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 can't believe how unsupportive some of the women on here are.

It's not about being unsupportive but it's about understanding that people have personal choices and responsibilities. Regulating their bad choices by passively applying the same legal protection as marriage is wrong in my opinion.

I will tell my sons that this actually works both ways. If they don't get married then the woman holds all the cards with the DC and they wont see them if they split up

You're going to tell your sons that women can't be trusted?? Seriously?

I think forced marriage is wrong.

I think peope shoud be freeto co-habit if that is the arrangement that they want.

I do think there needs to be considerably more education about the legal status of different relationships (something that would be an obvious thing to cover in the SRE curriculum). MN has plenty of posters so highlight the differences (and potential vulnerability of those who reduce their independence/earning power/pension) even whenithers howl at them for stating the bloody obvious. But I think that style of posting continues until there are no more posts from those who realise their choices have not given them the protections of marriage.

I think also that better discussion about what good relationships are like, which means not unfair/unbalanced/coercing. That it's OK to walk away from someone so will not commit to the same kind of future as the one you want. That marriage before babies is a perfectly normal preference etc. Not everyone attaches importance to the same things. But items OK to live your own life by your own preferences.

I think this happens a lot with people who meet older partners or go into 2nd marriages. If you already own a house and have savings you will be reluctant to give someone access to take half of that. I know a few divorced/ older men who don't want to get married because of this. I actually know someone in their 60's who married a man, he died on the wedding night and she got all his money which was quite a lot. His DC got zero.

If anything happened to my marriage I wouldn't get married again because I would worry about depleting my own assets.

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?

I totally agree with this, and you have protected yourself well - sadly the majority of the people that find things a nasty shock after a break up and talk about wanting protections are those who have been SAHP and not been financially independent for a number of years

Leaflets to all who have a child via the name registration process would be good. And leaflets to all unmarried house purchasers.

No issue with that idea, although it feels a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I would certainly like to see a state and/or crowdfunded campaign launched on youtube ads, whatever SM the youngun's are using at the moment and tailored to provide materials that can be used in schools during relationship/sex ed classes.

It would be good if kids had accurate information properly absorbed and understood, at their fingertips long before they needed it. Not least because there certainly seems to be so much misinformation saturated into the public's understanding of what defines a commitment between two adults with kids in common, and it will take a big, ongoing push to counteract that.

Without that I don't think we'll really make a dent in the mindset that it smacks of desperation and/or an old fashioned, prudish mentality to make an enthusiastic commitment via marriage/civil partnership a pre-requisite for starting a family with somebody. Because as a pre-requisite it appears to be perceived as an unnecessary formality by large numbers of people at the present time.

If they don't get married then the woman holds all the cards with the DC and they wont see them if they split up

Misogyny aside...this simply isn’t true. Father’s - married or not - have obligations towards their children and their children have a right to a relationship,with them. Why would you think otherwise?

If I had a daughter I would tell her that she needs to get married before she has a child to protect herself.

I will tell my sons that they also need to marry the person they love and have DC to protect themselves.

Its not that I don't trust anyone. It's called being sensible.

Just to add, I would very much support greater rights for women who have been married. A friend has been going through divorce after a 2 year marriage during which their DC was born - her ex DH has somehow been left with 3 properties while she and DC are living in a rented flat on USC and £40 a month from ex DH. She did everything right but seems not to have been protected at all, financially.

Clearly this is a rant and a half but do other married women think that unmarried women should get legal protection in some form!
They can have legal protection. It's called marriage.

If 2 people meet later in life and want to ensure their assets go to their children then they can cohabit and not marry. A change in law would prevent that purely to appease people who choose to drift along for 20 years without marriage.

If a man says marriage is just a piece of paper then take that for what it is. It means he does not want to get married. He has no intention of merging your finances. He wants to be able to escape with his assets safe.

Any woman who gives up work, pays towards a house that her name isn't on the deeds, does the wifework enabling her DP to have their career etc without marriage is silly and putting herself in a vulnerable situation.
We see thread after thread on here with the same situation. Not married, woman wants to leave work and be a SAHP. People point out the financial risk but say you're at least protected a bit through marriage so maybe do that first. Woman says they don't want marriage as It's a piece of paper and puts themself into a vulnerable position.

We should be teaching our daughters the value of marriage. It is a legal contract which offers protection.

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

So let's flip this. By your reasoning the boyfriend who resides with the woman and has children with her (even though he doesn't do anything with the kids but he does work) has rights too (because you couldn't give one party rights without marriage and not the other). Woman comes into a large inheritance and decides that she no longer wants to be in a relationship, but now he has a claim on her new found wealth.....I can just imagine the uproar on mumsnet and rants about how it isn't fair!!

I got married for the second time mainly for legal protection, if I was in my own now I certainly wouldn’t move in with someone if marriage wasn’t on the cards, they would have to move in with me, I would also advise to keep a job up even with small children and it didn’t make financial sense, even if it was10 hours a week

If marriage 'were just a piece of paper' then the gay community would not have fought so long and hard for the right to marry.

Marriage is a legal contract, with rights and obligations.

It's always a great statistic to throw in, that 2/3rds of marriages break down (which is incorrect) because it is impossible to collate the data for cohabiting couples as they're not required to register their relationship. I would guess that cohabitees break up at a higher percentage than married couples as they have nothing to bind them together. There is no incentive to work through the bad times. Its typical of our whole society - throw it away and get something else rather than repair it.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2016

In 2016, there were 8.9 divorces of opposite-sex couples per 1,000 married men and women aged 16 and over (divorce rates), an increase of 4.7% since 2015; however, divorce rates in 2016 are over 20% lower than the recent peak in divorce rate in 2003 and 2004.

I agree with other posters that a greater need of an education is vital. OP was not married and did not even have her name on the property, her ex took advantage of her naivety.

I used to think that marriage was the answer to this, but it is overwhelmingly women who are caught out by this through giving up their careers to raise children. I now see this as another form of abusive behaviour by men towards women. I don't support cohabitees having the same rights as marriage couples by default but I do believe that where one party has been financially disadvantaged by caring responsibilities, especially in very long term relationships, that they should have some rights to continuing support if the relationship breaks down.

Other countries manage it so I really don't see why this country can't.

safety
I agree.
What we also need is fewer people piling on when people are giving sensible information on threads like 'I want to give up work and be a housewife / Work is stressful and I want to quit my job because It's affecting my mental health / I want to be a SAHP because work doesn't satisfy me in the same way'.

Instead of 50% of replies being:

• He is such a dickhead if he doesn't let you give up work. It's your life and if you are stressed he should support you in stopping work.
• Ignore the people saying stay in work OP. Being a SAHM is so rewarding and you get to see all your little ones grow up. Don't get talked out of it by people who wish they'd done it.
• Ignore the scaremongering. You don't have to be married. People think the worst and you can claim more back from him if you split because you have a right to stay in the family home uuntil the children are 18 and he has to keep paying for it.

I have been in a similar situation but I didn't get married to the father of my children as I think even with the 10 years of being together the thought of going through with it with someone who made me so unhappy would have been the nail in the coffin for my mental health. He was very abusive and used having children as a way of control. I am now a single mum of three and yes I'm skint but I stand on my own two feet. Lukily I never put him on the council tenancy or anything important. He was useless with money etc so it was all in my name.

What I do think is needed though is more education about rights if you aren't married. There are so many people I know who think that living with someone long term means you have the same rights as married people. They honestly believe that if they split from their long time partner that they will be entitled to half of the assets as they have children and have spent so many years together. They never seem to know where they got this idea from but its obviously coming from somewhere.

I should have just forced the marriage talk, but seriously who wants to force it! Shouldn't it be a nice thing- not an ultimatum!!!

That's the problem right there. Whilst women still buy into the idea of romantic love and masculine protectiveness they will continue to fuck themselves over. Marriage isn't (only) a romantic proposal. It's a self preservation necessity for many women. Stop waiting for the man to choose you and take agency for your lives.

I now see this as another form of abusive behaviour by men towards women
But is it automatically?

The law is clear. There is no such thing as common law spouses.
If a man won't marry he is making his intentions clear.
If a woman opts to blindly go along with it and keep having children and keep paying to the house etc then that's on her.

1 child and a couple of years whilst waiting to marry, I get it. But 20 years?

It can be abusive if in with a pattern of abuse, but if people choose to stay in relationships without getting the protection they want then more fool them.

I think more awareness needs to be raised as to the nature of the marriage contract. There’s too much emphasis on the love aspect of it and not enough emphasis on both the rights it gives you or the financial ramifications if, say, you bring assets into the marriage.

When marriage first began, a woman became a man’s property. That’s what the contract was. A father literally gave away his daughter and paid the man to do so. Matches would be made for financial reasons. The woman had no rights and was a chattel. It wasn’t about love, if you happened to be in love with the man you married you were lucky.

This changed, and somehow the emphasis has moved to the idea of being in love and fairytales and blind commitment being the most Important part of marriage, and the financial aspect has been left behind. People don’t think about it until they split up, and this is a mistake - it is a contract like any other and you should be clear when you go in as to the terms of the contract and the possibilities if either party wants to end the contract.

If you don’t see the contract aspect, think of it this way: an engagement ring is given in expectation of entering marriage. It does not belong to the recipient until the contract has been completed by marrying the giver.

It would be unfair to bestow the financial terms of a marriage on unmarried people, it is correct that there is a contract available to you if you want those rights.

There’s too much emphasis on the love aspect of it and not enough emphasis on both the rights it gives you or the financial ramifications if, say, you bring assets into the marriage.
This ^^

There's too much on women sitting around waiting for their man to give them a beautiful romantic proposal that they can gush about and a pretty ring. And a wedding is all about the party and the dress and being in love.

If That's your view of marriage then yes it is just a piece of paper.

But anyone with half a braincell who has known anyone divorce knows that It's more than a piece of paper and I love you lots.

The law may be clear but that doesn't make it right. Plus let's face it most people get their legal knowledge from the telly which is often not even English/UK (e.g are you entitled to a phone call if you get arrested in the UK?).

Going all cats bum mouth and 'you should've married him then' doesn't help you if you're in that position. I also find it interesting that the state is prepared to consider you married when it comes to unemployment/family benefits so it doesn't have to pay you, but not when you're left high and dry by someone. It is in effect sexism.

Before marriage ever became a love thing it was a business arrangement, that was its purpose. I was never bothered about getting married until the subject of children came up and I told DH it wasn’t happening without marriage. People confuse getting married with having a wedding, you can do one without the other very easily and cheaply.
I don’t advocate changing the law but people should be much better educated about the issue.

I don't understand your point at all op.

Marriage is a legal contract, much like any other legal contract, and confers certain rights to both parties.

You can legally obtain similar rights without marriage, by having a solicitor draw up a cohabitation agreement, doing wills, buying property in joint names and so on.

But what you can't do, what would be very unfair imo, is treat someone as if they have signed a contract when they haven't.

People make a decision when they move in together or start a family. If they want legal protection, they marry or sort it out in other ways. If they don't, they don't.

You don't expect someone to be insured if they didn't take out insurance (or weren't informed about the importance of insurance), or to take 50% of the sale proceeds of a business if they are not named as a director of that business - and you don't get legal protection within a relationship if you don't take steps to arrange it.

I'm sorry this happened to you, I think someone should have advised you to get married or sort out the finances which didn't put you in this position.
I would advise any family or friends not to leave themselves so financially vulnerable and whenever possible to get married before children.