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 think we need to puncture the romance of the wedding day. So many posters on here are waiting to save for the perfect Big Day and in the meantime are trying to save for a mortgage etc etc. The wedding itself becomes a massive expensive hurdle that it makes it easy for one party to stall.

Marriage is a contract - a very important one - and it provides cover for both parties. It's an easy, cheap short cut to multiple financial arrangements that you may need otherwise (depending on how complex your financial arrangements are) and it can be put in place quickly if required.

So less romance and rewrite divorce law for a no fault divorce and a lot of people will end up with greater protection. Divorce rate would go up but provided people have legal protection I don't think that matters.

And my husband calls me the last of the great romantics

There's misunderstanding both ways - on threads like these there's ALWAYS someone who thinks that you don't have any say in your partner's emergency medical treatment unless you're married. Complete rubbish!

Notonthestairs

You're right about the idea of a wedding coming before the legal contract of marriage.

I would happily have a 'no fault' divorce law.

Legal protection comes from a marriage contract.
No fault divorce option if it needs ending.

If you choose not to do that, you can draw up your own legal documentation.

If you choose not to get legal protection and access to assets then that's your choice.

For me the issue is what is a partner? Someone who has lived with you for 5 plus years, 1 plus, last week, last month.

It covers all sorts. What about partners where you don't have sex? Or flat mates? Until you resolve this (and actually I don't think you should) its a horrible mess

The law is already clear you are either single or married/civil partnership. There is no such thing as common law (wife, husband) However, we all have choices to make.

@Xenia what do you mean by 'have a website'? Surely you mean a law?

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.

That would be completely unworkable.
what if one of the partners says there is no sex being had? Lots of divorcing couples get into a no-sex marriage for years when the relationship is dying. No one could prove they were or were not in a sexual relationship.

I don't know why there is this drive to try to find a happy medium for people who can't commit. Either you get married in a civil ceremony, which will cost next to nothing, or you live together . If you only live together and you are not able to support yourself , accept the outcome if you split up.

(We do technically have no fault divorce in the uk in that the only ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown which you can prove through things like separation or separation withy consent after 2 years apart and also adultery, unreasonable behaviour - but it IS currently no fault divorce as ther eis just that one groud. Even so I would support a change that it could just be on request by one side consent after one year married))

In terms of live in lovers we also have to remember those in several long term relationships at once too - Lord Goldsmith had a wife in London and a second family and partner in Paris for decades. Plenty of other people do that too. Some will genuinely have "married" up to 4 spouses under Islam in their country of orgin.

I thnk we should leave the law of cohabitants well alone in the UK and just spend a bit more on publicity - perhaps letting agents could give everyone a one page leaflet about legal consequences of "living in sin" as they used to call it.

I'm not saying constructive trusts are a perfect answer but I do think it's an example of how the law can work to recognise rights that aren't enshrined in contract. Another example being promisery estoppel.

Objection to this idea seems to basically be:

1. It's complicated and expensive to implement - I can't really refute this but this isn't necessarily sufficient reason to not implement it.

1. I entered a relationship with the expressed intent to ring fence my asset - you wouldn't be affected by this change in the law if implemented as you have made your intention to not share your assets clear.

1. If silly women can't be bothered getting married then they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights I have as a married woman - lots of women would like to get married but their partner won't marry them so I don't know why the idea that all these women just can't be bothered is constantly trotted out. I do think there is a degree of moral superiority and smugness going around. The law often steps in to protect people from their own stupidity so it's hardly groundbreaking.

Nobody can force someone to marry you. However, if you want to get married and your partner doesn't, I think, that in itself says all it needs to say about how committed to you they are. You're able to walk away. Nobody forces you to stay and live a life that you didn't want.

A campaign that there is no such thing as “common law wife” is long overdue.

However, remember, the rules work both ways. When I left my ex ( he was seeing another woman and becoming financially abusive), I was able to walk away with my pension and my house deposit intact because I hadn’t married him.

lots of women would like to get married but their partner won't marry them so I don't know why the idea that all these women just can't be bothered is constantly trotted out. I do think there is a degree of moral superiority and smugness going around. The law often steps in to protect people from their own stupidity so it's hardly groundbreaking.

I really haven't seen any smugness here so maybe you are projecting your own issues onto that. If a women chooses to stay with someone who won't marry them it is still a choice. I have made it clear in the past marriage was conditional and I would have walked had it not have happened. Lots of things are a risk and if people (not just women) take that risk in terms of not getting married then so be it. To try and force the other person into a marriage is a strange way to view it.

The other person does not want to get married, simply they don't want the legal contract which it forms. Why would anyone think it is right to force such a contract on anyone passively. If my partner did not want to get married or sign the forms that gives them similar rights then that is their choice to do so just as it is my choice to walk away or risk it.

@FancyADoughnut
Nope no projection, I'm actually married so this wouldn't affect me either way.

Walking away is a lot easier before kids come along, walking away because your partner won't marry you may not be a sufficient reason for lots of women to break up a family. Financially women could worry about supporting themselves (and any DC) knowing that they won't be entitled to any of the family assets, this alone can be enough for some women to stay.

I also don't like the notion that 'women' need protecting more than men in this circumstance. If men understand the absence of common law in the uk then why is it the assumption that 'us women' don't and we need special protection (and before anyone jumps in I am not talking about abuse here as that is not what is being discussed).

Walking away is a lot easier before kids come along, walking away because your partner won't marry you may not be a sufficient reason for lots of women to break up a family.

Then get married before children. Or have children and don't get married but don't give up work and don't become financially dependent on someone when you have no legal protection.

Nope no projection, I'm actually married so this wouldn't affect me either way.

I have been married twice but I have also cohabited lots in my youth so this would have affected me at some point in my life. I totally understood cohabiting did not mean marriage and thank god it didn't.

It upsets me so much when people say marriage is just a piece of paper
I totally agree with this. When I hear people say it I always reply ' my job contract is on a piece of paper, do are the deeds on my house. But im glad I've got them because it gives me legal rights.

@Bumpitybumper you have seen for yourself the issue with trying to have the benefits of a marriage without the actual marriage bit. If someone won't marry you for whatever reason then you probably shouldn't be having children with that person or living with them? If they care so little about protecting your rights and your children's rights then they are not husband material. You choose who you sleep with at the end of the day.

lots of women would like to get married but their partner won't marry them so I don't know why the idea that all these women just can't be bothered is constantly trotted out. I do think there is a degree of moral superiority and smugness going around.
No moral smugness at all. Statements of fact. Giving up work and placing oneself in a financially vulnerable situation is a choice.

Nobody is forcing women to stay with men who won't marry them.
Nobody is making women stay 5,10, 15 years and have multiple children by men.
Nobody is making women give up work and place themselves in a financially precarious position.

It's all about choices.

walking away because your partner won't marry you may not be a sufficient reason for lots of women to break up a family
Then that's a situation a woman might choose. And it's her right to. Nobody is saying people must marry, just that if you want the protection of marriage, be married. If you are happy without then fine. If you are reluctantly staying in a relationship when he won't marry you, don't give up work and don't pay into assets that aren't yours.

Life is about choices.

If a man isn't prepared to marry you then he isn't committed to the relationship.
Marriage is a contract that protects both parties, if you want this protection then you get married, it isn't rocket science.

we can educate women as much as we want but if her partner won't marry her, then it's up to her if she wants to stay with him. many will argue they didn't get married because they weren't thinking of splitting up, these won't change their minds.

@Bumpitybumper

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

Surely the easiest way to prove this common intention is by getting married? Rather than relying on messages, emails which may or may not exist or be taken out of context. Or a "he said, she said" recap of conversations which could be forgotten, misremembered, misunderstood, or outright untruthful.

If a woman wants to get married but her partner won't marry her, he is very clearly saying he is not willing to share assets with her. Women should make their decisions on the basis of that knowledge, rather than sticking their heads in the sand about it. (and vice versa if the sex roles are reversed obviously)

Walking away is a lot easier before kids come along, walking away because your partner won't marry you may not be a sufficient reason for lots of women to break up a family.

In the olden days you got married then had kids. Maybe there was something in that...?

The liberal society has a lot to answer for , perhaps, when women cannot support themselves through lack of qualifications, or seeing 'getting a man and children' (who won't commit to them legally) as the sum total of their life achievements.

If you bring a child into your relationship but you cannot as a woman put a roof over your head and support yourself if the man walks away. who is to blame for that choice?

The OP has put forward the contention that she would have been protected by either a public campaign or new legislation.

There would be possible benefits to a campaign but it would be expensive and limited. IME, even directly telling a now ex friend of the dangers of getting pregnant outside marriage had no impact. She simply wrote me and everybody else who tried to explain it to her out of her life. She was certain that his vague statements that he might be willing to get married were actual proposals. She gave up her career and ended up with a couple of children and no marriage. He has a lot of assets which will never be shared if he decides to go.
In the case of the OP, whilst there might not have been advice and guidance on the legal benefits of marriage given to her at sixteen, I am sure that she was exposed to lots of guidance on the impact of a teenage pregnancy on her life chances. I assume they didn't have much impact.

So it might help but there is a lot of disinformation out there and people who don't want to hear a message won't listen not when they can watch Love Island and learn all about relationships from that nonsense.

As to a change of law, well yes this would be possible but it would result in the need to give people rights to protect their assets on entering into and indeed within a co-habitation relationship as things change. Many of my single /divorced friends have significant assets (pension and property) but they also have children. Quite rightly they would want to protect their assets for their children. They cannot be condemned into having no option to live with a future partner.

The problem is, that would apply to married and non-married couples. Essentially we would need to legitimise the right to protect assets. This could mean that divorce settlements become less favourable for the vast majority of those who come to marriage with fewer assets and forgo a career for whatever reason. We don't know the details of the OP's situation but if her ex acquired his wealth from a property he owned before meeting her, this would be protected. You just keep coming back to the stalemate of one partner deciding not to share assets and the other having to accept it or leave. People with good resilience and high self-esteem with leave.

I am not adverse to this being the case but it does mean that women (& men) need to become more aware of the need to try to secure and maintain their financial independence throughout their life, married or not. Parents need to assess the impact of having a child and how they would support that child if they weren't together or one died, each time they have that child. All adults whether SAH or not should have a pension provision for themselves, even if their working spouse pays for it during their relationship.

Giving examples of countries with different laws in relation to co-habitation is useful but we need to look at the wider context of their law and societal expectations. Generally speaking their settlements relate to the assets acquired during the relationship and parties are expected to be able to reset any detriment from a career break within a few years.

I expect a new law would have far reaching consequences, some good some bad. However overall it would lead to more confusion about entitlements upon separation and divorce.

I expect a new law would have far reaching consequences, some good some bad. However overall it would lead to more confusion about entitlements upon separation and divorce.

Yeah and that what we all need, to make divorce more complicated!

It's a ridiculous notion to insert the law into relationships, automatically.

I really feel for op actually. She met this guy when she was just 16 and he was 30. Did she have anyone in her life giving her good advice? Her young age alone would sound alarm bells for most people I think.

The problem for women in OP's position is that they know they will leave with nothing if the relationship ends. But if they issue a marriage ultimatum and walk out straight away, they still have nothing. I think they stick around delaying that outcome, hoping something changes.

If you're still reading op, you need a lawyer because as his partner of several decades you have a case to claim on the property and also for provision for your four dc (over and above child maintenance).

Bumpitybumper

What you are proposing might help a tiny handful of people who have partners who like to rehash conversations with a written follow up.

But for the most part all it would do is allow a muddying of some already murky waters due to misinformation.

If the reality can be as clear cut as

willingly enter into a legal contract (marriage civil partnership, private contract sorted out by solicitors and signed by both parties) or forgo the protections and responsibilities proffered by those contracts

but has become misunderstood by far too many people as

living together with a kid is basically the same as being married legally in terms of protections and responsibilities

..lthen how much harder will it become to inform and persuade people of the reality if there are Chinese whispers of some case somewhere where one partner got half the house that belonged to the other partner cos the judge said living together means you have rights.

For each person helped how many more will be even less convincable of the need for marriage (or alternative legal contract) in order to access its protections and responsibilities ?

A more effective way to avoid human pain and suffering in the face of verbal broken promises (or assumed unspoken promises) might be to create a simple, clear cut message aimed at eliminating misinformation.

And push it out on SM and youtube, using their magic demographic algorithm thingies, so we don't get another generation making choices without understanding the black and white consequences of said choices.

That doesn't need the time suck of getting the state, or the legal system, involved. It could be crowdfunded and people with media/technical talents could donate their time/efforts to save as much money as possible to pay (hopefully a reduced PSA rate) to push it out on SM/youtube. I'm no expert but I think that at least has the potential to help more people, much faster, especially if aimed at those who are unlikely to have already shacked up and started a family because they are still a bit too young for that.