Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

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

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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:

BraveDancing · 03/01/2017 14:58

I do actually think we need stronger child maintenance laws. I think it's ridiculous that there's a system in place which enables the student loan company, for example, to claw their cut of your wages out before tax, but we can't manage a system which does something similar for money to support your children.

But I think that's quite different to cohabiting = totally merged finances. But I also disagree with ppl saying you should never live in a house your partner owns. Again, adults make decisions that work for them. What we should be doing is trying to ensure men and women are better educated so they can make informed decisions and build the life that works for them.

BraveDancing · 03/01/2017 15:03

Although why are these hypothetical children being thrown on the streets if one of their parents has this lovely home that the other has no legal right to.

Why do we as a society assume that its ultimately a woman's responsibility to provide shelter for her children?

Kr1stina · 03/01/2017 15:07

I think it's up to the individual if they want to live in a house their partner owns /rents. Just as long as they realise that when the relationship ends they can be out on the streets with a suitcase while he has a house /furniture she has contributed to.

It's a free country, people can do what they like.

Kr1stina · 03/01/2017 15:11

Although why are these hypothetical children being thrown on the streets if one of their parents has this lovely home that the other has no legal right to

Because most women who choose to leave an unhappy /abusive /otherwise unsatisfactory relationship want to keep their children with them .

Because if they leave the kids, find a place and then go back for the kids, he might refuse.and then if they have recourse to the courts to get them back, the court might opt for stability and the status quo

BantyCustards · 03/01/2017 15:24

I fell into the same trap.

You will be very lucky to be able to remain in the house - it can happen but it will cost you dearly.

I cut my losses.

I was aware of the laws and the promises of 'agreements' and marriage never materialised and he subsequently painted me as a gold digger. He made his own child homeless.

SilentBatperson · 03/01/2017 15:56

If people don't know their rights it's because they chose not to find out. Or in fact they DID know but it wasn't going to happen to them.

The thing is, it doesn't really work like that.

I agree with you that it would be wrong to impose the status of marriage on people who've not opted for it. But the reality is that sometimes people don't find out the truth about their rights because they don't realise. You cannot simply paint something as an active choice when it arises out of ignorance. If you think you know something already, which we know that a lot of people do when it comes to common law spouses, you don't research it because why would you? Your mum and dad call themselves that and HMRC treats you the same as a married couple for tax credits.

So the issue is not so much whether people are sometimes so ignorant they don't realise they even need to do research, because we know that's the case. It's whether that needs addressing, and if so how.

SilentBatperson · 03/01/2017 15:58

Oops, quote fail in that first paragraph. Sorry.

RolfsBabyGrand · 03/01/2017 16:19

I trusted my ex we were together ten years. He owned house and paid utilities, I paid food and kid's stuff and also paid thousands towards renovations. Then he cheated and left. Said I could stay in house with dc. Then he'd drop in whenever he fancied, threatened to stop paying utilities. He bullied me out of the house. I left with next to nothing and had to rely on generosity of my parents. My savings had gone on improving his house, which he now rents out to cover his new mortgage on luxury home.

I always thought that he would be decent and contribute to our kids. He doesn't. He takes holidays then claims he can't pay maintenance.

I guess if we'd been married I'd be much better off now. I just didn't think like that at the time. Funnily enough the OW got a proposal out of him a few weeks after we separated - she certainly knows what she's doing!

nceccoli · 03/01/2017 17:52

I realise the thread has moved on slightly from the OP'S original question. But in reply to the pp up thread who stated that women choose to bring children with them when they leave a relationship even though it may mean the children being homeless, why does it have to be so?
If the woman through poor choices has created or participated in a situation where she now has no rights in the home she has chosen to live in,but the partner is willing to maintain residence of the children, the smart and unselfish thing to do is to allow that and ensure the children have a roof over their heads. Of course this may mean that she loses residence of the children when she tries to apply for it later through the courts, but many men have found themselves in the same position. Barring the father being abusive to the children, there is no reason why the woman should assume that the children would automatically leave with her on relationship breakdown. In fact, allowing the father to have residence and full time care of the children would enable her to work and break the cycle of dependency she has created for herself.
I also realise that above would not apply in the event the father (home owner) refuses to assume full time care and in that case he has made his children homeless and deserves all amount of scorn and opprobrium.

hollyisalovelyname · 03/01/2017 18:52

I can't believe so many women don't realise how unprotected they are house wise/,will wise if they are not married. I'm not in the UK though.
Some of my co workers have up to 5 children with a partner and are unmarried. I would love to say it to them but it's not my place to do so.

BraveDancing · 03/01/2017 20:17

nceccoli - that was what I tried to say upthread but rather badly. I agree, although someone else raised the question of abuse in which case it's obviously more complicated.

conkerpods · 03/01/2017 20:19

But what a people who don't want to be married?DP and I were married before and neither of us want to be married again!
I have posted upthread already,our situation is together 11 years and live in my house. Will is sorted...he can stay here til he dies if I go first.

AnchorDownDeepBreath · 03/01/2017 21:53

But what a people who don't want to be married?

You pay a solicitor to draw up a legal agreement instead; because you are choosing not to enter a different agreement that's more common and easier. That's a fine choice; but it leaves your options as replacing it with another legal agreement, or never relying on each other. For most people in those situations, I believe it's quite common to maintain two houses and separate finances.

live in my house That means you are in a fairly good position if you split; but he's not. You could ask him to leave and he'd be stuck. Someone is always getting the short straw.

SanityAssassin · 03/01/2017 22:06

conkerpods you seem to be financially independent which is great and means this probably isn't too relevant to you.

I was financially independent/own property etc before I met DP and we eventually lived in my house for 9 years before deciding to get married because we wanted children and I wasn't prepared to have them without the protection of marriage. we then sold both our houses and bought a family home. I also never gave up my job even when it was costing more in childcare pw than I earned.

My parents brought up fiercely independent girls :)

Beebeeeight · 03/01/2017 22:16

Being smug about shoehorning a man into marriage is not behaviour to be proud of.

Mothers can fall into financial dependency in a number of ways that could happen to anyone- asd I said illness, redundancy etc.

The children of those women shouldn't be any more disadvantaged than children of married parents.

To say that the solution is for sahms to give up custody when they are fleeing abuse is a Victorian attitude.

That is throwing sisters under the bus.

As for the 'no pregnancy is unplanned' line even the manufacturers admit all contraception has a failure rate!

nceccoli · 03/01/2017 22:31

No one said SAHMS had to give up their children when fleeing abuse or if the father is abusive to the children. Very often a man who is abusive to his wife will also be abusive to his children and the sensible thing to do when leaving is to take the children to protect them. However, if the relationship simply breaks down, then there is no reason why the mother should be the default parent if the other parent is equally capable. And in such a case, if the woman has no rights in the property as is often the case for stay at home cohabiting mums, then if she has to leave she leaves and the children remain with the other capable parent who is able to provide a home for them. Sad but that's what happens with bad planning. I don't see why the laws have to change to reduce autonomy of lifestyle for people who have made an informed choice not to get married just to protect others who refuse to educate themselves on such an important life decision.

nceccoli · 03/01/2017 22:36

And for those saying the life would be better for children if the laws were changes, I envision it will be worse. The economically stronger partner (often men) will refuse to entertain even cohabitation but I suspect will still enter into relationships and father children but without being present in the children's lives at all Bar minimal child support. I hold out no hope that the laws will change anytime soon to strengthen enforcement of child support. At present, the laws are simple and effective if people choose to reflect on them and act rationally. The laws are also easily accessibly to anyone who has the ability to use a search engine.

Riversleep · 04/01/2017 16:15

Yes. I can't see how people men who are willing to make their own children homeless will somehow not know about any changes in the law. Sadly, it does seem in the ops case that her exp knew what would happen if they split up and didn't care. If he was a decent man he would have made provision for his child, marriage or none. These types of people will find a way to protect their assets in one way or another- probably by not cohabiting.

Atenco · 04/01/2017 20:47

If the woman through poor choices has created or participated in a situation where she now has no rights in the home she has chosen to live in, but the partner is willing to maintain residence of the children, the smart and unselfish thing to do is to allow that and ensure the children have a roof over their heads

A good man would not just kick the mother of his children out of their house with nowhere to go, so why would any woman want that man to bring up her kids?

BraveDancing · 04/01/2017 21:01

Atenco - have you seen the posts on here with multiple posters telling women to just kick her STBX out of the house for multiple infractions from emotional affairs, to being bad with money, to job issues. Are those women also unfit to bring up children?

Atenco · 05/01/2017 00:28

BraveDancing

I am actually very much in favour of equality, but when push comes to shove I'm with other mothers.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7