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!!!

I was screwed. He brought nothing but debt (found out after marriage) other
Complications I paid for.
We split after a couple of years of marriage. He left with some assets and I got the kids. He did nothing during the marriage to help increase assets either. So yea screwed over

I struggle to follow your logic
What's there not to get?
Who does what in the family unit is separate to a legal contract surrounding finances in the event of a split. That's it.

Regardless of who does what, who stays at home, who does child care or who works long hours or who works part time or flextime or whatever, if they want the legal protection of marriage, get married.

If people want the protection they can CHOOSE to get married and form a legal contract.
If people decide they will chance it without the protection then they are free to CHOOSE not to get married.

I don't see what's illogical there.

Nobody should be entitled to the financial assets of another person if they CHOOSE not to enter a legal arrangement affording them that entitlement.

By doing what you (and others) are proposing people are losing the choice to cohabit without marrying because suddenly the rights to assets get transferred.

At the moment:

• marry get protection and access to assets
• cohabit don't get protection and access to assets
• opt not to cohabit

Under the 'new give people access even though they opt not to marry' set up:

• marry get protection and access to assets
• cohabit get protection and access to assets
• opt not to cohabit

People lose freedom under the 'but I'm entitled to because I was at home buy chose not to marry' plan.

People need to take responsibility for their own choices and stop limiting other people's choices because they CHOSE to stay with someone who wouldn't marry them.

@MaisyPops
*Under the 'new give people access even though they opt not to marry' set up:

• marry get protection and access to assets
• cohabit get protection and access to assets
• opt not to cohabit*

Except as I keep saying there is a third way. Once again I draw you to the pre-existing legal precedent of a common intention constructive trust which is based on the principle that A should be entitled to a share in B's asset if

A and another person (B) share a common intention that B should have a beneficial interest in an asset, and B has acted to his detriment on the basis of that intention.

So in the case where B has made clear assurances to A that he intends to marry her or in some other way provide for her AND she acts to her own financial detriment (such as become a SAHP) based on that assurance then A should be entitled to something. Do you completely disagree with this?

I think trying to portray the notion that we women are delicate flowers who need protected from the big bad men is just wrong and also implies an absence of accountability and intelligence which feeds mysogyny.

Abuse is clearly very real and after I had to flee my home with my 1 year old ds after waking up to my ex in my bedroom months after seperating I do have genuine empathy for those who are vulnerable. I had nothing, was homeless and at times could only eat pasta with mayonnaise as money was so tight. I started a degree and found out I was pregnant with my now dh (actually only partner but he is as good as my husband in the ways which matter) due to my coil falling out. I was only 6 months into my degree and I had to make the horrible choice of doing what was best for me and my sons future or potentially letting history repeat itself (dh and I had only been together for 8 months). In the end I made the choice not to keep the baby and finished my degree after having a new coil put in. My career has shot off and I know earn almost as much as dh and we look back and talk about the baby we could have had once in a while. Hindsight makes the decision feel callous but I had to do what was right for the son I already had. We had our first child together 14 months ago and my DH told me if I wanted to be a sahm he would support that decision as I was weeping over leaving our dc at nursery, but I knew it would mean the potential end of my career and self sufficiency and I worked too damn hard and gave up too much to ever risk going back to square one.

Life can throw you shit and twists you never expect and it sucks but everyone has control over the path they walk. Any changes to the law would remove that control just so that other people don't have to make tough and heartbreaking choices about their future.

Bumpity, it's unworkable because it relies on the word of two individuals with flawed memories and vested interests. Precedents in other areas of law are quite different, since some evidence or proof can - indeed must - be provided.

It seems like an awfully vague way forward.

E.g. when I was pregnant we said I would stay at home and you said...

Keep it simple. Legal contracts only.

I'd happily have a legal contract below marriage of 'split of assets acquired during the relationship and should one person come out of work for x y z ...' but it needs to be a legal document not 'we've been together 5 years and have 2 children and you said we didn't need to marry because I could keep the house'.

But no, a hearsay split of assets wouldn't be ok with me. I wouldn't cohabit if I had assets later in life in case an ex decided to falsely claim 'but you gave me an assurance...'

@RainySeptember
I imagine messages, emails and letters etc would be pretty good evidence either way of what was said. Where everything was communicated orally then of course there would be more of an issue.

it's unworkable because it relies on the word of two individuals with flawed memories and vested interests.
Put much better than me.

@MaisyPops
And yet UK law has made this work with regards to the majority of people's most valuable asset (their properties). Obviously there is a burden of proof involved so these things wouldn't be decided without decent evidence regarding what was promised or not promised.

Those reassurance conversations rarely happen by digital media. They are spoken about at breakfast, pillow talk etc.

With properties everything is drawn up legally.

Even though DH and I are married, we still had the option for me to ring fence and protect my deposit. DH was the first to ask if I wanted to protect it. I didn't as we are married and it never crossed my mind but I thought it was nice he asked actually.

Things need to be legally drawn up, not based on who does what at home & who may or may not have said x y z over the years.

I find it bizarre that people would want the law changing rather than just take a little bit of responsibility before throwing themselves into a financially precarious position.

@nibblingandbiting
Maybe so but I imagine in this day age it might be mentioned over some form of (digital) written communication at some point. If it wasn't then I agree it would be difficult to prove however, if it was then it could provide a remedy for many women who acted in good faith.

But it's all just so cumbersome bumpity. Why add another layer of laws to those that already exist, if people would just use them?

@MaisyPops
Except it isn't always drawn up legally hence the existence of this kind of trust in the first place. I know you want certainty from the law and I do understand that but I always think that we should look to honour the spirit not the letter of the law. The law on marriage reflects a different time when most parents were married. Times have changed and we need to reflect this in the law in my opinion.

@RainySeptember
Because we have inequitable outcomes. That alone should be enough to review this area and consider alternatives.

I agree rainy.

It's a whole load of he said she said, maybe there's a text.
Dear me. I send DH a text saying I'm going away on half term and then (shocker!) things change. Could you imagine if he turned around and said you said you were going away on 27th June.

Or a couple were discussing the month's mortgage payment and the woman says 'don't worry I'll sort the mortgage'. Is that suddenly going to be used 5 years later when they split up?

Why add layers of complexity?
If people want protection and access to assets they can CHOOSE to get married.
If they want to take a risk then they can CHOOSE not to.
Whichever choice you make there are risks. That's part and parcel of life. Accept the consequences.

I disagree bumpity.

There is inequity because people make foolish decisions against their own interests, not because the law is insufficient.

If you want the legal protection of marriage, get married.

If you object to marriage for some reason you can achieve similar with legal contracts, wills and property in joint names.

If you decide to enter a precarious financial situation, without protecting yourself legally, then - much like deciding not to protect yourself with travel insurance or life insurance - you are taking a risk.

I don't accept that unmarried women don't know how vulnerable they are. There was a campaign to raise awareness last year, and it has never been law here. All the asset-protecting men seem to understand it, why don't the women? They do. They just take a risk and complain when they come unstuck.

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.

How on earth can this be resolved and honestly if you are too daft and silly to not protect yourself are you really suggesting that the state try and piece together emails/letters he said/she said verbal conversations? What if you claim to be upset at the time and didn't 'hear' what was being said to you. What if you didn't read the email or didn't understand the words. No one is going to send an email in legal speak confirming that if in the event of a split they will do xx.

Also, why on earth should the state because I suspect the SAHM will say they don't have any money start to get SO involved in your love life.

YOU are the person responsible for your choices, YOU chose this person, YOU are the person who had a child/children without real financial protection, YOU are the person who choose to stay at home, do I need to go on?

If as a women (I know its mainly women) you cannot be bothered to understand that marriage gives you protection then more fool you. If you then continue to make your situation worse then YOU only have yourself to blame, not the state, not the married women who were sensible and actually not even the ex. YOU!

I am so passionate about this subject. I have two late teen sons. There are consequences should they do certain things. They are not allowed to doss around the house playing those blooming Xbox games for hours on end. They have a small amount of chores. I don't ask them every day - they know what they are. If they are not done I will take away the broadband router (only done it once).

Maybe in our parents generation you were trapped in marriages, bossed around by your husbands. I remember my father demanding to know what my mother earned because he was head of the house and he filled in the tax return. She never knew what he earned. They are now divorced. Its laughable now but it wasn't that long ago.

It always surprises me how many people travel without insurance. Apparently its about 25%. They can afford the holiday but cannot be arsed to pay for insurance. Just WHY??

Bumpity - really your ideas are completely unworkable. If you want some protection financially get married. Why are you trying to over complicate what is actually a very simple concept.

How romantic. Digital conversations about relationships.

So it goes talk in person and then afterwards send a digital transcript to each other?
Or can we talk about assists? - that email would be binned along with the person sending it to me.Others will say oh we
Will talk about it later.

How would this digital conversation to gain proof happen?

At the start of moving in contracts drawn to say I am bring x, you can think again if you are getting a penny in the event of a split. Why should I have to go through this process when not married. Then legally is this worth it considering we don’t even have prenuptial protection.

Plus who is paying for someone to go through all this nonsense detective work? If it's the couple then I can guarantee it's cheaper to get married. If it's the state... Don't even get me started it's so stupid and unnecessary.

If people want to pay to have individual legally binding contracts drawn up that cover all the stuff that marriage does then that's fine, do that instead. Although I'm pretty certain it would be cheaper to pop to a town hall and get a marriage certificate ffs.

It has not worked well under the law where people cohabit one owns a property and the other pays part of them ortgage. It is a right old mess and veyr hard to interpret and decide who gets what so to suggest extending that even further to give the cohabitant even more rights would be very complicated. I suppose we could issue a website whereby when people start to spend more than say 3 nights a week with a sexual partner if they both choose they could register and tick boxes eg I agree to my partner having half of my assets if we split or one third or whatever.

This they promised to marry me business would never work. We used to have litigaiton for breach of promise of marriage. When he died in 1917 my grandfather's obituary (he was a lawyer) said his first case in the 1890s had been a "breach of promise" of marriage case. They were difficult to litigate ove rin the 1890s and would be no easier now even though losing your virginity these days (not that they did lose it in the 1890s breach cases) no longer in most UK cultures makes you damaged goods and your marriageable value reduced.

People already can enter into cohabitation agreements when they move in together. It's a good idea.

I think a 'breach of promise' law would have lots of unintended consequences that would make the situation much worse tbh.

I sort of understand if you don't want to get married. We didn't get married in a church. One set of parents said they wouldn't recognise it if we didn't. Hey ho. We still didn't and that has all be forgotton over the midsts of time!

A wedding can cost very very little should you not want all that fuss

However if you cannot be bothered to get married, cannot be bothered to get a will, cannot be bothered to have a legal contract drawn up, cannot be bothered to google the law regarding unmarried parents, cannot be bothered to check the legal situation if you give up work, cannot be bothered once you have children etc then sorry but you cannot possibly expect others to mop up your mess.

So - I don't know where the OP went but I think she knows she has been very foolish. Hopefully she is getting some legal advice as I cannot believe after such a long time with children involved there wont be something she can work with. He is the children's father and hopefully he wont see they going without.

I think its her position that is the tricky one.

Part of the reason for the confusion I think is that other English speaking jurisdictions sometimes do have common law, de facto etc. Online, people see something in English and assume it applies to us just because it's in our language. There was a thread about this a while ago when someone was determined cohabitants have the same rights as married people and she used Canadian links. It's not just on this issue either, I'm always seeing people link stuff that clearly isn't UK.

In terms of constructive trusts, there are some circumstances in which they can be helpful, but they are notoriously complicated and they can be expensive to establish. I'm therefore wary of overestimating their impact.