Rights of unmarried women when separating from a partner

[Ilovemymum1]

I find it both alarming and disturbing that women in England have very few rights when they separate from a partner. I’m not talking about divorce or a civil partnership - just couples who live together either of the opposite sex or the same sex. In my case, I spent 20 years with my partner under the same roof but the ‘roof’ was in his name as were the cars. I kept the home and as he’d already retired, we spent all our time together. We didn’t have children as I had an underlying health issue. He thankfully had children from a previous relationship (marriage). He broke up with me whilst I was away via an email. There’s no-one else in the relationship. I thought we’d always be together but there were many days when I thought of leaving him as his bullying was terribly upsetting. Why didn’t I? I was weak and scared as I didn’t have money set aside as the money he gave me was for housekeeping and if I needed anything extra, I had to ask. Yes I know - what a darn fool I’ve been. Anyway, to cut a long story short I spoke to a lovely lawyer who said that the law in England desperately needed changing and apologised for being unable to do anything for me. I’m in my 50’s with a chronic health condition and a head filled with cotton. He doesn’t have to provide me with anything even though he always promised me that he would look after me no matter what. He wa obsessed with money and sadly no heartstrings that I can pull on.

Here’s a link to the Rights of Women that the lawyer gave me. It’s a guide for people who are living together. For some silly reason, I always thought I was somehow ‘protected’....that if he left me then the law would be on my side. Sadly it’s not. I thought of approaching the Daily Mail to see if they would like to start a campaign to have the law changed so that people in the future aren’t caught out. If nothing else, it would get the word out there that people, like myself, have no rights and it might just help people make better decisions.

Thanks for listening. Have a good Wednesday.

Here’s the link:-
rightsofwomen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PDF-guide-to-living-together-and-the-law.pdf

yes, the info is easily accessible. do not listen to foolish girlfriends, educate ypurself. sorry.

If you want the rights conferred by marriage then you get married.
No such thing as a Common Law marriage.

yes, the info is easily accessible

The same might be said of all government and law based information, so we could shut down the whole concept of public health education. All the information about STDs, obesity, smoking, drinking, folic acid supplementation is a google away, so why bother doing any advertising or education? And as to PSHE in schools...

In the real world, people only seek out information if they know they need to. If they believe that common law marriage is a thing, why would they seek out information that says otherwise? Attempting to improve public knowledge of things which have the potential to do them considerable and unfixable personal harm is a good thing, and "they should have looked it up twenty years ago, sucks to be them" isn't really helping.

'The decision to move in and share a life with another person is a big one, like marriage without all the historical baggage.'

No, it's not. I've shared life with flatmates, friends, landlords (as a lodger), legislating de facto relationships means such co-habitation is open to one of the parties going after the assets of another. Ridiculous. You want the rights of marriage, get married. I'm all for getting the word out more that there's no such thing common law marriage or rights for unmarried partners, but the law is fine as it stands.

If people continue to be bitten in the arse because they shacked up with someone for decades, that's their lookout. The general population shouldn't have to be punished for their naivete by not being allowed to pursue co-habitation of any sort without having their assets jeopardised.

In a relationship without children together where you didn't contribute financially I'm not sure why you think he should be obliged to provide you with anything after a split? Because he's a man?

^This

I agree that changing the law is unnecessary, I think the current arrangement gives people maximum choice which I think is always a good thing.

Just a point about avoiding marriage because divorce is difficult and can be costly. I'd argue that where you have shared assets (I.e a house owned 50:50) there's always the potential for one partner to make it difficult to sever the ties.

If the parties can agree who gets what then a divorce can be pretty cheap. Lawyers and courts are expensive whether it's for a divorce or any other division of assets.

"I think the current arrangement gives people maximum choice which I think is always a good thing"

Exactly. If people want to be tied together legally and share assets, they can opt to do so. If they want to live together but without the legal ties and with their assets individually protected (for example for pre-existing children), they can opt to do so.

Currently we have a situation where many (mainly) men who don't want that legal commitment/asset-sharing are cohabiting with women who (on the basis of this and many other similar threads) think that's what they are getting.

Improve information about rights, and then the women can make an informed decision about whether to cohabit with/have children with/give up work to look after the children of, a man based on whether he's offering the legal commitment and asset-sharing of marriage, or not, and based on a solid understanding of what she's letting herself in for.

The law doesn't need changing, because freedom of choice is important. Instead people need educating what the law actually says!

there's only so far the nanny state can go. Everyone on here is able to read and has internet access. That indicates at least some level of education and thinking ability.

Admittedly the 'feminine to be thick' idea is deeply engrained (with MN no exception) but women simply have to get over that. Don't be a sheep, use that brain, look things up, ask for advice from reputable sources not your gormless pub pals.

Independent and critical thinking - as NOT demonstrated in a current mob rule case - is the only way the human race will survive.

Yes, people need educating. My children will know. However, for my generation, lots of our mothers were married so the implications of not being married isn't widely known.

But I do think that there should be legal obligations by fathers to the mothers of their children if they have taken a sahm role or a sacrifice in career as it happens in so many cases.

flowery makes some excellent points. I think the education of legal matters such as this is vital & as parents (for those of us who are) we have responsibility to do so.

Our daughters & sons need to know what they’re setting themselves up for.

I don't think the law should be changed. I am married and take that seriously. But I also have a good job & assets and children I want to inherit them. If (god forbid) I lost my lovely DH I would want to be able to move on - but I would not want any bloke I shacked up with having any claim on what DH & I have built up for our children. A change in the law would require older people to stay single to protect their children.

Couldn't agree with this more.

The decision to move in with someone is in no way comparable to making the decision to marry. For one thing you have no idea whether both parties feel the same level of commitment. When you marry you both agree to a legal level of commitment.

Dh and I worked very hard together to acquire our joint assets such as they are. We want them to benefit both of us and then our children. Not our next relationship and his/her children. If anything happened us, I'd like to think I might have another relationship. I might even want to leave that person something or make some arrangements if we are together for a long time. What I don't want is for that person to acquire rights simply by being in a relationship with me. If I want to marry or change my will I can.

I'm very sorry you are in this position, but you put yourself there.

You could have married him.

You could have refused to move in with him unless your name was on the property deeds.

There are all kinds of steps you could have taken, but didn't.

The laws don't need changing; women need to stop putting themselves in such a vulnerable position and then acting shocked when their relationships end and they have nothing.

I agree with those saying education is the key.
Anybody, male or female who lives with a partner needs to be aware that they should protect themselves financially.
I'm glad I never married as divorce is costly. I cohabited and my partner and I had seperate finances, the ownership of the house in common and wills in each other's favour.
On separation the house was sold and split equally, wills altered and our only responsibility was to our children.

The simple answer is for women to stop having children with people who are unwilling to commit to them

Or perhaps we should be telling women not to have children if they can't support themselves without help. Rather than saying find a man willing to marry so you can have him provide.

”I cohabited and my partner and I had seperate finances, the ownership of the house in common and wills in each other's favour.
On separation the house was sold and split equally, wills altered and our only responsibility was to our children.”

Exactly. It’s important people are able to choose to do that.

I wonder if we're moving towards a position similar to the ancient Romans, who in the later centuries of the empire had both traditional 'con manu' marriage with ceremony and cake, and marriage 'sine manu' where a couple who lived for a number of years were automatically regarded as married.

Lived together that should be.

I don't think that the law needs changing. The point if marriage is to confer such rights. Reserving such rights for marriage means that people have the freedom to have relationships without giving those rights to their partner. To change the law to automatically protect cohabitating partners would be an appalling intrusion into the private lives of citizens.

While I agree that more awareness is a good thing I don't think that removing the right to a no strings attached live in relationship to protect those who are silly enough not to check what their rights are before making a commitment is rather draconian.

i feel sorry to hear that you cared for him through cancer without having a discussion or doing research as to what would happen if he died.

@boxsets but then a lot if women just wouldn't have children. Most people can't afford to raise children alone.

If the state can suddenly decide you're married even though you haven't said you want to be, can it also decide you're divorced based on how you've behaved? If one of you works abroad for a while, for example, or sleeps with someone else?

I am sorry for your predicament OP but I would object most strongly to what you are suggesting,. people should be able to choose to live together without the risk (if they don't want it) of having to split their assets etc on break up. As already said, get married if you want those rights. I would have to live alone for the rest of my life if your suggestion were implemented as I do not want to risk my hard paid for house etc for a live in partner.

I find it shocking that there still are adults who don't know that living with someone does not give you any rights. You have to be married if you want to share assets.

My "mother" has lived with her partner for 40 years unmarried. There's no chance he'll leave her anything so she'll be homeless if she's not on the deeds.

This is one of the main reasons people get married these days, after long term relationships that needn’t be necessary to marry. It’s to do with the law, especially homeowners or people with children, unless married then the law doesn’t favour you to well upon break up.
Equally a divorce can be a long, hard drawn out stress.
I’m not married and have no intention to be. But that’s certainly the reasons some of my friends have given for getting married after say 15 years of cohabiting and doing just fine. If your partners parents leave an inheritance anything like that.. or care of children should anything happen to you.
Quite dictatory and outdated imo xx

*too well I definitely wrote too not to 😒