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!!!

Isn't there something about if you live with a spouse for 10 years or your more there's more rights?

A woman who stays at home and puts in the time and effort to care for the children, take care of the household eg cooks, cleans does the household admin etc is saving the WOH a lot of money, time and mental and physical energy.

She's doing only one half of what it takes to raise a family, why do we need to hold up being a Sahm as if it's women doing men a massive favour? Yes a woman in that scenario I see making a contribution that is convenient for her partner, but then the man is doing exactly the same by financially providing 100% of what the children need and what their mother needs. She is allowing someone else to pay her way in life just as he is allowing someone else to do his half of the childcare. Many women want to be sahms and have a lovely few years dedicating themselves to nothing but their house and children, but that doesn't come for free either.

No, I didn't pay a nanny, I worked part time and had family help. I was lucky and I appreciate that. But nor did I allow a man to feed, clothe and house me for years while I kept on having as many babies as I felt like.

Men might refuse marriage, but what's a man supposed to do to if a woman refuses to get a job and pay towards the costs of themselves, the house and the child? Should we legislate to protect those men too?

@harshbuttrue1980

Agree absolutely. And I say that as a woman, with a baby and toddler. And an ardent feminist.

@NailsNeedDoing
What a narrow minded post! Contributions to family life extend fay beyond the financial and you conveniently ignore the unpaid labour and effort that goes into raising a family. Some couples choose to share this burden completely equally but others opt for one person to take on the bulk of the unpaid work whilst the other works out of the home for money. You seem to imply that the value of the domestic/childcare work is zero and that the partner charged with these duties who may actually be working harder and more hours should just be grateful that the WOHP is financially supporting them. I find that opinion extremely regressive and do not associate it with the brand of feminism that I support.

Why, oh why don't they teach this in schools?
Because the PSHE curriculum is already every growing. Any life advice or skill somehow the solution is 'teach it in schools'.
It's our responsibility to teach budgeting, he'll I did debt and mortgages with KS3 the last few years. We have to do voting and laws and sex and relationships education and bullying and racism and homophobia and LGBT rights. Oh and sexual health and risk taking behaviour and issues of consent. Then add in a big push on teen mental health, managing exam stress. Global citizenship, asylum seeking and refugees, global warming and the need to recycle. Issues around social media and e safety. Radicalisation including rise of white supremacy groups and Islamist extremism.

And that isn't even our full PSHE programme.

Schools do their best but It's no substitute for adults actually being adults and parents actually parenting their children instead of expecting schools to swoop in because people are too lazy or ignorant to use the internet.

It costs £332 to get married in Darlington (the first hit on google) , less than the price of a solicitor to draw up a marriage agreement.

@NailsNeedDoing
If both the SAHP and WOHP are contributing half of what it takes to raise a family then they should preusmably be entitled to half of the assets should they break up? Why would you think it's ok for the WOHP to ringfence their assets that came about through their contribution?

@PaulDacreRimsGeese
True, however it could help in cases like the OP's where the assets are sizeable. It just seems quite a fair way of resolving the issue whilst avoiding things such as cocklodgers gaining rights.

If both the SAHP and WOHP are contributing half of what it takes to raise a family then they should preusmably be entitled to half of the assets should they break up?
If they want that protection then they should get married.

It's reasonably simple, if people want the legal protection marriage brings then they need to sign a marriage contract.

If they opt not to do it then that is their choice (and as some on here have said there are situations where that's the right choice).
If someone opts to put themselves into a financially vulnerable situation and thennot get legal protection in case the relationship breaks down then that's on them.

I wouldn't not insure my car because It's a piece of paper and then expect the insurance to pay out following a crash.

This awareness-raising also needs to go hand-in-hand with a hell of a lot more education about contraception and sexual activity.

If we agree that it's unwise to conceive children outside of the protection of marriage and we understand that all contraceptive methods have a failure rate then it may follow that it is unwise to have sex if you aren't in a relationship where both parties are reasonably sure that the other is "the one, forever" as far as you can tell?

Though I also agree that it would be good to legislate that if you are the parent of a child then whether or not you are married you are responsible for 50% of the effort that goes into raising that child (including the effort of running a household for the child to live in) and if you outsource that labour to the other parent then you owe that parent an hourly wage equal to 50% of your hourly wage. If you are careless enough for this to apply in more than one family then you only get to keep one third of your wage and the remaining 2/3rds gets divided between the other families. Easy to avoid paying by pulling your weight - though also easy access to court protection in the event that someone is being a neglectful parent with nominal but dreadful childcare given purely to avoid paying.

Yes, I think there needs to be greater awareness but that civil partnership / marriage is the solution.

However, would be interested to know how other jurisdictions approach this. A poster mentioned earlier that some jurisdictions can gives to the unmarried.

I think the expression 'common law wife' is spectactularly unhelpful!

Thank you Maisey! I agree there needs to be more awareness of the full facts but can we stop farming it out to schools? I don't know why you would want a person you may or may not have met explaining the crucial aspects of life, marriage, sex, children and everything else to your child from a textbook?! It baffles me.

Going back to the post though, I think you cannot legislate for people's choices. OP made her choices (although the age thing is definitely iffy) but she stayed with a man who didn't want to marry her, had children, didn't continue to work, didn't legally own half her home and didn't reserach the legality of her situation. That's up to her I'm afraid and you have to take responsibility for the choices that you make. It's you job as an adult to educate yourself and as a parent to educate your children on these matters.

Do you mean in the event of divorce sirmione? The length of marriage is one of the factors considered by the court when deciding on distribution of assets but it's one of a number of factors. It isn't a blanket after 10 years this right changes.

And of course you have to be married for divorce law to apply!

You seem to imply that the value of the domestic/childcare work is zero and that the partner charged with these duties who may actually be working harder and more hours should just be grateful that the WOHP is financially supporting them.

Not at all, but I see it as the value of the domestic/childcare work as being paid for by the other partner as its happening. Honestly, I don't believe that staying at home to look after your own children that you have 50% responsibility for as being so worthy and so difficult that it deserves years of financial support long after it's stopped happening.

I dislike this assumption that a woman is doing nothing but make sacrifices by looking after her dc, for many of us, it was a very pleasurable time that creates bonds and memories that far outweigh the value of going to work for long hours.

Bumpity, I think it very much depends on individual circumstances. A woman who has taken two lots of maternity leave and then gone back to work (even if they earn significantly less then the other partner) is absolutely entitled to half of any assets that were accrued. A woman who has chosen to have more children than the other partner wanted or who refuses to go to work and contribute financially, not so much.

There is no need for women to be out of the workplace and fully supported for years just because we have the biology to give birth to children, but if a woman chooses Tom do that's, then it's only natural that there are going to be financial consequences. Just like a man who has worked long hours to provide financially for his children and their mother is likely to feel the emotional consequences of barely having seen his children grow up.

Isn't there something about if you live with a spouse for 10 years or your more there's more rights?

Unless there has been a change in the law in the last 15 years since my brother gaily walked out on 8.5 months pregnant SIL and their other child... no.

13 years living together. 1 joint house for 11 years. 1 child. 1 almost baked foetus. No legal protection for her at the point when she was least able to find a way to support herself. We were both open mouthed at our joint ignorance when I finally arm twisted her into seeing a solicitor. Two professional, and in her case very well educated, women who were a long way from being naive girls. Completely blindsided by something we should have known. And I still don't know how we managed not to notice the gap between what we thought we knew, and what was actually the reality.

The ten year thing sounds like a rehashing and updating of the myth (that she and I had believed) back in the 80s that 2 years co-habitation conferred common law spouse status and associated rights.

@MaisyPops
The whole point of the OP was that she wanted the law changed so that you didn't have to be married to have these rights. I don't know what reiterating the current law is meant to prove.
There are areas of law that focus on an equitable outcome and I really struggle to understand why women are so keen to deny other women any rights over assets that they are in my opinion quite clearly morally entitled to.

I think the element of 'choice' is overemphasised. House prices and extortionate rents mean that lots of young people would struggle to live alone and it often makes financial sense to move in with a partner. Unplanned pregnancies happen and not everyone agrees or is comfortable with abortion. Children can be born with additional needs that require levels of care that are not compatible with holding down two FT careers. Childcare costs can prevent parents from working as they literally can't afford it. Do I need to continue?

Also I cant see that CP is going to help much. For the most part, people who want CP are already reasonably well informed about the law. Granted, some of them have a bit of a blind spot about the homophobic history of the institution, but that aside they're generally aware that marriage is a legal contract with certain provisions, and have arranged their affairs accordingly.

The problem is people who think they're common law, that rights kick in after 5 years, that they don't need the state or a piece of paper, or who just don't think at all. CP won't affect that.

Its really simple. Get married to get legal protection or don't but please dont start bleating when it all goes horribly wrong for you!

I could understand when people say that pensions are hard to understand but this is ONE statement. Time and time again on threads we see people urging women to take time off, become a SAHM etc. Some even wonder why being a SAHM isn't paid (!!) but ultimately the OP has been very very foolish. I think now she needs to get some legal advice as to where she goes from here.

A very harsh lesson to learn.

sirmi, there is no such 10 year rule. However if you make payments towards someone else's mortgage then you may build up some kind of equitable right in the property. Much better to marry or earn your own money or get assets in joint names.

i am very against changing this law which could leave divorced mothers very vulnerable to financial claims by a live in lover.

Best always to work full time and both pull your weight at home.

I think the element of 'choice' is overemphasised. House prices and extortionate rents mean that lots of young people would struggle to live alone and it often makes financial sense to move in with a partner. Choices availible are that you can house share, move elsewhere, work multiple jobs, work in a job that provides accommodation, the list goes on...*

Unplanned pregnancies happen and not everyone agrees or is comfortable with abortion. Total choice. We have totally free access to contraceptives, and free access to safe terminations something Irish women are fighting hard to have themselves.

Children can be born with additional needs that require levels of care that are not compatible with holding down two FT careers. No choice but not affected by being married or not so irrelevant to the topic

Childcare costs can prevent parents from working as they literally can't afford it. Choice to have children at all. If one persons wage isn't enough to support the child then that is an issue all couples who want to start a family must resolve.

Isn't there something about if you live with a spouse for 10 years or your more there's more rights?

no - if you want the rights that marriage gives you, then get married

www.familylives.org.uk/advice/your-family/relationship-advice/common-law-marriage/

@NailsNeedDoing
But for some families having a SAHP is an ideological decision that they make jointly on the basis that they think it's in the best interests of the child. Both parents choose this model so why should only one parent pick up the cost? I think you are so blinded by your assumption that being a SAHP is a bit of a cop out that you can't see that there are lots of reasons why people become SAHPs and it isn't necessarily (or usually IME) because one parent wants lots of lovely bonding time and an easy life.

I wouldn't support such a campaign, but would support a communications campaign explaining the difference between marriage and living together to help people make the best choice for them.

@bumpitybumper please excuse the bold fail!

@Thecrabbypatty
I would argue that for some women termination isn't a true 'choice' due to their beliefs. You may disagree with those beliefs but if genuinely held then I wouldn't say abortion is a free choice at all in the way you imply.

A child born with additional needs could of course impact an unmarried mother more than a married one if a career has to be sacrificed (which lets face it is usually the mother's). The unmarried mother could have had every intention of going back to work and being financially independent but this could be made impossible in this kind of scenario.