UNMARRIED -NO RIGHTS!!!

[Oncewasneedy]

Just wondering what MN readers would think about a campaign for the rights of unmarried women/mums!! (Long one-sorry)
I am so tired of hearing about women on here getting the crap end of the stick purely because they weren't married! And also because they don't understand that being unmarried leaves you with no rights over anything!
I was one of those women!
I met my partner when I was 16 and he was 30. It was all good for a long time and when he proposed to me I didn't even look back! The very next day he said he wanted a long engagement! I was not happy about this!! But when I also began to have my own thoughts about things he didn't like it!
However in the time we were together we had 4 children! I would have had more as he wanted but his behaviour got more unforgivable with each birth! (Think narcissistic and your there)
We also went through many problems with losing parents to our family business going to pot! We fought hard to get our livelihood back and thank god we did it!
But despite everything it wasn't enough! I could go on and on about how selfish he was and how I thought I would die of sadness and loneliness being with him but it doesn't serve anyone! I begged him to try but in the end I couldn't take anymore and I left!
After 20 years together I had to leave!
I had to leave the home I had raised my children in, where they took their first steps, where I bathed them and had their birthday parties and Christmas!
I had to leave because I had no rights to the home- all in his name!
After 20 years- I meant no more to him than hired help!
Thank god I took a part time job when the youngest started school otherwise I would have been clueless!
Clearly this is a rant and a half but do other married women think that unmarried women should get legal protection in some form! I know that some women will flame me for being so naive and an idiot but when you meet someone at the age of 16 it twists your mind somewhat!
Im still trying to get my head around it all! So I'm sorry if I still sound angry!!!

People don't want to know.

This thread is a very good example.

The OP is literally a woman saying we lived together 20 years, I didn't have any rights upon separation. 100s of posters saying sorry without a signed contract no rights.

Someone pops up and says "don't you get rights after 10 years?"

@RainySeptember another poster said they should be entitled to half their cohabiting partners salary was the argument.

A campaign to educate young people on the legal protections and implications of marriage would be much more useful.

As well as explaining that you don't need to spend £10000s on a wedding.

I've heard so many women on here saying they can't afford to get married, but they have had children and live with their partner. Then they split up and realise the consequences.

*Having re read the post I assume they meant salary, otherwise I'm not sure what they meant half of. And no I have no idea who would be paying that considering that it's already spent?

@harshbuttrue1980
It is literally impossible to quantify the value of a SAHP as for some people it is the gold standard of childcare and superior to any other option. I don't say this as a dig to anyone that uses other forms of childcare but to explain that a SAHP isn't a glorified nanny and the value for many is linked to having a consistent person caring for the child who loves them. Plenty of extremely well qualified and successful women become SAHPs so don't assume that they are all people with few career options or low potential earning.

In terms of a SAHP's level of entitlement upon a split, I would suggest that there is no reason to assume that they are not entitled to the same as a WOHP would be. This is mainly based on the fact that the WOHP has presumably agreed to the SAHP being at home as they have continued to fund it and stayed in the relationship. A WOHP that is discontent with this arrangement should seek to end it at the earliest opportunity. It is not morally acceptable in my opinion to profit from the labour of the SAHP for a long as it suits you and then turn around at the end of the relationship and moan about the lack of financial contribution from the SAHP and claim they have no entitlement to assets built up over the course of the relationship.

This issue has come up on Mumsnet before. General consensus is 'if you want marital rights, then get married'. If your DP is stalling on marriage, but still wants you to make financial sacrifices for him (like give up work etc), walk away.

You need to look at this from a legal viewpoint. Marriage (aside from the romantic stuff) is a essentially a contractual agreement about sharing assets which both parties voluntarily enter into. If you apply the same 'rights' to couples that might not have married, everything becomes very 'blurry' and hard to define legally, and you can't force people into that financial situation against their will. And what would define a long-term relationship? Would you be entitled to legal protection if your relationship of 2 weeks broke up? A relationship of 6 months? 5 years?

What also if you had an 'off and on' relationship for 10 years, would it be classified as a 10 year relationship or just your most recent stint together? There is also a lot of potential for abuse with long-term flat-mates or similar potentially able to claim for financial protection under the basis of co-habiting for several years even if they were never in a relationship. And who defines what is a relationship? Do flat-mates who have also had a drunken one night stand together or been occasional fuck-buddies count? What if a couple don't live together but still have a financial arrangement? Should they have financial protection?

In short, it's just far too complicated and a legal and ethical minefield to enforce financial rights on unmarried couples.

I could be persuaded that it should be easier to enter into a protective contract like marriage or civil partnership.

I could be persuaded that we could / should create another form of voluntary contract that help protect people in such situations (e.g. some kind of "marriage lite" or "cohabitation protection" with useful legal defaults).

I could never be persuaded that any of these things should ever be applied without the express active consent of both parties.

@kenandbarbie if a marriage breaks down then yes, half of what is acquired in a marriage is fair. But we are not talking about married people who signed a contract agreeing to this exact thing. We are talking about unmarried people who took the risk not to bother with a contact.

"Another poster said they should be entitled to half their cohabiting partners salary was the argument"

Oh I see. I interpreted it to mean 50% of assets.

True. I was really talking about a married couple. Which isn't the point of the thread!!

Anyway op hasn't been back has she?

In her case, after decades together and four dc, with her ex partner worth millions, I would expect her to be able to make a legal case to take something from the relationship.

Bumpity, I don't think it is always blatantly unfair though. Fair is a matter of perspective.

Is it fair that one partner has to pay for absolutely everything, not only for their children who they only have 50% responsibility for but also for the full living costs of another fully grown adult? Is it fair that that partner misses out on doing all the lovely day to day things that go along with having small children while the other parent gets to do all of that while having their own costs and their share of the children she paid for them?

I do see what you're saying, it can be unfair when one parent gives up a career and promotions etc to raise a family, but if that parent didn't want to work, didn't have a career with prospects and the chance of promotions, then have they really lost out? I'd say they've been pretty lucky to have been able to look after their children themselves as well as having all their financial responsibilities met for them by someone else.

I really strongly object to the idea that is projected that SAHMs are being taken advantage of or that they're doing something that no one would willingly choose to do. Many many women would love to be sahms but can't be because their partner doesn't earn enough to support two adults and however many children alone. Being a sahm is a luxury, how many times over do some women expect to be paid for that?

If you really don't want to get married but want to have children, want to give up your career(if you have one) that is surely your choice. If your boyfriend wants the house in his name the state are nothing to do with your own private arrangments. Why would they be!

What is also your choice is whether to protect yourself should you break up. If you don't think you will that is fine. Do what you like and make your own choices but don't blame others for your foolishness should the worst happen
Agreed.

And by the same token. If I worked my arse off to get a house and lots of assets then I may be reluctant to marry later in life and have all my assets end up eventually with DP's adult children who I hardly know.

How does the above suggested reforms remove rights from anyone other than questionable people who are keen to leave their ex with an inequitable split of assets?
It's not always questionable to want to protect your assets.
If I spent 25 years building up my assets and being a single parent, I might not want to marry a new DP with adult children because that risks my children losing out if I pass first then assets could go DH and then split with his adult children and mine would get almost nothing.

Nobody is entitled to anything off anyone unless they opt to draw up the appropriate legal arrangements.

I'd hate to cohabit with a person for 5 years and then have to split any inheritance with them 50:50 because the law has been changed to suit people who can't be arsed to get the legal protection offered by marriage.

None of that is questionable, as you put it. What is questionable is people who decide the legal protection isn't a priority but actually now I've made the choice to be in a precarious financial position when it goes wrong I want all the money I would have been entitled to had I got married.

@NailsNeedDoing
I think we will never agree as we fundamentally see the SAHP role differently. I see it as a role that is extremely hard work and undervalued when we are talking about babies, toddlers and preschoolers. I accept school age children is a different debate. It certainly isn't all about creating memories and having a fantastic time and I think it's really disingenuous to suggest that. It is extremely common IRL and on MN that people confess that they find work easier than being at home with small children. Some admittedly find the opposite but there is certainly no consensus that WOHP is harder than being a SAHP. If BOTH parents decide that they think having a SAHP is preferential to putting their children in other forms of childcare then obviously that involves one parent contributing financially and the other contributing in a non financial way, however both are valuable contributions and I just find your perception that the WOHP is burdened with supporting the whole shebang bizarre. Chances are the WOHP is being supported (and of course enabled ) by the SAHP too even if it is in a non financial way.

There are also those cases where both work full time as we both did (we were married however) and one just happens to earn 10x what the other does - I earned the higher amount so then the lower earner in marriage gets not just half the assets but more whereas cohabitants in such a case would only be sharing the assets that were in joint names - a big difference.

i support leaving the current law as it is.

Laws tends to be changed because of money and economics even if people suggest it is otherwise. So if the state thinks unmarried non working mothers are costing the state too much because men don't pick up the tab then the state might well want to change the law to remove the burden from the state and foist it back on to both parents so those of against a change in the current law may well need to lobby hard to keep the law it currently stands with the married and unmarried distinctions.

know several people through work who think they are common law married. I don't know how it became such accepted lies

I do too, but its easy to see why. for example when you get house insurance or even car insurance sometimes it says cohabiting but sometimes it says common law partner - its easy to interpret that as something similar to married and assume you have similar rights.

I am extremely grateful there is nothing in place for unmarried people.
Divorced my ex husband and I got screwed because of my assets. He brought nothing and left with something. I begrudgingly paid and moved on.

Then I met my ex. We were together over 15 years. He had nothing and I had assets. When we split that was it. End of.

As for well the man in the marriage wouldn’t be successful without the woman staying at home. What a load of bollocks. I know several of these types who choose to stay at home. With a combined income or even just on his they could easily afford cleaner etc. just she chooses this instead of working. There are single parents globally that have fab careers and raise their children, so I always find that excuse a cop out.

Women, well adults in general should be responsible for themselves instead of
Relying on others to maintain their lifestyles.

I could have stopped working and taken over everything in the home. Fuck that. I valued my freedom, autonomy, independence and self worth. Staying at home wouldn’t have added anything extra. The home stuff can easily be done by third parties.

Put something in place I will seek out the loopholes. Or no longer reside with another man.

If BOTH parents decide that they think having a SAHP is preferential to putting their children in other forms of childcare then obviously that involves one parent contributing financially and the other contributing in a non financial way, however both are valuable contributions
I totally agree.
Whether or not each person's contribution is valuable or not is separate from the law though, and should remain separate.
People can (and should) make whatever decision is right for their family. They are also responsible to looking at the implications of their decisions.

The law shouldn't be changed to give rights to people cohabiting on the grounds that 'women who are stay at home mums are giving a valuable contribution to the household'.

It's not devaluing the work of stay at home parents to suggest that they consider the financial and legal implications of coming out of work before making that decision.

" I don't know how it became such accepted lies."

Common law marriage exists in several US states, and some other countries too I think, so has probably entered public consciousness that way.

"Divorced my ex husband and I got screwed because of my assets."

You weren't screwed. You signed a contract giving him rights to marital assets.

I think it's a bit of a tinebomb with all these cohabiting couples expecting to be treated like married couples.

StUmbrageInSkelt I would hate the NZ laws to be enacted here. I wish to have the option of living with a man for two years or more WITHOUT any rights equal to marriage being created. If I want him to have those rights, I will marry him.

Nobody is suggesting society would fall apart, just that the system currently in operation here is preferable. I would have lost out big time under NZ law.

I think it’s our duty as parents, to talk to our daughters & sons about just what they’re letting themselves in for, if they get married.

rainy
I think what they were trying to say is that having made the decision to marry, the OP lost out financially from marriage as they contributed more than their ex husband. As a consequence, she will make sure that she is protected in future by choosing not to marry (a choice which some on here think she shouldn't have as they think anyone who lives with anyone should be able to swipe 50% of your assets even if you deliberately don't sign the legal contract of marriage)

People are free to protect their assets at the moment by choosing not to marry. They are free to share their assets and gain protection if they take on a financially vulnerable position within the family unit by marrying.
People on here are advocating removing that choice because some individuals don't bother to take responsibility for their choices.

@MaisyPops
I struggle to follow your logic. You accept that both parents have contributed something of value into the relationship. One has gone out to work and has something tangible I e. Money whilst the other has invested their labour into their child and hopefully enhanced their child's life. If the relationship was to breakdown you see nothing wrong in the partner with the money walking away with all the assets built up over the relationship whilst the SAHP can't exactly extract and withdraw their contribution?

I honestly just can't understand the argument why the SAHP in this kind of scenario shouldn't be entitled to a share of the financial assets. It seems many would support the WOHP being enriched by the support of the SAHP over the course of the relationship and also being entitled to retain all the money they've earnt during this time too. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

As I suggested earlier, the law doesn't have to be a blunt instrument where all cohabiting couples are automatically entitled to each other's assets. However there are some tests that can be put in place to check if one partner has been unduly enriched by the other and subsequently should be forced to share their assets. I think this is especially true where a partner has clearly led the other to believe that marriage was on the cards.