Raise awareness by all means but I think the law in this respect, as it stands is fine. If anything clearer laws on the ending of a marriage are needed plus I think we need better no fault divorce options. I also think sahp need to be better protected.
Because for some people (not just men) it's preferable to live together without being married. If you now get yourself back on your feet, buy your own house which you want to leave to your DC if possible (depending if the capital isn't swallowed up in elderly care fees) meet a new man and live with him, then the change in law you're proposing means AT LEAST half the house YOU bought, even if he didn't contribute would be entailed away from your DC in the event of you passing before him. OR you could have to buy him out if you split up.
That's just 2 scenarios there are numerous others which are why people CHOOSE to NOT marry in order to protect assets.
Marriage is a legal contract which protects both parties and any children resulting. It's unacceptable to force people into a default marriage purely because they live together.
Also - lodgers could claim a relationship that didn't exist in order to gain assets as there'd be no proof you DIDN'T have a cohabitee relationship.
With a marriage there's the signing of the contract WITH WITNESSES and where the officiant has to gain express permission from those entering into the contract that they understand and do so WILLINGLY.
Under your proposal there's no such proof required.
Plus at what point should those rights be conferred? As soon as you move in together? Agree 1 month? 6 months?
Moving in with someone and having children with them is something I think many enter into FAR too lightly without even thinking about the impact on security, finances etc. Ditto becoming a sahp.
I married over 20 years ago, at a time when it was becoming distinctly 'uncool' with many saying with the stigma of unwed pregnancy etc largely gone it was unnecessary. I was lucky enough to have a relative who via their job saw regularly the devastating ramifications of separation on women in exactly your position.
She didn't advise me directly but after many years of hearing her thoughts on the subject I refused to live with my ex without getting married. I also was VERY careful with my contraception until after marriage. I'm SO glad I made that decision. Divorce is hellish but I would have been absolutely screwed if we hadn't been married (still was to an extent but nowhere near as much as if I'd not married him).
My sister - against my and others advice - moved in with her ex without being married, had DC, became a sahm and when they split was totally screwed. He bought the house they lived in so the mortgage was in his name. She gave him half the mortgage each month when she was working but gave him it in cash so no proof. So when they split he basically kicked her and the kids out, she had to move in with my parents for almost a year until she got straight again. She was ltd what benefits she could claim because she'd not been paying NI. Her finances were all tangled with his inc debts. He even denied the DC were his and because they weren't married that meant jumping through hoops to get child maintenance. He also kept the car which was in his name but again she'd contributed to - again cash no proof.
It makes SO many things not only in the event of separation clearer and more fair, but I also in my family have awful examples of how horrendous it is to sort certain things out in the event of sudden critical illness or bereavement. It affects things like if a dr can speak to you about your partner/spouse on life support, benefits, mortgage payments (even your right to stay in the home), pensions, funeral arrangements...
It's why lgbt people fought SO hard to get the same rights. I saw at close hand how dreadfully the partners of gay patients I'd treated were treated not only by the family of their sick or deceased partner but by the legalities around how much say they DIDN'T have on things like whether to turn off life support, organ donation, funeral wishes (I've even seen partners barred from funerals) BUT there are also gay people who don't want for a variety of reasons, for their partner to have the rights marriage confer.
What needs to be done is for it to be widely advertised that there is no such thing as "common law spouse" in the uk. That living with someone does NOT give you any rights. I'd like to see a public advertising campaign with case studies like yours shown and my sisters shown.
Nancydrawn - exactly! There's no amount of legal paperwork completely covers what getting married does, what is available costs a lot more than a quick trip to registry office - which is all that's really required to be married. Where I live it's just £125. Getting a lawyer to organise all the paperwork and legalities to cover most of what marriage covers (not all) would cost 1000's! Having children is CERTAINLY more expensive.
"Such as the huge cost now expected" - a big fancy wedding is not a necessity.
"I think that anyone age 16 or over who has consensual sex should be legally bound to support their own child 50%" totally agree. Current child maintenance regs are pitiful! This is the main way in which women are screwed over. It's appallingly badly regulated and enforced and the amounts set are an insult!
"The government is quite capable of working out how much someone really earns and ensuring they definitely pay when it comes to tax" exactly - that csa and now cms are within hmrc dept yet you have to be really stubborn and persistent to get them to check your ex's earnings, it should be linked as soon as there's a verified child involved.
While I'm very sorry you have been treated so badly op, ultimately at various points over those 20 years, you didn't remain a naive teen in all that time.
"how do you do that if your partner won't? Many men are clever and string women along for years, promising marriage" which is why if it was advertised and people especially girls were better educated in this aspect of law they'd know they needed to seriously consider certain decisions. Arm girls & women with the facts so they are less likely to allow themselves to be strung along.
I made it clear to my now ex I wouldn't stay with any man past 5 years without a commitment, and (seen this disaster on these boards many times) also made clear I wanted children before I was 30. I'd just turned 20 when we met so not particularly worldly wise.
Not an ultimatum just in a discussion we had quite early on so he knew my expectations and parameters. We got engaged after 3 years together, married within a year of engagement, agreed to ttc after a year of marriage (unfortunately dd didn't come along for several years due to various medical issues).
Romance is all well and good but people aren't mind readers, people need to be honest about what they want and when.
I'm in Scotland - show me where there's protection for cohabitants please peakpants? Because to my knowledge it doesn't exist in Scotland either.
From CAS:
"Irregular marriages
The term 'common-law' husband or wife is often used but has no legal standing. It is a common misunderstanding that a couple will have established a 'common-law marriage' after living together for a period of time. This is not the case. Common-law marriage does not exist in Scotland There was a type of irregular marriage called 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute' which could apply to couples who have lived together and were thought to be married. This was rarely used in practice and except for very particular circumstances was abolished by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. Only irregular marriages established before 4 May 2006 will be recognised."
Ajaslipstick - women are mostly not forced to live with and bear children to men though. It's a choice. I agree some are making decisions based on poor information and that DOES need addressed, but it isn't hard to check the information.
Women do need to be empowered to not settle for second best, not give in to manipulation etc - but that's true in many areas of life.
Yes bumpity - I can see that one big advantage to changing the law on this would it would make those who have no intention of providing for children or truly supporting a partner would also resist cohabiting so they would be easier to spot! How would someone be able to prove their partners intention to marry/provide for them though? With no contract, no witnesses?
"I imagine messages, emails and letters etc would be pretty good evidence either way of what was said." Very easily falsified, writer can claim they said it under duress, I can set up an email address in my ex's name to send emails to my regular account free in a matter of mins, in less than an hour I could send myself emails promising all sorts. No - it needs to be a proper legal witnessed contract.
"it's unworkable because it relies on the word of two individuals with flawed memories and vested interests." Excellent summary
You're essentially tying yourself in knots to create something which already exists - with the parties involved having to acknowledge that. Bonkers!
"And yet UK law has made this work with regards to the majority of people's most valuable asset (their properties)" no it hasn't! There are legal contracts in place even if you're just renting - witnessed and signed.
I totally agree a 30 yr old man bring interested in a 16 yr old in that way is a huge red flag anyway. My dd is 17 if she was to start dating a man twice her age I'd be having serious words with both of them. Her - pointing out how creepy it is, how vulnerable she is. Him - wtf you playing at?!
Mookatron - totally agree it's applied unfairly wrt benefits. UC in particular has been a backwards step even being described by some DA agencies as 'an abusers charter' because a cohabiting or married couple claiming is classed as one claim and the money is only paid to one person. It's also a lot less than 2 single people claiming would get. An absolute gift to abusive addicts/also financially abusive.
Maisypops - yes they do that's why it's on the forms 'to include someone you live with as though you are married to them' if 2 housemates live together they don't have to claim as a couple, but if they're cohabiting they do.
Agree there's FAR too many people think "they'd never do that to me" so naive. There's also far too many don't consider the other disasters that can befall a family, critical illness & death in particular.
"Actually only partner but he is as good as my husband in the ways which matter" I'm stunned at that comment on this thread. What do you consider the ways which matter? Are finances no part of that? Inheritance rights? Tax issues? Without wishing harm on him are you set up to support him if he were to become critically ill or if you did? What about if either dies? Are you aware you wouldn't be entitled to bereavement payments? It's not just if you separate.
It's WHY on threads by women separating from their dp or dh or considering it are asked if he's dp or dh - because it massively and importantly affects the advice posters can give.
I say all this as a child of a shotgun wedding, then a very unhappy and abusive marriage and latterly a divorcée. Not being married would not have protected my mother and us (the DC) from the abuse if anything it would have given my father another hold over her (pre csa days he could have, if they weren't married, and if she'd left which at points she threatened to do, have denied paternity and cut us all off financially). Not being married to my ex would have left me up shit creek in the immediate aftermath of our split. Given both men were also army if either had died, being married would have meant the wives and children would receive support both practical and financial from the army. I've seen women cohabit with squaddies, become sahm cos the guy's working hours unpredictable plus for months at a time not home at all, he's sadly died and they're left with no income, no death benefits, facing possibly having to find £1000's to relocate 'home' as they can no longer afford the rent where they are, most camps are in the arse end of nowhere with very few jobs, in one case even made extremely unwelcome at the funeral.
"He is the children's father and hopefully he wont see they going without." 😂😂😂have you been on the relationships board? I've met very few men who don't have to be made to pay cm.
"I think they stick around delaying that outcome, hoping something changes." Hmm sunken costs fallacy?
"Just googling, it's been in the mainstream press as an issue many times." I'm 46 and even I don't look at the mainstream press any more! The women this needs targeted at are my dds age 17 or not much older BEFORE they're living with/pregnant by someone. She barely even uses Facebook now.