Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

No rights because i'm not married

171 replies

SweetPea2017 · 01/01/2017 23:12

I've been with my (now ex Partner) for 11 years, he owns the house. Does anyone know what rights I have as we never married? he kept saying we would, he refused for me to pay towards mortgage and was abusive if I mentioned been added to property.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 02/01/2017 18:18

I agree with Kr1stina.

'I can't believe you don't have the same right's as been married person, he's been stringing me along for 11 years.'

With your permission.

OneWithTheForce · 02/01/2017 18:30

I know they do. But some people here seem to be suggesting that this is unfair and should be changed

Ah ok, yes I am with you on that one!

Riversleep · 02/01/2017 18:43

I agree with Kristina too. To give cohabiting couples the same rights as married couples automatically denies people the right to live with someone without having to worry about losing their assets. I am married, but if my circumstances changed, I would not marry again as I wouldn't want my assets to be shared with someone other than my children or risk half my estate going into someone else's estate. And I'm not rich. Just ordinary but a homeowner. People should educate themselves or campaign for straight civil partnerships. The information is out there. I don't know if children would listen if they were told in school.

Beebeeeight · 02/01/2017 19:04

The law could be changed to treat cohabited with dependent children differently from other cohabites.

OneWithTheForce · 02/01/2017 19:19

The law could be changed to treat cohabited with dependent children differently from other cohabites

So people having children together would automatically be entering a legal contract with each other whether they wanted to or not as soon as a child was born?

Sixisthemagicnumber · 02/01/2017 19:42

The law could be changed to treat cohabited with dependent children differently from other cohabites

That's a terrible idea.

jeaux90 · 02/01/2017 20:01

Yep I hate that idea too. I want to protect my assets I don't get married. Keeps it simple.

caroldecker · 02/01/2017 20:09

If it about children, why do they need to be co-habiting for the law change. Just make parents share all assets immediately a child is born and the working parent to pay spousal maintenance for 18 years.

SandyY2K · 02/01/2017 20:15

The law could be changed to treat cohabited with dependent children differently from other cohabites

Bad idea in my opinion.

If you want the security and protection of marriage - you need to get married or see a solicitor to protect yourself.

Riversleep · 02/01/2017 20:44

As soon as a child is born, both parents are responsible for that child. To make someone also responsible for another adult takes away people's freedom to choose. If you want protection, find out how you get it or ask yourself why your partner doesnt want to give it to you. You shouldn't just be able to just have a right to someone else's assets just because you have a child with them. What about if you had a ons and got pregnant. Someone could come and ask for half your house?

Sixisthemagicnumber · 02/01/2017 20:49

Not just one night stands river but also vindictive partners who don't really want to commit but are prepared to convince their partners thatvhheyblibebtjem and want a child with them just so they can get their greedy mits on a share of any assets. At least with marriage both parties are aware (or should be) of the legal implications on any assets. You also can't marry somebody by accident. I would hate to think that somebody could lie about being on contraceptives /tamper with contraceptives just to get pregnant and get 50% of a house and pension fund.

OneWithTheForce · 02/01/2017 21:01

Having had a partner who did tamper with my contraception and had no problems spending my and our DC money, the thought of him having legal claim to half my money horrifies me!!

SanityAssassin · 02/01/2017 21:32

If you have time to post on Mumsnet you have time to research your rights and the YouGov sites are easy to find and navigate.

People who chose NOT to enter in to a legally binding arrangement before deciding to live together/have children do so at their own risk..

If you just want to live with someone don't expect protection and I don't believe there should be any changes in the Law to force this on couples

Judging by some of the threads on here women need to start taking responsibility for themselves, be financially independent - not rush into children with the first man they spend more than 12 months with and NOT have DC before they get married.

And keep the job after having kids even if the childcare eats it up cos you will have independence and still be paying your NI and pension and you can up those hours back up if the worst happens.

Kr1stina · 02/01/2017 21:33

I think the current system is OK.

People who want to have a legal tie can get married or civil patnershipped. Or they can go to a solicitor and draw up legal contacts that replicate SOME of the rights of the above .

Those who wish to live together without any legal ties can do so.

I can't see why we as a society have the right to impose the legal obligations of marriage on people who do not wish them.

However I think that the law should be much harsher on parents who do not provide for their children when they are well able to.

I think it's shocking that many children and resident parents rely on benefits while the other parents doesn't contribute . Many non resident parents seem to be able to walk away with impunity.

jeaux90 · 02/01/2017 21:35

Amen to that Sanity.

Hoppinggreen · 02/01/2017 21:42

Before marriage was seen as something 2 people who are in love do it was a legal contract, it still is.
There are very good reasons to get married that are nothing to do with either a big fancy party or hearts and flowers.
If you want to be together long term then get married.

LineyReborn · 02/01/2017 21:43

I think children should have an easier legal claim on the assets of walked-away parents, particularly those walked-away parents who avoid paying appropriate child support.

GinIsIn · 02/01/2017 21:53

Of course nobody likes to think a replationship might not work out but did common sense never suggest to you that one day it could do?!

I'm married, and 8 months pregnant with our first baby. I love my DH more than I can say but I've still made sure to protect my assets in case our marriage should go wrong in some way. I paid 25% of our house in cash from an inheritance, and that money is ring fenced because I know that things change in life and sometimes relationships end.

It is your responsibility to protect yourself legally and financially and you can't expect others to do that for you. You say he wouldn't let you contribute towards the mortgage, for example, but did he also stop you from putting the money you would have contributed had he said yes into savings?

echt · 02/01/2017 22:30

I live in Australia, where common law arrangements, known as de facto relationships are recognised in law as conferring rights and obligations. My limited experience (hearing of others' lives), shows women being royally shafted by these laws.

I've specifically warned DD about shacking up with a man, as she is my sole beneficiary, and I wouldn't want some over getting his hooks into her money, though I'd be dead by then so on one level it wouldn't matter.

She had no idea this was the case, and completely got it.

SleepingTiger · 02/01/2017 22:50

Read up on Constructive Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel. You might be within the limit of these and entitled to a share.

caroldecker · 03/01/2017 00:22

Fenella If you are in the uk, it is unlikely that you can ring fence assets once married. Pre-nups can influence a judge, as do length of marriage and each persons input, but the truth is a judge can ignore anything you try to do to ring-fence assets.

BraveDancing · 03/01/2017 02:02

I prefer the current system too.

When OH and I got together she didn't have anything, but I had a hefty inheritance from my deceased mother. My inheritance was a big thing for me, emotionally as well as financially, and it also gave me a level of security I'm highly unlikely to get any other way, due to disability issues. So I absolutely would not have wanted to risk losing that to a break up.

But I did love OH and wanted to be with her. As it was, we cohabited for ten years. She lived rent free with me, and I had a stable home, even when I had periods of ill health and couldn't work. Eventually, my health stabilised, our lives improved and we decided to start a family and got married. But I am really glad we could do that when the time was right, when we were ready to merge finances, and make that kind of commitment.

I absolutely didn't feel the same ten years ago. But I am glad we got to live together, and obviously our long term future was also hugely improved by her not having to pay rent for those ten years and build up our financial security in other ways. I would hugely resent being told that, effectively, cohabitation = marriage and there's no other option of being together. If you want that relationship, get married, or buy a house as joint tenants, or something.

If you don't, then don't. But it should be an active decision.

GinIsIn · 03/01/2017 05:38

caroldecker - I am in the UK, and I can assure you it's entirely possible. We didn't go down the pre-nup route as those are fairly useless. It's been checked through by multiple lawyers, and is all secure and above board.

pollyglot · 03/01/2017 07:12

Sorry, but the UK is so backward in so many social issues. In NZ, If you have lived together "in the manner of a marriage" for three years, then you entitled to the same rights as a legally married person. That includes an automatic 50/50 split of assets, unless the division is "repugnant to justice". There is an allowance for property owned before the union, provided it does not become jointly used. Not 100% fair, but better than the UK situation.

Sixisthemagicnumber · 03/01/2017 07:26

I don't think that system is better than the UK at all polly. It literally means that you cannot live with somebody for a few years unless you want to share everything you own. A house would be jointly used if you are living together. Why should somebody be entitled to 50% of a house just because they lived in it for three years?