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

If you want the rights that go with marriage, then don't get involved with someone who won't marry you.

If the law were changed it simply means that these same people who won't marry their partners then won't live with them either. I suppose that's better in the long run though as it would mean that both partners would have to be self supporting and thus wouldn't be vulnerable to ending up being dumped and left with nothing.

@saiya06
Yes it does sound like it might be complicated for lawyers. Australia has a similar de facto law , which I think is two years cohabitation .

My impression is that the law seems to be popular. It does protect the more vulnerable in society.
It’s fine for educated, articulate people on MN to say if you want rights then educate yourself and marry to protect yourself. There are people in disadvantaged parts of society who for many different reasons aren’t in a position to make those choices. It’s kind of like the way saving for your KiwiSaver ( pension) is automatic and you have to fill forms to opt out. (Nudge theory?)

De facto relationships have become an accepted social norm - they mean a committed relationship here. Our PM is in a de facto relationship and is pregnant- I can’t imagine that happening in the UK , not for a long time anyway.

I think though the UK is really traditional I think they might adapt in the future as they

I meant to delete the last line 😀

In Australia and NZ, do de facto relationships extend to same sex couples?

@johnnycomelately1
Yes, doesn’t matter which sex.

Not all states in Australia have signed up to the De Facto regulations, in the northern territory and western Australia they do not support registering domestic relationships legally as they do in southern Australia. So it's not a blanket legislation across the whole of Australia.

There are people in disadvantaged parts of society who for many different reasons aren’t in a position to make those choices.

That's a fair point but also consider it from the other point of view. A woman with children gets into a relationship with a man and he lives in her home for the required period. He contributes nothing financially and is verbally and sexually abusive towards her. She owns the house and has the job. But under the suggestion for legal protection for cohabitation she would not be able to kick him out and could end up having to support him financially even though he was abusive to her. She didn't know this was the case until she tried to split up with him. How is that group better off?

There are multiple groups in society that would be affected by this proposal.

It does protect the more vulnerable in society

Does it? Man with no assets and no job meets woman with some assets and a low-paying job. Man does not marry vulnerable woman, but gets her pregnant anyway, having moved in to live with her. Three years later, he leaves, and demands half of her money and possessions.

That's better for her, right, because...?

Without wishing to engage in broad-brush stereotypes, the "baby father" problem in some communities is not good for women and not good for children. Your proposal helps them because...?

In Australia and NZ, do de facto relationships extend to same sex couples?

Two men flat share. One moves out and claims they were a couple. The other says no, they were just sharing a flat. Why the hell should every flat share have to prove it isn't a couple?

@keneftyaki.
In your example no.
But there are many more women like the OP.
It’s not my proposal I was explaining how it works in New Zealand . It’s a different country/ culture and I find it interesting to see how it works here.

Two men flat share. One moves out and claims they were a couple. The other says no, they were just sharing a flat. Why the hell should every flat share have to prove it isn't a couple?

Quite. I can see an argument for couples that have children together but I see no need to change the law for childless couples.

But there are many more women like the OP.

(Citation needed)

If you want the law to be involved in your relationship, you can choose to. Not every relationship needs or wants the law involved.

A change in the law will not protect the 'vulnerable'. Education will. If we put a law through that say after 2 years you become entitiled to assets, nothing will change for the 'vulnerable'.

Women who give up work, have kids, move into their partners houses because their dp promises marriage (and marriage never appears), will still probably give up work. Have a baby. But their partner will dangle moving in, instead of marriage. There will be plenty of women who still find themseleves, financially vulnerable and effectively a single parent.

On top of that, how many vulnerable women end up with cocklodgers? I nearly did. Left an abusive marriage and ended up with someone who would have loved to have moved in for a bit and then take half my assets. Luckily for me, i spotted it.

But their partner will dangle moving in, instead of marriage.

And the definition of "moving in" is slippery enough that the "vulnerable" who these sorts of laws claim to protect will not be able to prove that an un-cooperative ex-partner ever did move in. Outside the compliant middle-classes, things like updating bank addresses and driving license addresses are honoured in the breach.

These sorts of "de facto" pieces of legislation always read to me like the product of privileged middle-class people who think that not getting married is a principled stance which makes them edgy and admirable, but don't like the consequences. They concern troll to pretend it's about "the vulnerable" but really it's about themselves.

Middle class couples with assets who separate probably can prove, or disprove, co-habitation. But why should the courts be cluttered up by that? Want to be unmarried? Stay unmarried; compared to when I was first co-habiting 35 years ago, there is far less social or familial stigma. Want to be married? Get married; it's cheap, easy and you don't have to tell anyone if you want to remain an edgelord private about it.

There are people in disadvantaged parts of society who for many different reasons aren’t in a position to make those choices. It’s kind of like the way saving for your KiwiSaver ( pension) is automatic and you have to fill forms to opt out. (Nudge theory?)

I don't agree. I think it's about priorities. How many times on these threads do you see women say 'we are buying a house because we now have 2 dcs , I want to get married when we move but my DP is saying we can't afford it now we have the house' ...
This is ALL arse about tit !!
If you find a man and he finds you and you love one another enough to plan children, and buy a bloody house - then get yourselves down to the registry office for £120 and get married.

There really aren't many people in the uk who can't save £60 each. even on benefit . Two kids cost significantly more !

There really aren't many people in the uk who can't save £60 each. even on benefit

And if that is the case, then it would hardly be a major change to the warp and weft of our society to make marriage in a registry office free or heavily discounted for people on certain passporting benefits. It's a policy which would flush out some surprising and interesting responses (would the right love it because marriage, or hate it because benefits?) but its impact on our wider legislative framework would be tiny.

Pissing about adding whole new categories of relationship seems rather more complex than just encouraging people to use the one that is there.

I know of 4 couples in Australia where it has worked well. Not at all 'horrendous as a PP said earlier. Two in particular as they were long term relationships where, both times, the women wanted children but the men were nervous about marriage and the women were late 30s and were running out of time.

I know of 4 couples in Australia where it has worked well

The relationship has ended and the result have all played out?

Personally I think that making it free would literally devalue it. It would also make it one of those things that people did without thinking about it. It's already pretty devalued when a man can have an affair and walk away from 4 young kids and the proceedings be described as 'no fault' divorce. ?
£60 quid per person is not exactly a fortune and could be saved for pretty dam quickly if the B&G forwent a couple of take always, new shoes/clothes and/or booze and fags.
IMHO in should be a straightaway £100 each. Enough to Car about but not to much to save whilst thinking about wether it's the right thing to do.

I know of 4 couples in Australia where it has worked well

How did it work well?

You got dumped over email?? Was he your sugar daddy, feeding you false promises? As he was already retired when you met him 20yrs ago?

Some men seem to dangle the promise of marriage but then refuse when children appear

Very naive to fall for this IMO.

Which is why you wait till you're married to have children if you want the protection marriage brings.

If a man can't commit to marriage for whatever reason, then I definetly wouldn't have a child with him.

If both parties are happy not to be married...then that's fine.

It is sad that you have found yourself in this desperate situation. But even for married women maintenance stops after the children reach a certain age and some will find themselves in a not great financial situation. I don't think the law needs to be changed but women need to be aware of the position they are in if they aren't married or even if they are married and then separate especially if the children are grown up and no maintenance is paid.

But it can work both ways. If a woman has had private means and then divorces she may well find herself worse off.

OP look at it this way, he supported you and you’ve lived rent free for the last 20 years without having to make any commitment, you’ve actually come out on top from this relationship, he’s would have been better off financially if he hadn’t been in a relationship for that time.

I for one would oppose any change in the law, it’s time we as a society looked at marriage as a legal contract akin to writing a will rather than an expensive party which people think they can’t afford.

If you want to petition for anything then petition for better education on the difference between marriage and cohabitation.

But even for married women maintenance stops after the children reach a certain age an

Joint ownership of marital assets doesn’t stop, though.