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!!!

Education is key but to be honest you don't need to google for long to find out that 'common law' thing is not a thing in the uk. If you want the protection of marriage get married. You cannot force anyone to do that quite rightly so it's up to you to make sure you understand the implications of not getting married versus marriage.

The implications of forcing rights onto unmarried people living together would be fraught with many more issues so I think the law is correct how it stands today.

I work in a professional environment, with highly qualified people, and know several people through work who think they are common law married. I don't know how it became such accepted lies. They seem clued up in all other aspects of life, but don't have a scooby about the rights and obligations of marriage.

No need for marriage....financially independent, house in joint names, both earn similar amounts, both pay same amount of mortgage, bills, childcare, food, pensions. Wills written up by a Solicitor. Why should we be forced to get married?

It is also worth noting that if you are not married you cannot be considered your partner's next of kin.
That means that in the event of serious illness or accident you have no right to discuss anything with medical staff.
No right to arrange a funeral should the worst happen.

OP, it's not fair. For those saying 'get married' how do you do that if your partner won't? Many men are clever and string women along for years, promising marriage. It's so unrealistic to just say 'don't have kids/give up your career'. Having kids forces a partial giving up of career for women, especially if the male partner won't help.

For those saying the law works fine, what it in fact does is allow men to totally screw women over. It's odd that so many MNers think this is fine. I think it's a case of being smug just you didn't have the misfortune to couple up with an utter cocklodger like the OP's partner.

Oh and in many other countries like Canada, Sweden, NZ, Australia, Holland, even Scotland, cohabitants DO have rights because those countries recognise that a law like ours is monstrously unfair.

OP

The implications of forcing rights onto unmarried people living together would be fraught with many more issues so I think the law is correct how it stands today.

No, it wouldn't. You would allow people to claim a remedy if they had been financially disadvantaged by the relationship. Works just fine in Scotland and loads of other countries. It doesn't mean sharing half your assets with your live-in boyfriend of 2 weeks. It's not 'forcing rights'- it's preventing people from profiting from the current law. The OP's DP can build up his business etc because the OP looks after the kids. If he was sole carer, it would be a different story. But men almost never are, are they?

I think it's wrong that marriage alone is what protects women.

It puts too much power into the hands of men.

All they have to do is refuse to marry! They have ALL the power simply because they don't have to marry a woman they live with or have children with.

That's the issue here.

Why shouldn;t there be some way of ensuring ALL women who reside with a man and have children with a man, have rights?

As it is, men can continue to dodge their responsibilities and dump women at will.

Peak a lot of women worry that they will be undermined if there was another way to secure financial stability without marriage.

People cling onto it when it's an outdated concept.

It means little for women whose partner won't marry them...as you say. Therefore all the power is STILL in the hands of men.

The position in Scotland is slightly better but only to the extent that a co habitant has the ditto go to court and ask for a share No guarantee and the case Law is mixed

I agree that there should be some piece of government warning that women who are being cornered in to a habitation arrangement because marriage is just a piece of paper can hold up and say ''no, this was to warn women like me''.

Something official enough that chancer men can't just say ''you're being paranoid''

When I left, I just closed the front door behind me. I couldn't wait to get away. I'm fine now as it was over a decade ago now but it's not that I didn't realise I just had a very low self-esteem at the time and I thought that if I pushed him, he'd end it. He was an arse and that should have been my dream, but that's beside the point.

Posters who come along and say ''if you want the protection of marriage get married'' are missing the fact that it's women who end up having children and making themselves vulnerable while men are often paid more, a decade or so of that inbalance and you have a situation that the man knows suits him down to the ground

I'd advise anybody reading this to ask themselves if their partner is actually worthy of them. Rather than being fearful he'll leave, ask yourself is he worth it. If he is then read books to raise your self-esteem if you are afraid to raise the matter. Then decide to leave if your need is not being met. And ACTUALLY LEAVE. It will be ok

That's it Ajaslipstick. We've created a world where men can run rings around themselves sowing their seed and leaving every woman to get on with it. Or, if they choose, enjoy their RIGHTS as fathers without meeting one single responsibility.

I don't know how to have prevented this in the world that exists today mind you.

I think it's wrong that marriage alone is what protects women. It puts too much power into the hands of men. All they have to do is refuse to marry!

All a woman has to do is walk away!

Middle class women, or women whose families have money, and or educated/qualified women are often going to be OK and will go to great pains to INSIST that they don't need marriage.

As always, it will be women without a pot of cash to make things right who suffer most.

I think it's all very well saying that if you want the legal rights then you must get married, however realistically lots of women will have children with their partners when they are unmarried and walking away from a partner that won't marry you is hard to do when it involves tearing apart your family. Lots of women have a valid desire to try and keep a family unit together and as they can't unilaterally decide to get married then it places them in a really difficult position if their partner refuses to marry.

I also think saying that women should aim to be completely financially independent to protect themselves ignore the reality that the financial burden of children tends to disproportionately fall to women. This extends beyond pregnancy and maternity leave into childhood. I remember a poster on this forum suggesting that mothers tend to prioritise their children and their welfare more than fathers. This may sound sexist but absolutely chimes with my real life experience where although most men are great parents, it has been mothers that have made the most sacrifices for the sake of their kids. That's why when an unmarried couples sepereation in tends to be the woman that has adopted the kind of role OP has taken on whilst the man carries on building his career unimpeded by the children.

Exactly Ajas! It’s a charter for bastards. It gives them ALL the power. All they have to do is to promise to marry their partner ‘when we have saved up enough’ etc etc.

user I know the Scots law is not perfect but at least there is SOMETHING.

I read a heartbreaking story on here about a woman who got pregnant and her DC was born with SN needing round the day care. Her arse of a DP did not lift a finger to help, she had to give up work and he then evicted them both from the house that was in his name and had gone up nearly 100 grand in value since they met. He had also had loads of promotions at work which I am sure he would not have got if he had been looking after his SN son. In the end, the woman had to get a council house, had no career prospects at all due to caring commitments and the LA failing in their duty to support her. The arse DP paid minimal CS, refused to see the son and just merrily got on with his life. Two parents but such a huge difference in the impact on their lives. He lost nothing financially, she lost everything.

Exactly Bumpity

Olivia live in the real world for a moment. Walking away is not easy at all. The law shouldn’t let men get away with what it current does. It’s disgusting.

I think PSHE should also cover the warning signs of a toxic person and why it's a really bad idea to get into a relationship with them. It could include this sort of scenario.

I think that there should be the choice, as there is now, of entering into a relationship which creates rights or one that doesn't. The difference and the protection afforded by marriage need to be taught in school and by parents.

Men and women of course but I think it affects women more, are also unable to return to a home country after their children born, as it removes children from habitual domicile. So if you get some foreign woman and knock her up and never marry her bingo, your assets are safe. This was my x's thinking

yes @snuggybuggy

Even if you don't get married you can get a solicitor to draw up an agreement. My sister had a cohabiting agreement with her ex. There are ways round it.

@Aethelthryth
Education is one thing but it doesn't stop the man holding the power once children come along. I think in fact educating boys about this loophole may incentivise then to hold out on commiting to marriage knowing that they effectively avoid any liability towards their partner.

Unplanned pregnancies happen and lots of women are obviously keen to keep their family together wherever possible. Women tend to be detrimented more by children and can't force a man to marry them. The current system is stacked against women and needs to change.

Education isn’t going to be enough though. Nearly half of marriages end in divorce but that doesn’t stop people marrying unsuitable people. The fact is that people don’t think it will happen to them, they are in love, they trust their partner etc. Often there are practical reasons that delay marriage such as the huge cost now expected. Many people get pregnant due to contraception failure and doing everything by the book- marry, buy a house, have a baby, goes out of the window then.

We should have a system where men are not allowed to profit at women’s expense. Women do nearly all the childcare and tend to compromise their careers and pensions. Over a lifetime that adds up to a LOT of money. Even a divorce settlement doesn’t compensate a woman for what she has given up if she is a SAHM, especially now that maintenance is becoming more rare. Female poverty in old age is a real thing- it is becoming increasingly prevalent.

Looking after kids is as important to society as earning an income and women should be compensated for it and if men want a family, they should be prepared to take a financial hit if they aren’t going to share the care 50/50.

*Peak
*
You mentioned Holland but you aren't that protected here if you cohabit without arranging things. It is however very, very common to get a legal cohabition agreement drawn up which mentions who owns/gets what. Salary is no part of this though. I do think that the alimony for children is better here, it sounds like your minimum payments are nothing. Also, registered partnership gives the same rights as marriage and is very easy and cheap to arrange. And you can marry for free in each city but there might be a waiting list of several months.

And yes, it is hard to walk away from someone who won't marry you but we really should do it more often.

I'd like to add that the free wedding is just a ften minute thing.