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!!!

Even if you give certain automatic rights then the people who want to protect their assets will find another way. They will simply refuse to move in with that other person. The only true way to protect anyone is to make sure they understand that in certain circumstances there is no protection so if you continue in that relationship then if it fails they may walk away with very little.

This post assumes that women aren't capable of abusive behaviour or manipulating men. Even more dangerous is the suggestion that men are solely responsible for whether a woman has a child with comments such as "running round doing sowing their seed". Many men have been trapped by women intentionally lying about contraception in order to get married and then lost almost everything too including much loved children before custody laws were strengthened. I agree that education on the topic should happen on the subject at an early age so informed choices can be made in adulthood.

hoping not unless the partner agrees to it. Cohab agreements do nothing to put any pressure on men to either do half the childcare or to be prepared to pay for the fact that they don’t. They are able to get women to work for free for them for years. They can then walk away with assets intact and start all over again. Which many of them do. If they are self-employed it’s even more of a goldmine because they can fiddle figures to pay virtually no child support. Bingo.

Olivia live in the real world for a moment. Walking away is not easy at all.

I do live in the real world thank you very much. Of course walking away isn't easy, where did I say it was?

When what is on the line is your financial security for you and your potential children, then you have to think with your head. By not marrying you, a dp is knowingly or unknowingly protecting their assets. Women have to be assertive and safeguard their future so they never find themselves in the sad situation the op finds herself in.

Op, I agree and I would absolutely support a change in the law to protect women. It's all very well saying women should know better etc but lots of people find themselves in vulnerable positions for many reasons and it's not ok that there is no protection.

I also echo a pp who said we need this as part of PHSE education in schools.

I am fairly well educated and independent and was unmarried when I had my children. I am lucky as my sil is a financial advisor and called me up and gave me a good talking too. I knew there was no such thing as common law wife but tbh just never really gave the long term much thought.

I didn't want to get married (I was financially independent with a good job) but dh bought our house before we met so it was in his name only. We saw a solicitor and had wills drawn and changed the deeds and mortgage to both names and dh added me as next of kin on life insurance etc.

Later our circumstances changed. We moved as dh got a good job offer else where and I gave up work to go with dh and the kids. We got married at this point because our previous arrangements would no longer compensate for my loss of earnings (and dh salary doubled).

I am lucky dh was fine with this but my point being that no matter how we protect ourselves life changes, a change in the law to reflect this would not diminish marriage for those for whom it is more than a piece of paper but would offer an alternative to those like me who had no particular inclination to marry but need the financial security.

Sorry for the essay but I feel quite passionately about this.

I know many out there will say I should have just forced the marriage talk, but seriously who wants to force it!

Well, quite.

But I think that needs to be part of the awareness. That marriage is a commitment to a life partner, whereas having children is a commitment to children, NOT the person you are having them with.

Underlining that the bare minimum anybody deserves in a partner is somebody who enthusiastically wants to commit to you. And pointing out that having children before that commitment has been demonstrated may result in the realisation that you are tied forever more to somebody who did not reveal previously that they only had one and a half feet in the relationship with you from the onset.

The awareness needs to centre on a perfectly reasonable and healthy basis that people deserve partners that are willing to commit and anybody who is faced with a "reluctant to marry" partner needs to factor in the potential for a lack of commitment to surface at point when they are least equipped to deal with it.

Commitment is a contract entered into willingly by two people. I don't think marriage/civil partnership should be extended to "lived together for x amount of time". Because ethically I believe a contract is something one should actively choose to sign up for, rather than passively wander into.

Wandering into it could have the result that people are ending up in a contract they do not actively want because they did not have the means or the emotional/mental strength to leave within a time limit. Which doesn't sit right with me.

But above all, I'm sorry for the pain you have been going through. I discovered the reality of living together v marriage when my brother left my 8.5 months pregnant SIL, they also had a toddler. I was horrified when I realised just how exposed she was at her most vulnerable, when utterly devastated. And then he turned around and married somebody else within what felt like minutes of leaving her high and dry.

Seeing that is why I got married for the second time with a four year old in tow. It was act of self-protection, but, having held SIL as she worked through the impact of my brother's sudden change of heart about being married, for the first time I could see why my husband perceived my previous disinclination to marry again as a potentially half hearted form of commitment to him, and us.

I dislike that so many people delay marriage because they want the big wedding. It would be better if they just got married (just a piece of paper, right? So doesn't need a poofy dress) and had the big do a couple of years later.

My strict muslim friend got married officially when they bought their house. She stayed with her parents like nothing happened. They had a big wedding a year later and then she went to live with her DH.

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.

That’s not true. You can be considered their NOK, they just have to make sure that they nominate you as such.

Like marriage it’s a decision someone can make to put you in that position, but they have to actively do something about it.

Vampy sure women can manipulate men. So if a man gave up his career to be a carer for a child I would also expect him to be able to claim something from his partner who was able to get on with earning money without being restricted by childcare duties.

As for the contraception bit, no method is 100 safe. I suggest a man not wanting to be a father uses condoms. But most men don’t want the hassle of that do they. If they never want to be a father, have a vasectomy. It’s funny how women have to be responsible for contraception too, especially hormonal methods that often cause side effects. It really is a man’s world.

So how would this change in law happen? What would the parameters be?

Would you have to be together for x number of years? (Then what about people who fall short of this?).
Must there be at least one child ( do both have to be the parent, so ignoring step children?)
Does it have to be an owned house? (Significant amounts of people rent).
How would it be agreed? And then enforced?
Arguably the ones who need this are the relationships where the party holding the cards does not want play fair and would find a way out of it. The people who do want to be fair don’t need this.

I am not completely against the principle but not sure how it would work. Especially as there is already a framework for child support (don’t think it is completely successful but no direct knowledge as not used them).

This is why I would never have a child without being married. Yes accidents can happen but I would still leave a man who didn’t want to marry me, especially when we had a child together. I’d rather be a single parent than be made a mug of.

Some women are far too quick to move in with and get pregnant by men who never have any intention of marrying them.

And yes education on this matter is vital, and we need to be raising strong young women with high enough self esteem not to put themselves in this situation.

@FancyADoughnut
Yes but my issue is that cohabiting unmarried couples can live as married couples at the moment which is why many people mistakenly think that they have equal rights. The lack of distinction between the two setups from a day to day perspective gives rise to the belief that 'marriage is only a piece of paper'. Men can appear to be committed to their partner through moving in together and having kids whilst not actually affording them any legal protection. I think alarm bells would go off for more women if their partner refused to move in and they would probably question their partner's level of commitment much earlier and crucially potentially before kids come along.

Cesira living together is a choice. Having a child is a choice. If you don’t want the potential consequences, don’t do it.
Why should people be left in absolutely dire circumstances just because someone says ‘oooh, I didn’t sign a piece of paper so I am not responsible’. Bullshit. By cohabiting and raising a family, you impliedly consent to the commitment that brings.

You do realise that there are millions of bros out there who deliberately don’t want to marry because of the financial commitment right? In the past this was stigmatised so men had social pressure to get married. Not anymore- nobody will bat an eyelid. So this has created perfect conditions for people who want a relationship and family but not the financial commitment.

If someone has been or will be providing childcare while the parent goes out to work that person should be paid to do so, including retroactively. I do think you should have a right to some of that money he has amassed, OP. And in your situation you were a vulnerable child of 16 and he was a grown man of 30 who used you to have lots of children without consequences to himself but with loads of sacrifice on your part - the rest of your childhood, your future career. I don't think he should be able to skip away lightly from what he's done.

I would never, ever have children etc with someone I wasn't married to but I think we have to recognise that our society is changing and things aren't the same as they were in "my day". It seems socially acceptable now to have children outside of marriage and I agree that women who put themselves in that situation should be protected. Maybe not to the extent of the full rights of marriage but not left destitute by users either. I would support your campaign, OP!

I’ve always told my dds that it is a very bad idea to have a child with someone unless you are married or have been to a solicitor to sort out assets/wills etc.

It’s basic common sense and know of real life examples where women have been left in awful situations after their partner has decided he I longer wished to continue with the relationship. Also BIL was seriously ill in hospital for several months. His partner of 27 years who’d been a SAHM for the last 15 years, had no rights whatsoever if he’d died. There was Will and no joint assets. It’s twrrifing!

Quitmoaning this is not some fanciful pie in the sky thing. It exists in many countries.
If you want to see what proposed law might look like, read the Law Commission’s 2007 report on cohabitation which sets out draft legislation. It’s quite similar to the Scottish legislation.
Basically someone claiming needs to show that they have suffered a financial loss or that their partner has made a financial gain as a result of the relationship. It doesn’t mean casual partners could claim at all. It’s been working in Scotland for years and they haven’t had a deluge of spurious claims.

that unmarried women should get legal protection in some form!

There is legal protection available, its called marriage

Clearly this is a rant and a half but do other married women think that unmarried women should get legal protection in some form!

No not really.

Because being married is a choice and being unmarried is a choice.

Marriage comes with some benefits and also drawbacks. you either choose to commit to each other within a legal framework, and take the downsides of that as well as the upsides, or you don't.

Saying you met your ex at 16 is no excuse. You became an adult and could at any time have insisted on commitment via marriage or walked away if he wouldn't commit.

Why do you think you have a right to the protection marriage gives when neither of you wanted the responsibility that goes with it?

But any legislation would have to work equally for both sexes.

Common law marriage could be a dream come true for many a cocklodger.

Move in for a few years, do as little as possible safe in the knowledge that eventually you'd acquire rights to a share of joint assets which, if you were a lazy arsed cocklodger you would hardly have contributed a great deal towards.

Women are invariably the ones more likely to be impoverished by the breakdown of a relationship where there are children involved but women can protect themselves by deciding not to have children unless their partner commits to getting married beforehand.

We have easy access to free contraception in the UK. Genuine contraception failures are actually rare if both parties are taking contraception seriously. I am always a bit about the phrase "I fell pregnant".

I do think this sort of thing should be covered in PHSE at an appropriate age for girls.

Sorry last sentence should read

*there was no will and no joint assets. It’s terrifying!

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?

Oh if only life was so neat and well-organised. The whole point is that marriage gives protection precisely because of the lack of equality in earnings and lifestyle.

• women lose income and status in the workplace because they bear children and become invisible in the workforce while on Mat Leave

• women lose pension contributions through gaps in employment

-women tend to be the heavylifters re child care and take reduced working hours to cover that, because men continue up the career ladder unimpeded by the same challenges women face.

• women being the lower earners in so many cases cannot put the same contributions into the mortgage, so it is through the legal status of marriage that inequality is redressed to protect them from the disadvantages caused lower income due to having to bear and care for the DC - meanwhile it enables the man to earn more over time.

The likelihood of government having the resource and parliamentary time to bring about a change to increase the status rights of co-habiting couples is very unlikely while all this Brexit crap is going on so I'd save your campaign efforts, OP

Did you get legal advice OP? While you were together did you contribute to the mortgage or pay any money out towards decorating etc on the property? You would be able to claim that back. How did he make a couple of million? If it was a business, did you work there/help/contribute? If yes then you might have a claim. Get advice!

16-year-old with a 30-year-old sounds like an abusive relationship right from the start.

because men continue up the career ladder unimpeded

Probably should say "enabling men to continue .... " etc

I wouldn’t support anything that confers rights without the involved parties opting into those rights. My relationship prior to meeting DH was an abusive one that only became abusive after my ex and I moved in together - I was very glad not to be tied to him in any way.

I married DH because we wanted to have the protections of marriage.