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!!!

Crabby is right. People making excuses for people's often foolish choices.

There are more and more victims on MN who moan and complain about their 'lot in life' having made daft choices time and time again. They seem to think others should pay for those choices. I hold down a full time role and always have. There are times when I have hated my job, where I have made an mistake and worried about the consequences. Where redundancies loom and you wonder whether you are going to be chosen. SAHM don't have any of those issues. Their day is their own (additional needs recognised) and once their kids go to school they can take up a hobby etc. No commuting issues for them.

Yet, when it goes wrong for them they moan and complain about what has happened to them. Come on women - take responsibility for your own life and the decisions YOU make

"Why, oh why don't they teach this in schools?"

Because the PSHE curriculum, and the school day in general, are already full to bursting point.

Because the answer to every single life skill can't be 'they should teach this in school'.

A friend has just put something on Facebook saying that schools should teach kids how to change a tyre, sew a repair and cook a meal. How long do you want the school day to be?

What would be nice is parents teaching life skills, and adults old enough to cohabit and procreate actually taking two minutes to google the legal and financial implications of doing either.

If all these male marriage-refusers know that marriage gives their partner legal rights, why don't their partners? I suspect they do, but put their head in the sand until it happens.

@bumpitybumper You can take the additional needs right out of the equation because that is not relevant to the OP or being married. And if you are talking about religion dictating termination then I think you need to direct yourself to the "no sex before marriage" aspect of religion... It's there for a reason.

This has been discussed at length recently on MN. I want the ability.to.live with a person without them gaining rights over my assets. This is especially important to older women with children who couldn't then risk living with a man if he would.gain rights over her house.

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.

It's illegal to drive uninsured. It's not illegal to live with someone and have children 'out of wedlock'. (Although maybe when there was more of a social stigma to living in sin and children being called 'bastards' which I'm old enough to have lived through, it did women more favours. There's a thought.)

Bumpity, the problem with what youre saying, is that by giving rights to one group of people , you are taking them away from another.

I, as a single mother with assets, would like to have the option of living with a new partner without worrying that if we split up 2/5/10 years down the line that I'm going to have to give away 50% of everything I own. I need to keep it, for my own protection and to support my children in the future, so should I be denied that right just because some women can't be trusted to make sensible choices for themselves?

Or does it only count if there's childcare involved? In that case, what do we do in situations where a woman has more children than the man wants, possibly not being truthful about contraception? What do we do when a man has agreed to support a woma and their child for two years (fro example) but then she refuse she to go back to work?

Doesn't the earning partner deserve any protection, or should that all be reserved only for women who have the luxury of being a sahp for years?

How the hell do you expect to gate keep those cases. Anyone with any length of time fo habitating could potentially take you assets. If they have kids it’s different but that’s what the other laws are for. Totally unworkable.

I went to school many years ago with a girl who 'fell' pregnant at 17. Not her fault she told us. She told us all she didn't 'believe' in termination as she was a Catholic. Funny she missed the bit about no sex before marriage.

She had the baby despite her Mum being very concerned that she would end of raising the child. That is exactly what happened. The 17 year old wanted to be out clubbing with her friends and her Mum suffered the consequences

What about the other way though? I own my own home outright (my partner does as well actually, but he only has an open plan flat - I have a three bedroom house). We are expecting and as my house is bigger, he is going to move in with me. I'm personally not arsed about getting married (I have absolutely no intention of giving up work and being financially reliant on him either).
If we split up, I take it that he will have no rights over any of my assets as we aren't married? He is keen on getting married, sell both properties and buy one bigger house together, but I don't want to be financially worse off if we ever did split up. Personally I'd rather keep both our respective properties (and rent them out) and get a mortgage to but a bigger house together, but he's not as keen on that idea as I am (he's thinking renting out is a hassle and a mortgage is a stress).

I'm unmarried, 6 months pregnant and own a home with DP. I paid half the deposit for the house, earn 10k more a year than he does, am financially independent, we are paying half each for childcare so will both be working full time. Haven't read the full thread so this may have already been addressed, but what if the woman earns more and if financially independent from her partner? I have no urge to get married any time soon.

I think it would be helpful if this was more widely understood. So many people still genuinely believe they are covered under "common law"

@NailsNeedDoing
I suggested a mechanism that could work in one of my earlier post which basically relied on one partner (usually the woman) acting to their detriment based on assurances provided by the other partner (usually the man). I suggested in those cases the law should step in and say that even if at the time of the relationship breakdown the couple were unmarried, assets should still be split as if they were married. In your case as long as you were upfront with your partner and made it clear you didn't want to share your assets then I would presume you would have no problem.

l agree with you that the law should provide for scenarios where both parties have accepted that certain assets are ring fenced and this has been made clear at all stages. That is a different scenario than someone becoming a SAHP with their partner's agreement and assurances and then the couple subsequently breaking up and the SAHP being left with nothing.

What would be nice is parents teaching life skills, and adults old enough to cohabit and procreate actually taking two minutes to google the legal and financial implications of doing either.

It would be. The problem is that we're now in a situation where enough adults are themselves ignorant that they can't pass it on to their kids and worse still, if they do try and educate their kids on the issue they'll be getting it wrong. So if you decide to do the responsible thing and teach your kids, and you're sure that common law relationships are a thing because you're in one and you're fine, you're going to be compounding the issue.

And sure, we have google, but you have to know you don't know something before you have any reason to look it up.

I'm not saying school is the answer either, but nor is the expectation that parents will impart correct information. Many would need education themselves first.

I do wonder as well if some just don't want to hear it. Its really really not that difficult to understand. Make your choices and take the consequences. Don't expect the state to sort out your mess

Its as simple as crossing at a zebra crossing when the light is red for you. You take a risk. You can ignore the red light and cross anyway. Sometimes you will be OK, other times you will be hit.

Its totally your choice but the law is clear.

Oh there are definitely people who don't want to hear it. Still, you can take a horse to water etc.

Bumpity, can't you see how easy it would be to lie in situations like that though?

Anyone could say they were 'given assurances', it would just be one persons word against another. A man could say he was given assurances that his partner would go back to work after having one child that they agreed on, a woman could say she was given assurances that her partner had agreed to fund her being a sahm for five children until the youngest was at secondary school.

What if I make it clear I don't want to share my assets with a live in partner, but five years letter he tries to tell a court that I said no such thing?

It just doesn't make sense. All people have to do is make choices based on the law as it stands which gives everyone the freedom to make their own choices. If people are expected to be responsive enough to be parents, then we should expect them to be responsibke enough to find out what financial protection they do or don't have for themselves.

I could understand someone making the mistake once, with one unexpected pregnancy, but to then go and have multiple children, take years out of the workplace and then complain that you weren't protected by the law is silly. The vast majority of women do not need to be patronised to that extent.

Nails has put it MUCH better than I have. All this 'he told me this, I told him that etc' is complete nonsense. Those sorts of conversations are part of every day life. Some people say something and lie, some say something they believe to be true and then change their mind but honestly. Stop expecting others to sort out your relationship choices.

Well look, marriage is very much a contract. If you want those protections you should get married. But a lot of people right know that. It should be taught as a part of sex Ed.

I think the problem is not that people don't know the law (although I'm sure there is some of that) but that people don't want to believe that the person they love could possibly turn out to be enough of an utter twat to leave the parent of their kids completely high and dry with no acknowledgement of the work they have put in to the family and the other person's career. That behaviour is not illegal, but it is reprehensible. Trusting someone to that extent is unwise, but we all wish it wasn't. Getting married is an easy/acceptable way of saying 'I don't trust you to do the right thing without the law telling you to.' a lot of money and effort is expended peddling the myth of romance. I don't think should be scornful of people who inevitably believe in the myth.

A relative isn't married and lives abroad in a country that isn't great on women's rights. They wont make a will because its too complex. They wont get married because its just a bit of paper. The fall out is going to be massive but they just wont be told. They make excuse after excuse as to why they are fine as they are. After all they have lived together for years and years!

I feel like slapping her around the face.

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.
It's not about denying women rights over assets they are entitled to. If they opt not to get the legal contract that gives them that entitlement then they are not entitled to them.

Because people (of both sexes) are free to CHOOSE whether they wish to enter into a legal arrangement.

If they CHOOSE not to enter that legal arrangement then there are implications.

The law shouldn't be changed because people make choices and don't like the consequences.

There are many people with assets (male and female) at different life stages who should be able to cohabit without worrying they'll have to give half up because the law's been changed to suit a few people who choose to be ignorant about their own finances.

Seems like what you and others arw advocating is removing a lot of rights and freedoms from people for the sake of a minority of people who can't be arsed or are too ignorant to get themselves legally protected.

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

What rubbish. The courts will grant access whether married or not.

If people make poor choices that suit them whilst they are taking advantage but then that advantage stops they have nothing to moan about.

It doesn't take much common sense to think that a relationship might not last so having numerous children, not working and no own nest egg might mean a problem in the future. Teach girls to be self reliant and boys to ensure they only have unprotected sex when they actively want to become a father and are prepared to make that commitment. This old fashioned view of helpless woman who can't possibly work and men having to provide isn't doing the current generation any good at all.

This old fashioned view of helpless woman who can't possibly work and men having to provide isn't doing the current generation any good at all.

This. With huge bells on

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.

Because believe it or not, I do not want a man to whom I have decided not to marry, to be entitled to any of MY properties or money. You are assuming the men have the money and consequently you sound very sexist. The best way to get financial security is to go out there and work for it and get it yourself. Imo spouses who rely on their partner to provide for them whether there are children or not, are being financially short sighted.

It's not, but it also does nobody any favours to pretend that women don't bear a disproportionate amount of the caring penalty, and that this isn't structural. Some of us can opt out of some to lots of it up to a point, that's all.