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

In a relationship 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

Agree. He's already financed twenty years of you having to pay no rent or bills and not help financially so why should he have to do anything more?

YearOfYouRemember - what's more shocking to me is why you would even think that living in a house that someone else owns and not contributing to it all - that that person should continue to provide for you or give you some of their assets?

I just can't wrap my head round that thinking at all.

As in even wit thinking you were protected by non-existent common law spouse legislation - why would you ever think that person should have to continue to provide for you?

common law spouse legislation

The whole point about the common law is that it isn't legislation. That's what gives it its mystic allure for the legally naive: because it's a mesh of precedent, it's quite challenging sometimes to disprove assertions.

I am 100% with those who say the law does NOT need yo be changed. I am a divorced woman who lives with her children, I was always the higher earner and now live in a home with quite a lot of money with a comparatively small mortgage,
I want that asset to pass to my children when I die and if I choose to share my home with a partner in the future, I want that preexisting asset protected (as I would expect him to do) I I want to share everything I would get married, otherwise no way will he have any share of my independently earned property.
I am sorry you are in a difficult position OP, and of course morally there is an argument about your entitlement (although if you have never contributed financially nor raised his children, it won’t be much) legally you have been astonishingly naive ....

ChinnyReckon - I never said that. You must be confusing my post with someone else's.

The issue is more than just legal rights to property. A woman who does not work who is living with a man but not married to him cannot realistically expect him to provide financially after he leaves or dies - why should there be any expectation of entitlement to financial support or pension? This is 2018 not the 1950s. As a competent adult with no children she would be expected to work herself, seriously why should 'keeping house' mean he should support her? Of course a decent partner might have named her on the pension or in his will but not to find out if this is done is just so breathtakingly naiive.

YearOfYouRemember

You said this 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.

I was agreeing with you but also saying I'm shocked that even if people did believe in a non existing 'common law spouse' legislation, I don't understand why they would ever think they would have an 'entitlement' to the assets of an ex partner or feel that that ex partner should have to continue to provide for them financially.

The only change to the law that is required is for civil partnership to be made available to everyone or to be abolished.

The law as it stands discriminates against mixed-sex couples.

As someone who is splitting up with my exP, I don’t in any way regret is not being married. It makes things simpler in lots of ways, and saves the whole needing to divorce thing.

I have always worked FT and have never been financially dependent on ex. We own the house 50/50 tenants in common. So it’s reasonably straightforward really.

I realise that I am in a fortunate position in comparison to many women when a relationship breaks down. But I agree with others on the thread that what is needed is a campaign to ensure that the differences between marriage and cohabiting become pretty much common knowledge, rather than a change in the law. Lots of people choose not to be married and wouldn’t want to end up legally bound to someone else. They should be able to do that if they want.

Chinny - I don't think I did say I thought a non contributing person is entitled to part share of the others assets?

No you didn't. My use of 'you' has confused you. I meant 'you' as in 'you - all the people in general'

I can think of very few mothers I know whose career hasn't been affected by having children. Married or unmarried.

It's very well and easy to say that you should continue working to protect your financial future but the reality mostly down to biology is different.

As for the op. You don't know her circumstances at all. She's already said she supported him through cancer etc. Notbahvkng children does not mean that you haven't contributed and supported who you're living with. When you love someone and they need help or there is anyone needing help, it is very natural for a woman to want to care for them .

Not being financially responsible for someone else when you split up, is the very reason some men (and women) don't get married.
Why should you have to pay an Ex GF or BF when you split? I don't think you should TBH.

People mock marriage...like it's an outdated concept, but it gives you legal protection.

There's no half marriage...no common law husband or wife.

You can't believe a promise to make sure you're financially ok will last forever ... when the law doesn't require it.

This should be a lesson to those living together ... if you are financially dependant on a man (or woman) and aren't married...you're in a very vulnerable situation if the relationship ends.

@ilovemymum1

Want the protection that marriage brings?

Get married.

It's not that hard.

And nothing 'needs' to be changed.

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.

If they're married then yes. If not...big mistake.

If you choose to have a child/children without being married and become a SAHM.... you run the risk of being up the creek without a paddle.

It's a matter of common sense. Only marriage offers the protection of marriage. You can't have it both ways.

Just read up on the NZ De Facto Relationships and they sound horrific (whereas the French version sounds great). I'm a lawyer but not a family lawyer and I'm genuinely interested in any family lawyers or kiwis weighing on with their experiences.

Imagine getting divorced but the first part of the divorce proceeding is arguing about whether or not you were actually married. Since you need to be in a "de facto relationship" for 3 years to qualify (unless exceptional circumstances arise), you have to litigate when your relationship actually started and ended. A relationship can be non de facto and become "de facto" over time. It can move back and forth between de facto and non defacto status.

The court has a list of criteria that it supposedly applies to determine the status of your relationship but it can do so by weighing any of the criteria to any degree it likes. It essentially has complete discretion to do what it wants. In fact, the entire inquiry is so fact based and there's so much room for judicial discretion; there's absolutely no certainty or predictability about the relationship status. This seems like a dream for lawyers and abusers. Endless litigation.

Additionally, it seems to legalize bigamy by the back door. You don't need to share a common residence to qualify for a de facto relationship and it's pretty clear that you can maintain multiple de facto relationships at once. Mistresses could qualify if they met enough of the criteria. Your DH can essentially formalize an affair behind your back and legally assign away a portion of your marital property.

I'm interested. Do NZers like this legislation? How does it work in practice?

Chinny . I've had a day and a half. Brain on go slow.

“I thought of approaching the Daily Mail to see if they would like to start a campaign to have the law changed”

Why should the law be changed? If someone wants the protection of marriage, then... they should get married.

cricrichan I’m not being goady, but genuinely - what is the biological aspect of being a woman which means your career is impeded post having children?

I agree that most women’s careers are impeded post kids. But that is generally down to:

• them cutting hours at work
• women being the primary ‘go to’ when child is sick
• mothers being the ones who do the late nights and therefore underperforming due to tiredness
• being passed over for promotion due to fears of being unreliable as a result of the above

1 - 3 is choice, for want of a better word. There is no biological imperative requirement for women to do this, men or another woman eg childminder, other family member etc could
4 is either a justifiable concern on the part of an employer based on evidence, or an outdated assumption that has nothing to do with biology.

Either way, the mere fact of having given birth doesn’t preclude a career that could continue on the same trajectory less a short pause due to maternity leave.

The only argument I can consider that might make it a biological issue is breastfeeding, but as we have protected maternity rights in law and protections for nursing mothers (right to express etc) that doesn’t hold. The attitudes of men and employers might mean in practice those rights aren’t protected, but that’s a failure in society, and nothing to do with the biological aspects.

In any event I don’t think OP will be back. I really do feel for her but the vast majority of the thread is in opposition.

Final point - does anyone who agrees with her think we should get rid of wills because some people in society haven’t educated themselves about needing one? For me it’s a comparable suggestion.

Actually I think there is a good argument for unmarried partners, with children together, to be protected by law if they split more than they are at the moment. Some men seem to dangle the promise of marriage but then refuse when children appear. It would be good if the mother and children were better protected.

Sorry for your situation OP. Sounds really shitty.

It's an unfortunate situation for you OP and I hope you sort yourself out but I don't agree with your argument.

The law covers this under marriage or civil partnership. If he wasn't willing to commit to you via marriage then he cannot be forced to commit to you by proxy just because you lived together.

Enabling this through law would make a lot of women more vulnerable by forcing them to support their partners in potentially abusive situations. It would reduce their ability to remove abusive men from their lives.

I don't mean to beat you when you're down but you've been extremely naive and lax in educating yourself as to your rights. There's no recourse in law for ignorance I'm afraid.

Final point - does anyone who agrees with her think we should get rid of wills because some people in society haven’t educated themselves about needing one? For me it’s a comparable suggestion.

I don't think it is really comparable. The law says if you don't have a will here are the rules by which your property will be assigned - the rules of intestacy. Over the years the law has changed those rules of intestacy.

What the law currently says is if you don't get married but live with and have children with a man here are the rules which will govern your split - and the rules are he must maintain his children but you are effectively a stranger to him no matter how long you have lived with him.

What the OP is suggesting is that those rules be changed to include some recognition of the relationship. Just as rule on intestacy or laws providing for minimum widow's share etc have changed over the years.

As it happens I don't think the rules should be changed - I would not want the responsibilities of marriage thrust upon me without my active consent but there is an argument that the law as it stands can be terribly unfair - mostly on women. There was a case reported recently where a woman who had lived with her partner for many years and was left penniless when he died received a house and some money by a judge on grounds of equity.

Scribblegirl - fair enough it's a choice. But it's women who bear the brunt of it regardless of their marital status and many willingly. I have a need to nurture my kids in a way that the fathers of my children haven't had. Maybe it's societal but because of the crumbling of marriage, women need to be better protected in my opinion. There will be many women who will want to have children and sacrifice their careers in order to have children. If they live with the father of their children and he benefits from that, then he should also be responsible in yhe same way that a married woman is. I just think at the moment it's women losing out and I can't see it changing too much.