Actually shocked at what an idiot I am...

[Redfronts]

DP and I haven’t been getting along, so today I asked for him to leave the house for a week, so I can think about what I want to do.
He response was “This is my house, so you can go”. Then it hit me, I’m not on the deeds of the house, so I questioned him about it, and now find out he hasn’t put me on the council tax either.
That means that if we separated I would walk away with nothing.
Been together 15 yrs and have 3 kids. Also, keeps promising to get married and we never do.
I’ve been a complete fool and I’m so angry with myself.
I insisted I wanted my name on the house immediately. He said “start paying half the mortgage and you can” knowing that’s not possible as I’m a full time carer for our disabled son.

*Gosh you are harsh coffee

And coming across as not very nice tbh.*

That law isn't there to be nice, it's there to be fair. It's one responsibility to be aware of it, in the same way you can't get off a speeding ticket because you didn't know the speed limit.

@adaline
I agree, like everything else marriage is a choice. It’s all very well imposing the benefits of it when it all goes tits up. But if you want the benefits do the deed!

Completely different as they would then still be independent! Which is the whole problem here - where one partner has become dependent and the lower earner while taking care of children.

Independent how? Have you tried to work and have a small baby, or several children. They will have a house, but who is paying the Bill's? Not the dickhead who doesnt give a shit. He might, if you are lucky pay CMS, but why would he cover Bill's in a house he doesnt live in.

You have just accurately described the situation that a woman who owned property before marriage would be in. Are you now suggesting that she shouldn't have got married?

I am suggesting that if she chooses to get married, that's her choice. She invited the law into her relationship and everything that comes with it.

Relationship board on mn has quite a few threads from women who are vulnerable but have their own assets that are targeted by abusive men. Why would you impose, sharing assets on them?

I'm also far from the only one who doesn't agree with instituting common law marriage in the UK.

It’s all very well imposing the benefits of it when it all goes tits up. But if you want the benefits do the deed!

Yep, exactly.

Too many women (and it's always women) sleepwalk into situations like the OP and then when it goes tits up, they want protection. If you want that protection, don't give up your career and have a baby with someone you're not married to (unless of course you own your home/can support yourself independently). It's not complicated.

Gosh you are harsh coffee. And coming across as not very nice tbh.

Coffee isn’t harsh or unkind. She’s talking sense. The law shouldn’t be changed to protect women from their own unwise decisions.

Is it now possible for heterosexual couples to enter a civil partnership now if they do not want to be married but still want the legal status that marriage confers? I remember there was a court decision regarding it but unsure if it's actually been made law now so it's an option for heterosexual couples. Of course, if you're with someone who won't get married it's unlikely such a person will punt for a civil partnership, either, but at least it gives people another option.

@coffeeismyspinach speaks sense.

Common law marriage shouldn't be forced on people who want to cohabit without getting married.

"Everyone is saying that women should only have children when they have the protection of marriage"

not everyone is saying that.

I am saying that people need to think carefully about the pros and cons of marriage and that it should be opt-in, not common law.

that said, I would also like to see the law make people more responsible for their DC - so a man like OP partner couldn't just dump them out with only child maintenance to pay (if he pays it). We do need the law to protect vulnerable people but 1) I'm not sure how we classify vulnerable adults and 2) I don't think common law marriage would help that. Next thing you'll get people losing income or property because they didn't understand common law marriage - it's not a solution.

I'm wondering if he lied to OP about council tax actually.

Re; @Graphista 's (long) post at 16.51...

Well said. Excellent post.

Also good posts from a few others including @coffeeismyspinach

No, common law wife/husband absolutely should NOT be a thing. As many posters have said, if you want the protection of the law, then FFS get married. Why on earth WOULDN'T you? It takes less than half an hour and doesn't have to cost much! Just a quick register office wedding, two witnesses, and you don't even have to have a ring or wedding dress or flowers or fuck-all!

Amazes me how women put their careers on hold (even give it up,) lose their income, take on most of the childcare and drudgery of housework and cooking and shopping etc, and make themselves completely vulnerable; but act like they are 'sticking it to the patriarchy' by not getting married! You couldn't make it up! Utterly batshit! No joined up thinking at all!

@americandream, it reminds of women burning their bras in the 70s, thinking that would really punish men.

I think that's what shocks me.

So many women think they are empowering themselves by not get married. They hold it up as a symbol of their fight against the patriarchy. Whilst giving up their jobs and independence. Why in those situations do the men never give up work? Or work part time with the woman working part time as well?

Posted too soon.

These women have been conned and genuinely think it's a good thing.

I dint understand how that happened.

If you live in UK, you need to get the child benefit pair in your name to your account. Because a stamp is paid towards your state pension while you are caring for children

Look here HTTPS:www.gov.uk/new-state-pension/your-national-insurance-record-and-your-state-pension

Do you claim carers benefits for your child, these should also be in your name

There is no such thing as common law marriage. You are either married, civil partnership or single. In the case of the OP she is legally single. This has been discussed several times on here. If she splits from partner, she can claim child maintenance. Sadly, the propertybelongs 100% to him !

Must get child benefit paid into your name, your account - are you doing this ?

I agree @HollowTalk Men didn't give a damn if women burnt their bras... It was the women who suffered by not wearing one! (Most of them anyway!)

Men were usually delighted if a woman wasn't wearing a bra!

So many women think they are empowering themselves by not get married. They hold it up as a symbol of their fight against the patriarchy. Whilst giving up their jobs and independence. Why in those situations do the men never give up work? Or work part time with the woman working part time as well?

@Frenchmontana I agree with you, and I cannot understand it either.

I don't claim to be Einstein, but I have known for many years that a woman who is not married to her man, has virtually ZERO rights when they split, or if he dies. As has been said, if he dies, his siblings and parents will be entitled to his money/wealth/estate more than the woman he has spent 20 years with and has 3 kids with.

I have a few known women be with a man for 15 to 25 years and not married, and when their partner dies, most people don't take it seriously as he was only her 'boyfriend.' Conversely, I have known women be married for just 5 years and they lose their husband, and people are waaaay more sympathetic.

As a non married woman you will not even be entitled to any compassionate leave, even if you have been with your man for 20 years. In addition, if he is on life support, you, as a woman who is not married to your man, will not be allowed to decide if the machine is switched off or left on.

And of course, a woman who is not married, is not allowed anything of her partners if they split. She has so few rights that it's laughable.

As I (and many other have said,) it baffles me why women allow themselves to be so vulnerable.

I can only surmise that they don't know and don't realise how utterly vulnerable they actually are.

@Hollowtalk

Men were usually delighted if a woman wasn't wearing a bra!

LOL.

My second paragraph should read...

I have a known a few women be with a man for 15 to 25 years and not married, and when their partner dies, most people don't take it seriously as he was only her 'boyfriend.'

The legal thing a PP refers to is Matrimonial Homes Rights.

It now appears you can apply if you are not married, providing the house is in your DPs name alone, not joint with anyone else.

www.gov.uk/stay-in-home-during-separation-or-divorce

"You can usually only live in the property until the divorce, annulment or dissolution has been finalised and a court settlement agreed.

You may be able to continue living in the property for longer, for example during an ongoing dispute about who owns what, if a court has made a ‘continuation order’ allowing you to do this."

In essence this at least gives you some security until a financial settlement is agreed, but that is likely to be a pretty tenuous issue if you are not married.

I would suggest you get legal advice ASAP.

My XH ( partially at the behest of his interfering controlling moo of a mother) wouldn't put our home in joint names. They weren't aware of MHR and thought they had all their bases covered. Unfortunately for them I had previously worked for a solicitors so was able to cover my arse when I left him.

What @coffeeismyspinach said.

Actually having re read that, when it mentions 'partner' it appears it may only refer to and official civil partner, in which case it wouldn't be relevant to your situation.

Even more reason to seek legal advice.

@Newname12 I was once married to a very wealthy man and lived in a huge five bed house plus cleaner. Now I'm divorced I live in a tiny two bed. So nope, marriage didn't protect me financially in the slightest!