Text message meant for someone else?

[springchickennolonger]

Looked at my phone this morning. Found a text message from Dp which was obviously not meant for me. It's incriminating -to another woman- but I don't want to draw any conclusions until I'm sure it's from his phone.

Is there any way it could be from somewhere else?

I'm a bit shocked tbh and not sure what to do.

My gut feeling is to gather more evidence before confronting him. Any advice?

Thanks.

I guess you didn't mention to him the amount he has 'stolen' from you over the years by refusing to pay for his child...

It might be instructive to tot up what he would have had to pay in child support if you had separated at the time of dd's birth.

I'm so sorry that your partner has turned put to be such an enormous arsehole.

Well at least now he will have to contribute at least 15% of his salary towards his daughter.

OP - I am sure that you will have many, many more moments like this.

You could go to the bank and explain that you are separating from the child's father, and due to financial abuse, you are concerned that he will empty your daughter's account. You could ask that no withdrawals be allowed until your daughter turns 18. Bring the birth certificate and your passport.

Don't be embarrassed, OP. You participated in this relationship in good faith, according to your own ethics. A pity he is revealing himself to be a selfish & unethical person, happy to exploit your good faith & love. He is the person who should be ashamed.

And I knew, wen I was writing how you might tot up the bill, that as an unmarried partner, you don't have any legal status. But just writing it all down and showing him might give him pause (I'm always a pollyanna!)

But at least he is still liable for child support payments.

What you describe is financial abuse, yes. And it makes me livid that if a couple are unmarried, he can get away with it scot free when they part.

You'd get more than half the assets - including his pension split 5/50 - if married, because you need to home and care for dd. You are in a much better position than most, but it's stil screamingly unfair. So, so many women are sold the "independent woman" line and don't notice that they pay half of everything AND still do all the traditional work of a wife and mother, with little help.

Women sometimes say they don't marry on feminist grounds. The sad fact is that if you have children, for most women marriage is the most feminist contract imaginable.

I wasn't joking, about thinking a MN campaign on legal protection for unmarried cohabitants who have contributed heavily in unpaid labour to the family. These situations are common, and they're wrong, but the law won't change by itself. Divorce law is bound by precedent and decided case-by-case, on individual facts, and flex is built in. Property law is focused on certainty, for obvious reasons, and is pretty inflexible. It needs legislation to change this situation.

Perfectstorm, in Scotland (and I quote from an advice website) "..cohabitants are entitled to make a claim for financial provision when the relationship ends, under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. The claim would be made on the basis of economic advantage suffered or economic advantage gained by the parties during their relationship. Any such claim must be made within one year of the date that the cohabitation ceased."

If the claim is contested, the claimant will need a lawyer and evidence (though that may be true in divorces, too).

Something similar was considered by Parliament for England and Wales, but the idea was rejected.

However, in England and Wales it is already possible to have a cohabitation agreement drawn up by lawyers. It would be subject to contract law, as a contract between two individuals. Each one would be specific to the couple concerned, its provisions would have to discussed and agreed and both would be sensible to get separate legal advice. It would also cost a good deal more than a simple marriage ceremony in a registry office.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, Patty. I did my masters on the topic, in fact. (And you're right to correct me on it being a problem for England & Wales, specifically). The problem is that most people think that the law already protects cohabitants, and only find out to the contrary when they split. The other problem is that people tend to drift into cohabiting rather than consciously decide to set that form of family up, and trust the person they're building that family with when things are okay. By the time they aren't, it's too late. So expecting women to protect themselves when they don't know they need to, and by the time they need to they're asking someone in a stronger position to weaken it, when by definition the ones who need to sign such an agreement are the people who won't respect the fair solution... it's not an ideal situation.

Wasn't aware of the Scottish provision though. That's interesting to hear.

PerfectStorm - I actually completely disagree with you.

The fact is - if people want to live together, have financial comittments together, and have children together, then they should get married.

What there should be, is a national campaign to make sure that people understand that common law marriage does not exist, and if they want to protect themselves, then to get married.

Women especially should realise that it is idiotic to have children and give up work when not married (that's not a judgement on them or their intelligence, but on the risk they put themselves in).

Too many women make uninformed choices in the half hearted hope that marriage will follow. They agree to have children before getting married because "a marriage is only a sheet of paper".

None of this is a good idea, but it's not talked about, because it involves talking about "failed" relationships, and no-one thinks theirs will fail.

Kaykay the problem with that is that the women who may need that protection most - those who are for whatever reason vulnerable, and suffering from emotional abuse or even worse - are the likeliest not to be able to push the point with their partners. It's all well and good saying it's idiotic not to insist on wedlock, and personally I'd never have kids without marriage (and didn't, for precisely the reasons you set out) but nor do I think that not being assertive enough, or in a good enough relationship, or manipulated, or just in a relationship where a kid was unplanned and suddenly you've been together 20 years and are being abandoned, is reason enough to punish someone, or refuse them protection in the law. Nobody sets out to have kids with a bastard deliberately - they're in denial, or they don't know he is one. And most people think they'd be noble unless they're suddenly in the position where they're being a bastard, when in many cases hatred towards the victim is the common coping strategy. One that usefully allows said bastard to keep all the dosh.

If one person contributes heavily towards the family via their unpaid labour, then that should be recognised in law, IMO. And while I totally agree that a campaign explaining the true state of the law is essential, given half of all kids are born out of marriage, and most families still consist of women doing more household related work and taking the career hit, that's a huge number of unprotected women.

Unprotected children, too, given they can be and often are thrown out of their homes at the legal owner's insistence, even when his (or her, more rarely) kids too.

I think we should be very careful before giving rights to cohabitants. As perfectstorm says, people drift into relationships and there needs to be a line marking the start of commitment, particularly before there are children involved.

Just imagine the scenario: you leave university, live with boyfriend, work hard at career, buy a house (on your own), boyfriend turns out to be unsuitable, abusive, unfaithful or whatever, leaves and takes half the house.

At that age I would not have had the foresight to see the pitfalls ahead.

That's all well and good, but the reality is that it's usually women who take a career hit when children arrive, and usually women who do the overwhelming majority of the planning and labour of running a family. If a couple are married, that's recognised after a split. If they aren't, it isn't. It seems really unfair that such cases end with the woman essentially completely exploited - or man, in such (rarer) situations.

There's also the point that a child whose parents are married is far, far likelier to remain in the family home after a split, and far less likely to suffer serious poverty. That is not something they control. It's not right that in marriage, most assets follow dependent children, and in cohabitation, all a child is entitled to is bare maintenance.

Personally I think that a couple together for a decade, or a couple who had children and remained together to raise them, should have reciprocal financial obligations. Of course it will occasionally be unfair, as in the example cited, but why should it be unfair a great deal more often, to exclude that occasional situation? And why shouldn't people sign an Intention Not To Create a De Facto, instead, if it's seen as necessary to have a piece of paper? Why is the risk almost always the woman's at the moment?

It's also a mistake to think that de facto arrangement would equate to half the house. At the moment you need to be what they call a "fully entitled spouse" to get a half share if married. If not married, and no kids, and no career hit or greater household contribution, you wouldn't get that much. De factos need not get as much as a spouse. But right now they get almost nothing, even after 20 years and 3 kids, and I really don't know what to say to anyone who thinks that's reasonable. Since when do we think people who've trusted the wrong person deserve punishment for it?

I think there's legislation like that in Canada? Or Australia .. one or the other.

Australia, definitely. Though it varies state to state, De Factos have legal protection. (In some cases, too much, IMO. Or at least they did, ten years ago.) No idea about Canada, though.

Sleeping in separate beds? His choice? This would be enough for me

Thanks, folks. Really interesting debate around non-married entitlement arrangements. A bloody minefield.

I think the point a poster made about the notion of "feminism" in a non-married relationship is interesting too: I thought that I was being a "good" feminist in not marrying and thus not becoming "subsumed" in a marriage and losing my identity etc, only to lose my independence and "power" when I gave up my career. I've been a fool, haven't I.

I've taken legal advice and received a good deal of support from friends, both moral and practical. I'm still avoiding "d" p until such time as I feel less angry and less likely to blow up at him, which I feel would be counterproductive. I want to make him squirm, too, for a bit.