumably the children have always lived with your ex until you split up that is? If he worked and you looked after them, you should have a very strong case for a residence order, but joint residence is always a possibility. It depends on so many different things.

Residency may depend on age of your children. If they are teenagers then the court will consider their wishes in addition to yours and your ex.

As for marriage I believe that lots of athiests have registry office weddings to avoid all the God stuff.

The kids lived with me and my ex until we split up in january, they are still with me. My oldest son is 13, daughter is 10 and youngest son is 5 im awaiting a visit from cafcass at the moment as the hearing is at the end of the month, i dont want ex to have half residency he doesnt look after or devote enough time to these children, plus he is still living with his mother. Also a month after i caught him cheating he hit me and has verbally abused me many times in front of the children, i had injunction papers all drawn up ready to take him to court but because it would interefere with the contact agreement between us i refused to go ahead with it. I cant wait til im finally free of him x

I am an atheist but got married for the legal side of it.

lovingmomof3 I am afraid to say that you do come over as being someone who wants their cake and eat it.
You talk of how glad you are that you can escape this relationship with relative ease (which given what an arse your ex sounds is totally reasonable), but on the other hand fail to accept the negative side of cohabitation i.e. it's so easy to get out of because there are no legal ties.

No offence meant in a bad way: but you've got to take the rough with the smooth.

a joint residence order doesn't necessarily mean a 50:50 split of time with the children. Sometimes the courts will make an order to cement the importance of both parents, even if what is happening in reality is that they spend most of their time with one parent.

If you come across as v hostile to your ex and not willing to promote his contact with the children, you might be opening up the door to those kinds of considerations.

the 13 year old will probably be able to make her own decision if she is a reasonably mature 13; by teenage years the view often is that children will 'vote with their feet' whatever the court orders.

If you have always been primary carer, this should be reflected by the court but careful not to be too negative about your ex, this could have an impact for you if the court thinks there is a risk you are encouraging the children to adopt the same attitude.