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.

CanuckBC that wouldn't protect the people like the OP.

People calling for common law on this thread, want pre relationship assets to become joint.

In the ops cases, the house still wouldn't be hers. Though she maybe able to access equity during their relationship. But that would take time and money. That she doesn't have. She wants him to leave.

Prenups in the UK arent legally binding, though may be taken into account.

Also I have seen lots of threads on here where the partner is just out of work, doesnt really look for a job then claims they were a homemaker. When in actual fact the other person didn't agree that at all. In the case of marriage and common law, the earner would get screwed over. Even though there was no agreement of the other being the homemaker.

Canada is a secular country - UK isn’t, it is Christian with Queen as head if the Church of England. 13 of the House of Lords are religious leaders. So trying to get through a secular notion of common law spouse isn’t going to happen...

Ffs, all this blaming women for not getting married is so 1950s and essentially blames the victims of the end of a relationship

Marriage is a legal contract. If women choose not to sign that contract and protect themselves and their children then that's their lookout.

You don't get to demand the rights of marriage without signing the contract.

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.

Marriage doesn't ensure that though. It means the woman still has a place to live as she can't be kicked out of the marital home. It means her children don't have to up sticks and leave their friends and their schools.

It doesn't mean the dad has to take 50/50 responsibility by any means. Marriage is about protecting yourself in case it all goes wrong.

This makes me really frustrated. You've raised 3 kids so I'm assuming you're a capable woman. I can only imagine how much work it must be having a disabled child. You made the decision to stay with this man and have children with him without being married. I'm assuming no one forced you into that situation? You knew you weren't on the deeds of the house. You knew what a fragile position you had put yourself in and basically if you want to guarantee an income stream without getting a job yourself you either need to stay with him and hope for the best, or see how you might survive on benefits and child maintenance. Surely you've always been aware of this??

then why shouldn’t they have alternative protections if they have cohabited with children? Why can’t the law change?

Alternatively, why should there be protection in place for people who choose not to go down the legal route?

Some people don't want to get married and that should be just as valid as people who do want to tie the knot. But you can't opt out of marriage and then bleat that you're not protected like married women would be.

Either you want the protections that come with marriage or you don't. If you don't, then carry on as you are. If you do, then you can go down the registry office and sign the contract. It's your choice. But don't opt out of marriage and then complain you don't have marriage rights.

I'm doubting the validity of anyone who only realises after 15 years that they're not on the house deeds
Hello Daily Mail

There is a lot of victim-blaming here. You have to extend normal human trust in order to live you life. If someone suddenly reveals themselves to be an arse, it's not your fault.

OP, this calls for drastic measures. Pack a bag right now. Shrug at your husband and say, 'Right, you said it should be me who leaves. I'll be in touch.'

Tell kids, 'I am going away for a little while and Daddy will take care of you!'

Then just go to a cheap hotel.

I guarantee you'll only have to stay away one night. Your partner will change his tune.

@Frenchmontana I was the primary carer for my two boys from birth and I gave up my career temporarily to raise them. Ex husband worked almost 24/7 not because he had to but because it was all about status. In fact, he was awarded 50:50 custody of our 3 and 6 yo sons, the 3 yo was still breastfeeding at the time. The courts couldn't care less about all of that and actually, had I not been married, I think things could have been far less complicated. I know most ex's are not quite so evil but I regret marrying for this reason. It left me more vulnerable than had we had children not married.

The house is his. You'll be negotiating for every bit of furniture in it so start making a list of what you want and try and find receipts to see if you paid for it. I've come across men like your husband before. They're horrible and mean.

Ella1980 i understand you feel aggrieved. But 50:50 care could have happened anyway.

Obviously if your husband is awful, divorce may not give you everything you expect. It still doesnt follow that marriage doesnt protect people.

The OP in this situation gets nothing. At all. And if he was so inclined, he could apply for 50:50 care of the kids.

There is a lot of victim-blaming here. You have to extend normal human trust in order to live you life. If someone suddenly reveals themselves to be an arse, it's not your fault.

Its not victim blaming. Because the OP made the decision to settle with a man, in his property. With no entitlement to anything. She made an active choice.

You dont have to trust anyone when betting your future stability.

There is a lot of victim-blaming here. You have to extend normal human trust in order to live you life.

Nobody is victim blaming. OP knew she wasn't married and had no rights yet chose not to do anything about it for fifteen years!

Trust is all well and good but saying you trusted someone won't help you if it all goes wrong in ten years time. I trust my husband. But I also know that nobody can predict the future. Marriage isn't just about protection in the event of a break up - it also protects you and your children in the event of your partner passing away.

Trust will not protect you when the shit hits the fan. Besides, if someone loves you, wouldn't they want to protect you and make sure you're cared for in the event of their death or similar?

*There is a lot of victim-blaming here. You have to extend normal human trust in order to live you life.

There is no "victim" here. The op is an adult, and I assuming one without any additional needs. If this is the case, then she is responsible for her life choices. There was no secrets, nothing hidden, he did not lie she was on thr deeds, she is not his victim.

It's not ok to absolve someone of personal responsibility in their choices. If she wished to be put on the deeds she should have had that conversation a long time ago. What exactly was she trusting? That he had done it at some point and not told her? Or that if they broke up he would give her half the house just because ? Yeah, because that happens when people split.

To the poster who stated

If a woman earns less than a man and has taken time off work or gone part-time to look after children she is ALWAYS better off if she's married.

Not true for me! I earn and work less than DP but I have assets worth much more than he does. I'd be worse off married.

The amount of crappy advice on this thread is unreal. Common law marriage is not and should not be a thing. People need educating but in schools? Really? Don't school have enough to be getting on with?

OP - looks like you're not coming back but are you telling us he's been claiming single person discount all these years? If so the council is owed somewhere around 5000 depending on your band. Have you never voted?!

Actually just calculated what I'd owe if I'd fiddled the council for single person discount for 15 years and it would be £6,675!

Firstly, I’m sorry you’re in this position OP, but it’s unfortunatley quite a common one!

A SAHP, reliant on the income/shares assets of a partner they are not married to (or equivalent legally binding commitments) is vulnerable...and an idiot tbh.

But it’s not their fault, society doesn’t like to recognise the positives of marriage anymore (non religious view point) because it ‘shames’ women who don’t want to get married...fair enough.
But whilst it’s FINE to have children with a guy you’re not married to. That’s ONLY true if you’re also completely financially independent (which is so rarely the case).

Women dangle around in ten year long relationships; having 3 children and doing all the work to facilitate their partners career all for the ‘promise’ of marriage which seems to be dangled in front of them like a carrot on a stick! I’ve seen so many threads on here 🙄

And then when SHOCKER the guy who hasn’t married you for the past ten years and 3 children- sods off...we call him an arsehole and say ‘you deserve better’.

Sorry OP but if you want honesty, you’ve allowed this to happen.
You’re not on the deeds/montage, you’re not married, you’ve lost your career and independence for a guy who didn’t deserve it!
And whilst YES to an extent you can blame this on ‘life’ and ‘circumstance’ you actually had a responsibility to protect your own interests and you didn’t do that. How come we never see men complaining about how THEY had to quit their jobs to care for disabled kids on here?
...because mum is always the first to do it.

(I grew up with a disabled sibling btw. Despite being married, my mum refused to completely give up her career to care and continued to work PT. My dad didn’t like it, said his job wouldn’t accommodate...etc but she gave him no choice- either he pulled his weight or off she went!! I’m very VERY grateful to have had such an independent woman as a role model).

The good thing is we can learn from mistakes. When I set out dating again after being single for quite some time I wasn't interested in dating men that earned significantly more than me. IMO that can often give them far too much control and the "option" to take the mick because then they produce the classic "What would you do without me?" line.
My OH earns slightly less than me in the main. Things are financially very tight. But I'm not controlled, I'm free to be me, I can see my friends and family, my kids are happier than they ever would have been all together. Even in a huge house with four bathrooms and a weekly cleaner. Money can't buy that 😊

@MeteorGarden92

EXCELLENT post right there ^. So many good points.

@Ella1980

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

If you re in the UK Ella, I find this very hard to believe. After 10 years married, and having had children together, and with your husband on £100K a year as you claim, I don't believe that the courts would have made you end up with nothing. I just don't buy it sorry...

And as a number of posters have said, all the snarky 'smug marrieds are out in force' today comments are pathetic. All anyone is doing, is telling women they need to get married if they want protection from the law, (and rights,) and for their partner to not drop them in the shit and leave them with nothing.

If you don't want to get married, then don't, but you do not get to have the same rights as married women. As meteorgarden said on the post before me, sooooo many women end up in the shit because of having kids with a man, and staying with him for 10-15 years or more, and not being married.

These men really must see these women coming. Being his personal servant for all those years, supporting him, and raising his kids and all, and he doesn't have to give her a dime when he fucks off with someone else. Are you women on here who think it's OK to stay unmarried, when you have kids, seriously not seeing how detrimental this is to the woman (and the kids?) Seriously, what is wrong with you?

As I said further upthread, I find it laughable and pathetic that women refuse to get married because ya know PATRIARCHY! And yet they go along the usual route of being homemaker, skivvy, childminder, and chief cook and bottle washer; often whilst putting their career on hold so the man can have HIS career. Then when it goes tits up, she has nothing. No rights, no nothing. But hey, she stuck it to the patriarchy by NOT GETTING MARRIED!

@zsazsajuju

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!

I never said the kids would not inherit from their father in the event of him dying. I said his UNMARRIED partner would not. Do try and read posts properly before spitting venom at people, and trying to 'correct' them.

Even then, if the man had been married before, and had a child with someone else, and he died intestate, the ex and the other child could come for the money, from the children he had with his unmarried partner who he was with when he died.

I have seen this happen. I know a woman who was with her partner for 18 years and had a child with him, and he died intestate. His ex wife, (who he left and divorced 25 years earlier) and their adult child, got a share of his estate. Because he was not married to the partner he was with when he died. Didn't matter that they were together 18 years and had a child! They were not married.

Why on earth would you not get married, to protect you AND your children from this kind of thing happening? Very poor form.

@MeteorGarden92 Clearly you've never married a Chartered Accountant! He changed the locks 8 hours after I walked out because I couldn't take the abuse any more. I literally had the clothes on my back and my car (which he also tried to take from my drive). I got a settlement upon divorce but he lied on his Form E as he became conveniently "self employed". The settlement was nowhere near enough to buy anything hence why I have been in a damp rented two-bed for five years now. The 50:50 split also screwed me over big time.

Ella1980 you must agree that your case is very unusual.

And if you hadn't have been married there would have been no settlement. At all.

But he still could have had 50:50 care. In which case you would still be as embroiled with him as you are now. By having kids you have attached yourself to him, potentially for the rest of your life.

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

I believe this totally, spousal maintenance is only a thing if the person is older and cannot realistically be able to support themselves now and avoid undue hardship. They could have spent everything they have every month and have a house fully mortgaged. So assets and savings may be low. With fifty fifty custody he is not expected to pay for the op to look after their own kids, so yes I can believe what this poster has written.

Indeed, my barrister said no chance to get Spousal Maintenance. And had we not been married the 50:50 split (as I believe he wanted for financial purposes only) would actually have been less likely.

And had we not been married the 50:50 split (as I believe he wanted for financial purposes only) would actually have been less likely.
Child support payments dont take into account if the parents were married or not.

If he went for 50:50 for financial reasons, those reasons were still there whether you were married or not.

Frenchmontana I'm confused by your comments “If you have kids with an abusive man you are ready tied to him for life. Marriage wouldn’t make that any different..”

Are you suggesting that a woman who has children with a man who physically, emotionally and/or sexually abuses her should marry him so she gets some of his assets? You are not ‘tied’ to an abusive man under any circumstances fgs and no woman should feel obligated to marry a man who is endangering her well-being on the off chance that she’ll get some money out of him if and when they divorce. Who knows, he may well kill her before they reach the divorce courts but never mind. Material assets are always more important to a child than a living mother said no-one.

You may know lots of women who are unmarried with children. That doesn’t mean it’s common. I personally don’t. I was raised with the understanding that relying financially on anyone – husband or partner included – is very unwise indeed as were most of my friends. As stated, I do not know anyone who has chosen to give up a career and become entirely dependent on another person whilst raising children. This isn’t some kind of stealth boast. I do not think me or my friends are unusual. None of us are from wealthy backgrounds and many of my friends were raised by single mothers who fought tooth and nail to get ahead, buy properties on their own and earn their own money.

The MN boards may indeed have threads about that subject “all the time” but that is because women who find themselves in the unfortunate situation have actively chosen to post here about it and get support. It doesn’t mean there are millions of women in that exact situation.

I know the vast majority of married women posting here genuinely advise getting married because they understand it protects women like the OP. However there is a nasty, sneering undercurrent of “well if you don’t choose to take the legal route like me then you deserve everything you get..” which I don’t understand. Why shouldn’t there be a law enacted that protects both married and unmarried women?

Again, let's forget about such a change in the law benefitting the women who failed to take up marriage and so don't deserve to enjoy the "perks" of married life. What about their children? If their father is enough of an arsehole that he'd leave their unmarried mother in the lurch he'll probably duck out of adequate child maintenance. Wouldn't a law offering unmarried women the same rights as their married sisters protect those children? If mum can get half the house despite not having a a ring on her finger then those children are saved from homlessness which is a good thing, no?

Are you suggesting that a woman who has children with a man who physically, emotionally and/or sexually abuses her should marry him so she gets some of his assets? You are not ‘tied’ to an abusive man under any circumstances fgs and no woman should feel obligated to marry a man who is endangering her well-being on the off chance that she’ll get some money out of him if and when they divorce. Who knows, he may well kill her before they reach the divorce courts but never mind. Material assets are always more important to a child than a living mother said no-one.

No that's not what I said. My comment was in response to someone saying women who are in abusive relationships, who have given up work and financial independence are better not married as ots easier to leave. My argument is that it's not easy to walk away from an abusive man, especially if you have children, married or not.

Again, let's forget about such a change in the law benefitting the women who failed to take up marriage and so don't deserve to enjoy the "perks" of married life. What about their children? If their father is enough of an arsehole that he'd leave their unmarried mother in the lurch he'll probably duck out of adequate child maintenance. Wouldn't a law offering unmarried women the same rights as their married sisters protect those children? If mum can get half the house despite not having a a ring on her finger then those children are saved from homlessness which is a good thing, no?

Again, parents make decisions that impact their children every day. Such as whether to be a one income family or not, where to live etc.

Do you really believe the law should step into all those decisions, just incase the parents arent doing what's best for the children. The OP made her decision. She had full access to the facts.

She and other parents make decisions every day and the state doesnt step in. You can choose to bring the law into your relationship. Bringing the state into a romantic relationship, just incase the parents haven't made the right decision for the kids

And what about women with assets? What if their children end up being displaced because the mothers commin law husband wants his half of the house?