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

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.

How insensitive can you get?

OP hasn’t “come out on tips” if, after a long de facto marriage, he has plenty of assets and she is destitute.

Be a bit bloody kinder.

What Sandy said.

I just think at the moment it's women losing out

Because they choose to live with men...playing the wife role and don't apply logic.

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.

This is the problem. Being desperate for kids and the bio clock ticking. Women need to be prepared to walk away in good time when they want children, if marriage isn't forthcoming. Men are wise to women becoming desperate and string them along.

I hear of people in relationships for 5 years and upwards. If a man doesn't know he wants to marry you after 5 years...unless your late teens or early twenties....you need to be walking away...not staying and hoping. You end up with sunken cost fallacy sadly.

I heard about the de facto relationship in Australia recently by chance actually.

There is a legally married couple where the wife is allowed to have lovers (husband is a cuckold) and she has now entered into a de facto relationship with one of her lovers...while still being married. She lives with her boyfriend during the week and her DH at the weekend.

This is all with the husbands knowledge and agreement, but like a pp said... I can see how men....could have a mistress who thrt have a similar set up with.

It essentially allows bigamy in a way. There doesnt seem to be a law against being legally married and having a de facto relationship.

I was thinking the woman in question would be quids in if both men died.

OP hasn’t “come out on tips” if, after a long de facto marriage, he has plenty of assets and she is destitute.

But it’s not a de facto marriage, it’s cohabiting and the two are not the same. She’s no worse off than if she’d spent that time being single or in a series of short term relationships, and I can’t understand why she thinks she should profit from the end of a relationship when she didn’t contribute financially or through providing childcare? If she’d had a lottery win or large inheritance during the relationship and decided to walk away would she be lining up to write him a cheque?

If op wanted the rights of a marriage the she should have got married. Google has been around for a long time now, she could have easily found out what the differences were.

Knowing the law doesn’t make you immune to manipulation or time wasting. It happens to a lot of women.

There’s more reason for us to adopt de facto laws than not. Anyone concerned can set up trusts or cohabitation agreements or simply not cohabit.

Sounds like the OP had it sorted for 20 years, living rent free with her boyfriend giving her money she needed. There were no kids that she had to give up a career for and stay at home and look after, so it was her choice to be a kept woman and not work.

To be honest, I can’t understand where she gets her sense of entitlement to her ex’s money from, just for being a woman. A man with a similar set up would be know as a cock lodger on here, and a woman would be applauded for dumping him.

Sounds like the OP had it sorted for 20 years, living rent free with her boyfriend giving her money she needed. There were no kids that she had to give up a career for and stay at home and look after, so it was her choice to be a kept woman and not work.

You’re fictionalising. You don’t how long or why she didn’t work. Whether there were fertility issues or broken promises.

It could bad you said. Or it could be quite the opposite.

But if spouses in that position would have some protection, so should long term de factos.

It’s not a moral issue, it’s a contractual issue. Implied contracts etc exist in other types of English law. No reason not to give vulnerable partners some protection.

It could be AS you said..^

The flip side to all this is all the threads we see where women are living with ‘cocklodgers’ ie men who move in with a single mum and her kids, piss around on the PlayStation, can’t keep a job and are generally a total drain on the woman’s tim, energy and resources. Imagine if every time we saw one of those posts we had to advise women that, sadly, they’ll have to put up with it - because having dated and lived with the guy for 3+ years, she might lose her and her children’s home if she ends the relationship?

THIS, a thousand times.

The decision to pool assets should be just that, a decision made by two individuals. Not something that the state forces on people. If the state forces de-facto marriages on people, this is in effect a form of forced marriage. It's deeply unethical, and it deprives people of the choice to NOT be married if they do not want to.

What we need is more education and less squeamishness about this.

At the moment, "marriage" is so mixed up with ideas about religion and sexual prudery, that commenting on a friend's unmarried status is seen as bad manners, judgmental and a sign of old-fashioned or excessively religious attitudes.

This makes it extremely difficult to simply share information so that people, esp women, can make informed choices, and a lot of women are being left in the dark as a result.

There’s more reason for us to adopt de facto laws than not. Anyone concerned can set up trusts or cohabitation agreements or simply not cohabit.

People concerned about not sharing assests could just set up legal protection , get married or simply not co-habit now. So there is no need to change the law.

It’s an “opt in” versus “opt out” choice.

It depends who you think is most in need of the presumption.

I generally find that the well off are better able to hire lawyers and protect their interests than those with small income/assets.

It depends who you think is most in need of the presumption.

So choosing between the many 'vulnerable' people who end up living with their dp with no financial security and the many 'vulnerable' people who end up with cocklodgers living with them.

Either way, there will be people negatively impacted. So we dont need a change in the law. We need to teach people, like the op, that your friends shouldnt be the be all and end all of legal advice. Teach people what rights they have. Teach people they have to protect themseleves before moving into someones home. We have google, it takes minutes to find the information from legitimate sources.

Australia has an opt out clause. Both partners need to elect to opt out, and then you’re free of de facto laws impacting your relationship. That’s pretty easy and would help with cocklodgi g situations as much as it would with commitmentphobes or controlling partners; If you and your partner can’t agree whether to opt out, it’s a red flag that something is askew. It should stop people from drifting blindly into things.

And we, essentially, have opt in.

And if you and partner cant agree on wether you both should be protected or not, then its a red flag that something isnt right and you shouldnt be moving in.

In many people dont realise they can get legal protection and float into these situations. And, if the law changes, many wont realise they can opt out and float into the situation.

I would like people to not float into these situations at all. Which is why education is key.

You’re assuming everyone is equally intelligent, confident, assertive and well-supported. They aren’t. There are many people out there without our advantages.

Family law that prioritises well resourced “floaters” over less privileged “floaters” is a failing family law.

And there are plenty of 'floaters' that may have some assests, but still vulnerable. They may have some assests, that doesnt mean they are well off and can afford legal action to protect their assets.

I am not assuming anything. But it appears you are assuming that because someone has managed to get a small deposit together (either by saving or result of divorce) and managed to get a house, they must be able to afford to fight to protect their small deposit. They can only just afford their living costs in a lot of situations. Where i live, i couldnt afford to rent. The shit situation the property market is in, means i saved a substantial amount (per month) by buying a property. Rent, here, is more than a mortgage.

You are assuming those who mange to get their own house, are always better educated, assertive and supported. But that isnt the case at all.

Many women post here from the ops perspective. Many women also post because their partner is a cocklodger and draining them financially, emotionally, physically. Lots of these women have ended up in these relationships because they are vulnerable due to their past.

Whatever the law is, someone will placed in a bad position. Unless we educate people. A change in the law will help some people and damage others. It wont solve the issue of people making huge life decisions before looking at the long term implications.

I am not assuming anything. But it appears you are assuming that because someone has managed to get a small deposit together (either by saving or result of divorce) and managed to get a house, they must be able to afford to fight to protect their small deposit.

I’m not remotely assuming that. Average homeowners who have most of their money tied up in their home are always in that tricky position with every situation, from Lleyandi disputes to divorce. Especially if they have children too.

Sorry I haven't read the whole post, I am a very recently (early) retired local government officer. I spent the majority of my working life as a homeless officer and consequently knew for ever that cohabiting gives no rights unlike marriage. Unless your name is on the tenancy agreement or mortgage then you are really a glorified lodger. I lost count of the number of times I had to advise that this was the case, I'm at a loss to understand why people still think that common law marriage exists, the local authority where I last worked did a lot of outreach work in schools, and to other organisations and this was the number one surprise to people. On the plus side it did give them ad ice for the future.

Advice obviously!

I do NOT want the law changed. I want to be able to have casual relationships, maybe even live with a man for a few years to test the waters to see if we are compatible WITHOUT them being entitled to my money.

I’m now married and have all the legal rights, as does he, that affords.

It’s insane to give those right to “just” a girlfriend or boyfriend when there is such an easy solution for anyone who wants the rights. (Get married)

Average homeowners who have most of their money tied up in their home are always in that tricky position with every situation,

So why mention people being less educated, assertive, supported?

People have all levels of education, assertiveness and support. Being a renter or home owner, doesnt have anything to do with it. Or having assets.

Back to my point. Regardless of which way the law sits, some vulnerable people will be negatively impacted. A change in the current law will not change that.

You can currently opt in or opt out of having the law (and the protections) involved in your relationship. The problem is that people dont think about it and/or dont think about it until its too late. They float. Floating will still happen. Unless people are educated on the risks and reasons.

I

People have all levels of education, assertiveness and support. Being a renter or home owner, doesnt have anything to do with it. Or having assets.

Yes exactly. More than one way to disadvantaged or advantaged.

Telling people the basic info over and over through various channels for forty plus years hasn’t worked, because other factors are at play.

I didn't know anything about this issue until I started hearing about it on MN, and I am an educated person!

I don't think this is well broadcast at all, and like I said, there is a social taboo on bringing this up. Nobody wants to look like great aunt Brenda clucking her tongue at people "living in sin." So we don't raise the subject even with close friends, mostly. Perhaps we should start doing that.

Having pages on the internet under "Citizens advice" is not going to work. We need this to be covered at schools, we need social media campaigns, we need this to be a plot of a soap opera!

Perhaps bringing the "same sex marriage" thing into the discussion would help? Getting gay people to talk on social media and so on about WHY getting married mattered for them, and get them to talk about how this makes a difference for straight couples too. It would add a fresh new angle, and it would be helpful because it would make it clear that encouraging young people to get married first is not about fusty old church-going, judgmental attitudes--it is about fairness, commitment and making sure that women and kids in particular are protected.

I always counsel pals to get their legal position made clear. More than one has been horrified when I tell them to look into it.
I hope you get sorted, op.

Yes. People on both sides can be taken advantage of. Can be vulnerable.

So a change in the law wont help. It will just put a different group of people in the crap.

I am 36. I wasnt educated on any of this at all. Me and my friends have discussed this many times. Non of us had co habiting explained. By parents, schools etc.

I was lucky enough for my financial advispr to explain it all when i bought my first house at 19. He didnt have to, but he did in case i moved someone in at some point.

So we havent been banging on about it for 40 years. A proper education process needs to be put in place. Not a bit of adhoc info, that only certain areas got.