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.

Sorry you’re going through this OP

As others have said, get yourself off to a solicitor and see where you stand.

As for the relationship, sounds like it’s the beginning of the end, you asking for a break and your dh marking his financial position in the sand. If he really did love you, there’s no way he’d see you and the dc financially worse off.

You may her to cut your losses and start to make a life independent from him. You can start to study and arrange restbite care for your dc. Plus you will get time to yourself if/when your dh has his time with the dc.

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!

It will depend on all sorts. Such as how long was the marriage. Did you give up work to raise kids, damage you career and earning potential etc

Your one situation doesnt mean the unmarried women who give up work to raise kids in house that someone else owns is fine and dandy

I don't really understand why so many posters on this thread are so keen to blame women for being stupid for having children without the protection of marriage, but not keen to change the law to better protect those same women.

It all seems a bit... woman-hating.

Surely you cannot force someone to put another person's name onto house deeds ? Surely it has to be done with both parties consent.

Suggest you also check if you are on the electoral register to vote (you don't need to vote) you just need to register. The form is probably available on your local council website

I don't really understand why so many posters on this thread are so keen to blame women for being stupid for having children without the protection of marriage, but not keen to change the law to better protect those same women.

It all seems a bit... woman-hating.

Changing the law could be detrimental to women.

Case: colleague in her late 50s has done really well for herself and bought lovely house, done it up etc. She has been with a nice man for several years and has deliberately chosen not to marry him because she wants the assets she has built up on her own to go to her daughter on her death. They did a nice not-getting-married party to celebrate their relationship. How would common law marriage benefit her?

I don't really understand why so many posters on this thread are so keen to blame women for being stupid for having children without the protection of marriage, but not keen to change the law to better protect those same women.

Because the law doesn’t need to change as the remedy is already available. It’s called marriage.

Not having common law marriage foisted upon you also makes it easier for people in poor relationships to split up.

I'm chuckling at the widely held assumption here that virtually all women are poorer than the men they enter into relationships with. It's 2019 for goodness sake. The vast majority of my female friends earn as much or more than their husbands/partners and many entered relationships owning their own properties. I'm sure this isn't uncommon. Some are married, some not. Many have children. Not one of my friends lives in a property solely owned by her husband or partner and at least 2 of my friends have split form their partners and said "thank god we were not married".

These threads always seem to attract people who froth at the mouth about stupid, unmarried women who give up work to have kids whilst insisting that said women must not under any circumstances be allowed any of the benefits married women receive. Laying aside the fact that I don't think this whole "unmarried SAHM without a penny to her name" phenomenon is really that common, it seems to me quite mean spirited to insist that that these woman should be punished for not marrying because surely it is their children who will suffer most.

It's worth bearing in mind that some women have children with abusive men they really shouldn't marry. However according to the wisdom that is the Married Women of Mumsnet, if you've given up a job or career to look after your children you must get a ring on your finger at all costs regardless.

@Frenchmontana Marriage was 10 years. I gave up ft role as teacher to raise children whilst ex continued to earn £105k plus. The fact that we jointly owned the house didn't really help me as he successfully lied on his Form E! In fact, being married put me in a worse position financially as he was awarded 50:50 custody of our two children. So zero maintenance too.

Gosh the smug marrieds are out in force today.

I don’t agree that we need common law marriage in the uk but I would like to see a better system of child support that goes some way to sharing fairly the burden of caring for children between the parents. It’s completely unfair that one parent (usually the mother) is financially penalised while the other is not. Ripping into women for having children outside of marriage is completely misogynist. Women shouldn’t have to get married just so that their child’s father takes their fair share of responsibility for their child.

As a pp said marriage is only “protection” if you’re the lower earner or have the fewest assets, that’s not true for a significant minority of women.

to the op.

And Americadream - what rubbish. If someone has three kids with someone then die, their estate in England would go to their kids exclusively not their parents or siblings if they have no will. So you haven’t known anyone who that has happened to cos it’s not the law!

Gosh the smug marrieds are out in force today.

And here we go. Better to keep quiet about explaining the legal facts you married women, 'cos putting information out there is SMUG.

Times change. If people don’t want to get married, which many consider a patriarchal system of ownership (rightly or wrongly), then why shouldn’t they have alternative protections if they have cohabited with children? Why can’t the law change to reflect modern preferences instead of calling women stupid? With marriage on the decline and divorce on the rise, surely another system should exist to protect the children of an unmarried couple? Ffs, all this blaming women for not getting married is so 1950s and essentially blames the victims of the end of a relationship

The OP has implied that she wanted to get married and her DP kept promising to do so but it never happened.

It is too late for the OP now but if one party wants to get married-after living together for so long-and the other tries to avoid doing the deed, then that is a warning sign and maybe a clarion call that he/she is 'just not that into you'.

If both don't want to get married, that's something else entirely but it is up to everyone to think about their situation should an unmarried partner leave or die. Marriage is usually the answer.

OP. I hope you manage to walk away with your head high and some money in your pocket.

Common-law marriage should be recognised, giving protection to women who have lived with their partners and have children with them! It is insane and frankly woman-hating that this is not the law.

No it’s not women hating.

People have the CHOICE whether they want to tie themselves to someone else or not. If they do, they can get married. Job done.

Not everyone wants this - they have a CHOICE.

It’s ridiculous for anyone, let alone the bloody govt, to dictate the nature of a rekationship.

Ffs, all this blaming women for not getting married is so 1950s

Yes. Entering a contract that ensures you’re delt with a fair hand financially if the relationship breaks down is SO 1950’s

🙄🙄🙄🙄

Marriage has nothing to do with ownership. It’s simply a contract in law. You can do it in 30 mins with no fuss. You can keep your name. You can call yourself Ms. But you have the protection of the law. There’s absolutely no need for other laws.

How old is your son who has a disability? Is he in school?

It’s not woman hating it’s to be taken on a case by case basis. You have the choice, thats the point. If getting married would make you worse off, don’t get married. If it makes you better off and protects your interests, do. The concept of common law marriage removes that choice and that’s why I don’t agree with it.

However according to the wisdom that is the Married Women of Mumsnet, if you've given up a job or career to look after your children you must get a ring on your finger at all costs regardless.

Except I am not married. The married of mumsnet arent out in force. Because I am divorced. Even when I was married I didn't give up my career.

@Ella1980 sounds like you got screwed. But you would have got less if you weren't married and all the assets were in his name only. And he still might have got 50:50 custody anyway.

As an side (not in response to Ella) women usually end up with majority care, because they have worked part time or given up their career. Most people would agree its right that, that continues.

Times change. If people don’t want to get married, which many consider a patriarchal system of ownership (rightly or wrongly), then why shouldn’t they have alternative protections if they have cohabited with children? Why can’t the law change to reflect modern preferences instead of calling women stupid? With marriage on the decline and divorce on the rise, surely another system should exist to protect the children of an unmarried couple? Ffs, all this blaming women for not getting married is so 1950s and essentially blames the victims of the end of a relationship

You can. You could get a civil partnership. Or go see a solicitor to have legal protections put in place. Have the house moved into both names, before you have kids.

Bringing the law into a relationship is a choice. When you have children with someone you have, potentially, tied yourself to the person for life. Marriage can be got out of.

Its not women hating to point out that giving up you career, to live in a house you have no ownership of to care for kids leaves you vulnerable. There are things you can do before.

As parents we make decisions every day that impact our children. The law cant wade into every decision we make. Nor should it.

Common law would mean that women with assets cant choose to have a relationship, live with someone and not marry.

And still it wont help. Because again these men will promise to move in together, when theres a pregnancy, then it will be when the babies born, then why change things. These women will still be left with little earning power, still doing majority care and little financial help.

Marriage used to be abour ownership. It's not anymore, because you can divorce. It's a legally binding contract for to people to choose to join assets. And if someone wants all the perks of being married, but doesnt want to do it. Make your decision to stay and have kids with that person before you have kids.

The promise of marriage isnt enough.

Laying aside the fact that I don't think this whole "unmarried SAHM without a penny to her name" phenomenon is really that common, it seems to me quite mean spirited to insist that that these woman should be punished for not marrying because surely it is their children who will suffer most.

It's actually very common. I personally know lots of women who have done this. And the mn boards has these threads all the time.

It's worth bearing in mind that some women have children with abusive men they really shouldn't marry. However according to the wisdom that is the Married Women of Mumsnet, if you've given up a job or career to look after your children you must get a ring on your finger at all costs regardless.

If you have kids with an abusive man you are already tied to him for life. Marriage wouldn't make that any different. What it would do is give you access to assets that you dont have as someone who isnt married.

Between me and dp, I am the higher earner. If I decide to live with him, that's our choice. We dont have to join assets. We can choose to though.

If I dont want the law in my relationship and dont want it to have legal status, then that shouldn't be forced on us.

Again, women who do have assets who enter abusive relationships, would be worse off for having a legal status dumped on them.

The other aspect of this for a couple who aren’t married and they have children, if the father drops dead tomorrow and hasn’t married the mother, then finally it’s another whole world of pain. Unfortunately it’s really common for there not to be a will either.

I’d put money on the OPs partner not having made a will and so what would happen next if he drops dead - who would the property go to...? His next of kin? Who isn’t the op. Who would pay the inheritance tax, if the property is over the threshold?

So, in Canada we have common-law marriage. It works really well. So, if someone is older and wants to leave their assets to their children they leave that in their will stating such. Or they do a pre-nup stating same.

It protects those in long term relationships that don’t have the protection of marriage but contribute financially or otherwise by doing childcare, home are etc. There is a set amount of time you have to be living together in order for it to be a common law marriage, I believe the province I am in is 18 months.

Also, any assets you bring into a marriage or common law marriage are not considered as part of the marital assets ie I had savings from before my marriage. I did not have to give 1/2 to my ex. Any of the earnings or anything I added to it while we were married I did.

I sold a condo to put towards our joint house, I could have asked for the extra back that I put into the house. It wasn’t worth backtracking how much extra between his and mine we put in.

The same for anyone here. If one has assets before the marriage they are allowed to claim that before splitting the marital assets.

PS pensions are the same. You only get part of the pension for the time you were together. So if someone is already retired the other person won’t be able to touch it.

I always find threads bizarre where people think they can ‘kick their husband out’ or ‘ask them to leave’. Sadly, if you share a house your options are to continue (painfully) to share or leave yourself until a practical and legal solution can be found. It is particularly painful if one person has been unfaithful but it is what it is. (If there has been clear abuse, this is the only exception).

OP, all you can do is try to be as amicable as possible whilst seeing what your rights are in law. One would hope that your (ex) partner would put the children first but, regardless, you need to plan around the reality of your situation.