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.

@Frenchmontana He went for 50:50 so he wouldn't have to pay me a penny for the kids. If we hadn't been married he would have not perceived that I could, and I quote, "Have a right to HIS money because we were married".

Do I regret marrying him? In a way, yes. Do I regret leaving him? Also to a degree, yes. I thought (perhaps naievely) that there would be some protection for women like myself who suffered years of horrific mental abuse. I was wrong.

Ella1980 I know what you are saying. But I doubt he would have wanted to pay money to you if you weren't married and still gone for 50:50.

Unfortunately, being abused isnt taken into account either, except in extreme cases. I am so sorry he was so awful. And having been abused myself, I totally get the slight regret at marrying and slight regret qt leaving. It's very complicated, emotionally.

I do, however, think you are no worse off for being married. And I also think your circumstances are rare and the majority of people would be better off married when giving up work.

Haven’t RT(whole)FT but there seems to be a few people confused about council tax and electoral registration

From CAB website:

Who has to pay council tax

Usually one person, called the liable person, is liable to pay council tax. Nobody under the age of 18 can be a liable person.

Couples living together will both be 'jointly and severally liable' - this means they are responsible as a couple but also individually. This is the case even if there is only one name on the bill and applies if the couple is married, cohabiting or in a civil partnership.

... I haven’t seen if the OP’s DP has specifically been claiming a single person occupancy, but if not there is no issue with OP not being on the CT bill. Personally I would want both my and OH’s name on it a) for ID purposes to prove address and b) to underline the joint liability, although as per CAB above it is implicit.

The electoral register is not informed by the council tax register. In fact legally they have to be separate. You can be registered to vote at an address where you are not the council tax bill payer

@frenchmontana yes I do think the state should intervene to ensure unmarried mothers have the same protection as married women.

The assumption seems to be that in general unmarried mothers have chosen that status because they are feminists and look down on marriage, can't be bothered with a piece of legal paperwork or they are simply dimwitted and naive.

This ignores the fact that some women had an unplanned pregnancy and the father of their child is unwilling to marry. The last I heard you cannot legally force a man to marry you so what are those women supposed to do? (I'm waiting for someone to respond that those women should have been better judges of character, used birth control, why should taxpayers fund their mistakes..)

As I've already mentioned, some women have children with men who are abusive so not exactly marriage material. If they do escape those relationships then they should not be left penniless and homeless. Of course in some cases it is much better for them to cut their losses and not worry about getting their 'due' from a violent ex. However I do not think it is fair to consign them to destitution because of their marital status with a cheery "well we all have choices". Yes we do. Some women make poor choices or ones you or I might not approve of. It's one thing to think those women deserve to lose the financial protection married women receive. It's another thing to extend that to their children.

The government gives 2 year old children from lower income or difficult/chaotic backgrounds early access to free child care provision because many of those children are likely to be at a significant disadvantage when they start school. That disadvantage is often a result of their parent(s) failing to carry out the basics e.g. reading to them, toilet training or teaching them how to hold utensils properly. Some of those parents may have actively chosen not to work and so remain on a low income. You'll often find childcare threads on MN with people compaining that these feckless parents don't deserve the 15 hours which completely misses the point: the provision is for their children because poor parenting isn't the child's fault and it really is pretty shitty to leave a minor in the lurch because of someone else's choices.

I also think the idea that unmarried mothers are 'undeserving' and should not unfairly 'reap the benefits' of marriage gives the impression that matrimony is some kind of endurance test with a prize that can only be given to women who have been brave enough to subject themselves to marriage. Why else do some women even care if unmarried women are treated the same as married ones?

If a woman is happy with her married status I can't imagine why she would be so preoccupied and het up about other women getting the benefits of marriage without following the legal route. It surely has no effect on her life whatsover

Not sure what a solicitor could do unfortunately !

She hasn’t being paying towards the mortgage, her names not on the deeds. It would be like me registering interest in their house

@americandream. What rubbish again. Unrelated step children have no right to inherit on intestacy. It’s just not true. A spouse yes. Their child who is not related to the deceased, no. Not in England anyway.

I think threads like this are sad. So many women see getting married as such an achievement even now and are so keen to jealously guard what they see as their achievement from all these unmarried women they want to call names.

I have to say I think we should all be forced to properly support our children. But I don’t like the idea of marriage as a meal ticket. Never did. So got a good job and never got married. Just as well for me cos I kept my assets on seperation.

But women and children should not be left homeless because of our crappy child support system. We need one that is fit for purpose.

"No, of course it shouldn't be all of those ridiculous things" exactly which "ridiculous things" are you referring to?

"Also of course having children together is pretty clear legally/genetically!" Even in the ons scenario I suggested? A homeowner should be deprived of half their home simply for parenting a child from a ons? What about informal sperm donation arrangements?

As for Canadian laws have you even actually researched this? I've family in Canada and I've just looked it up in more depth. It certainly isn't the case that cohabiting couples have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples for starters, the laws vary by province, mainly anything that they are able to claim is dependent on the homeowner AGREEING to share assets, there's no outright expectation that they will nor any specific laws to enforce this and even what laws do exist to attempt to get access to assets require the claimant to take the homeowner through civil courts at their own expense.

If op were in Canada she'd be no better off!

"Primary carers in particularly quite rightly think they have protection that they don't. They should." Why "quite rightly"? Having children is a choice, being a sahp in the vast majority of cases is a choice, being financially dependent on an unrelated adult is a choice.

I do think more awareness of the FACT that common law marriage doesn't exist in the uk needs to be raised, but most people DO know and CHOOSE not to formalise their relationship. I'm on another thread at the moment where op is well aware of the situation but is choosing not to marry at this time

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/3533138-to-be-a-sahm-if-we-aren-t-married

Her reasons for not marrying now are more emotional than practical.

Yes, her choice but there's also pressure from "dp"

Men, strangely despite having the same education as girls/women on such matters, seem to be well aware of the differences - and act accordingly! Resisting marriage with any number of excuses, resisting being sahd, avoiding putting their partners even on rental agreements... Why is this? Are they being informed by a source unavailable to women? Genuine question there.

HundredMilesAnHour unfortunately I have and do come across people in real life who never vote, never use credit etc who think "politics" doesn't apply to them. It's not a stance I understand either.

"Do you really think that this is at all likely when, as you almost all recognise, most people don't even realise that they don't have these protections unless they're married?" No that's not what we're saying at all at least it's not what I'm saying. There are some who genuinely don't understand they don't have any rights if not married but the majority DO understand that (sorry op, I don't mean to cause offence but that is my experience. Most people do understand that).

It's also something that's really only become a major issue in recent years.

As recently as 2012 most children were born to married parents.

Certainly my own experience is that cohabiting at all only started to become really socially acceptable in the 90's and even then couples who were discussing ttc would marry before ttc or at least before any surprise pregnancies were born.

Even as a mature student in the 00's the younger students I've stayed in touch with have followed the same pattern, cohabiting before children, but marrying before children are on the scene in the vast majority of cases. My alma mater even ran a Valentine's Day sm "thing" celebrating couples who'd met while at uni, with little video montages outlining their "love story" and again this pattern was most common, and included the gay and lesbian couples marrying before embarking on becoming parents.

As for abused women, I'm not sure conferring rights (and responsibilities) on them to the detriment of others makes them less vulnerable to abuse at all! Men like this simply won't even cohabit with them BUT continue to be abusive inc reproductive coercion. Making these women even more vulnerable.

"What about the women who own houses in their name and get trapped with an abusive man. Thay she cant get rid of without giving him half the house and has to continue living with him until the legals are sorted?

Or do those women not count?" Another good point! These women are prime targets for financial abusers why make them MORE vulnerable?

"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?" Getting married is a choice. Being married by the state by default of living with someone removes that choice. Women who own property SHOULD consider potential consequences of marrying yes, just as men do now.

"But my point is that the 'downside' to common-law marriage that you describe already exists in the current institution of marriage." Explain please? Because I don't see that at all

Enforcing marriage by default is unfair on those who don't WANT to be legally & financially tied to the person they're living with.

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

Well said. Excellent post" thank you. I've recently had nasty comments about the length of my posts (though I suspect they're all from the same poster as the same strange spelling mistake crops up in their posts)

Totally agree with your post - and I've even worked in the wedding industry (though before it got as bonkers insane as it is now! Totally fuelled by wedding retailers who frankly are laughing all the way to the bank at couples, mainly brides who THINK they have to have the whole "princess for a day" nonsense).

A wedding can be done really beautifully for very little cost.

MintyCedric that seems only to apply to people who are married or in a LEGALLY RECOGNISED civil partnership. There's no mention of cohabitees. You were married that's what gave you access to this law.

Ella1980 are you saying you didn't receive a penny in your divorce settlement? "). I got a settlement upon divorce" ah so you did! You wouldn't have got a penny in settlement if you'd not been married. So you did benefit by being married, I agree you were screwed over but not completely. If you'd not been married it would have been complete and you'd not have a leg to stand on. I suspect you had a shit lawyer too. My 1st was crap but my 2nd was ace. Unfortunately there's great variation in quality.

Marriage has nothing to do with residency arrangements or child maintenance though, and if residency is 50/50 the argument is why would you need maintenance for the children? But I can well believe your ex is landing you with the major costs. Have you considered putting in a formal complaint about original lawyer, getting a new better one and pursuing your ex for better terms? It would depend of course on your exact circumstances but you can sue lawyers for not doing their job properly.

"Changing the law could be detrimental to women." This! It's not misogynistic at all to educate women to protect themselves. Quite the opposite.

Eastie77 how old are your friends that are better off than their male partners? Do they have children? If they do have children how long mat leave did they take? Are they sahm?

Statistically it's far more likely still in 2019 for the man to be the higher earner and property owner.

And actually your friends being better off is as has already been argued WHY common law marriage shouldn't be legalised, because your friends would then be vulnerable in a separation from someone they lived with but are not married to, to have to give that person half their assets.

"Some are married, some not" I'd bet good money that the ones that aren't married are the wealthier ones.

Zsazsajuju the uk is not entirely governed by English laws, in addition illegitimate children didn't become able to inherit until relatively recently.

Not a smug married either - gay divorcee thanks!

"Marriage is patriarchal" such a crap argument against marriage. EVERYTHING is patriarchal ESPECIALLY legal stuff, but not doing it because of THIS is cutting off your nose to spite your face! It's self defeating nonsense!

"What about the children?" The law could be changed to ensure decent coverage for children's needs. Currently whether the couple were married or not makes no difference to maintenance. The laws on child maintenance are woefully inadequate and unlikely to change unfortunately.

yes I do think the state should intervene to ensure unmarried mothers have the same protection as married women.

And what about people who want to live together but not get married?

You say you cant force a man to marry. But you effectively want to. Women cant force men to marry, but they can retain some independence. If they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and the man refuses to marry, they can organise their own property, if they have already moved in. They can refuse to give up work. This would work for people in abusive marriages. Granted. But we cant change the law because some me are abusive.

And you are missing the point. This sort of man will only do the same but not live with the mother of their child instead.

You are also ignoring the point of women with assets, who are in abusive relationships with cock lodgers. Do they not deserve protection as well?

It's not about unmarried mothers being undeserving. It's about both people not choosing to join assets. Entering a business agreement, should not be done by default. And will harm some women.

No one said all women who dont marry do it as a fight against patrichary. But lots do. I have seen many threads on here where women say it. They dont take the other steps to protect themselves.

Some find themseleves in the situation, like op, they have been sleep walking. Some are abused. But sleep walking into something isnt a reason to change the law. And changing the will impact other abused women.

I dont believe that anyone would like the have the state involved in every decision they make for themseleves.

The provision to provide for children, is there. Its not good enough. It needs improving and enforcing. But it's there.

In short, it wont stop women being abused. It will make life worse for lots of abused women. And women will still end up in relationships where the man wont marry and all the other problems. But they also wont be living with the father of their child/children. The financial aspect and the care aspect will also be all the woman's.

Oh and yeah

I am not a snug married either.

What I am in a divorced single mother with her own assets. My exh abused me for years.

The parents shouldn’t need to be married for their children to be properly supported. The current system is not only terrible for the RP (generally the mother) but also for the children. Marriage should be nothing to do with whether or not you have to support your children. The current system is not fit for purpose and I would like to see the rp get a share in the house as in ops case where they have been caring for children. To me there is far far more rationale for the law to give someone a share of the other parents assets when they have been doing unpaid labour caring for their children than simply because they are married.

Marriage isn’t a business agreement. It’s sad that people see it like that. Women won’t achieve true equality when so many seem to see their ambition as being limited to getting married to a rich man. I really thought that was in the past but clearly it’s not.

My council tax bill has always been in my name, DP has never been named on it, but I never claim SPD, when I set the bill up I was never asked if I wanted anyone else on the bill, so the OPs partner might not be doing anything wrong.

And DP votes as he is on the electoral register. Nothing to do with council tax.

Of course it is a business agreement. Especially for a sahp. They are agreeing to cutting their career, why wouldn't you treat it as such?

There are things on place to support children. They need looking at and need to be made to work. The fact that correct process isnt fit for purpose, doesnt mean common law needs to be a thing. It means that system needs fixing.

Again, you are forgetting the woman with assets and how this wound make it worse for them.

You are forgetting that you dont have to live with a man to have a baby with him, or to be abused by him. Many women will still be in that situation.

Or a lodger. Your lodger says you have been in a romantic relationship for years and now are common law spouses? Or your friend house shares with you?

Marriage isn’t a business agreement. It’s sad that people see it like that. Women won’t achieve true equality when so many seem to see their ambition as being limited to getting married to a rich man. I really thought that was in the past but clearly it’s not.

Who said it has to be between a low earning woman and a high earning man?

That is setting you bar very low.

Business and legal arrangements can be between all sorts of parties. If you are giving something up, ie your independence, you shouldnt do it without the other side being clear about their commitment. Business and legal arrangements are there to benefit both parties.

Again, the law is not involved in romantic relationships, unless you invite it in and common law could damage as many women as it helps.

Marriage should be nothing to do with whether or not you have to support your children

But at the moment, marriage has nothing to do with child support or contact/residency in the event of a break-up. Child support is the same regardless of the parents' original relationship. It's based on the income of the NRP, nothing else.

Marriage isn’t a business agreement.

Of course it is. Marriage as a sign of love has only existed in the past 100 years or so. Historically, marriage happened to raise a families social status, to tie two families together (again to increase social status or wealth) or for financial reasons. It's only in very, very recent times that it's had anything to do with love.

Marriage is a legal contract. Too many people are ignorant of the fact and focus on a big white wedding, or claim it's "just a piece of paper" when in reality it is far, far more than that.

Which is why it should be something you opt IN to, not something that's forced upon you after x years in a cohabiting relationship. I lived with my ex for several years and we never married. Which meant I could walk away as we had no legal ties to each other.

Contracts (like marriage) have to be something that both parties enter into willingly, not something that's forced upon them.

.

And what about people who want to live together but not get married?
what about them? If they don't want to get married that's fine. If they do that's fine as well. My entire point is whether you are married or not you should be entitled to the same protection under the law. There shouldn't be some kind of hierarchy. I am not trying to force men or women to get married. Quite the opposite.

If they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and the man refuses to marry, they can organise their own property, if they have already moved in. They can refuse to give up work
Well that's what I'd do. But if a woman has a disabled child who requires round the clock care then refusing to give up work is rarely an option. What does 'organise their own property' mean? Buy one? Hmmm. They'd better not live in London as a 1 bed starts at about £500k where I live. Renting..well £1500 a month will get you a room in a house share. Too bad if shit hits the fan and you live in the South East then.

We can't change the law because some men are abusive Yes we can. It's been done before. There are laws in place protecting women precisely for that reason. Remember once upon a time a man was free to rape his wife? The law changed. Not because all husbands were rapists but because some were. We can't leave just some women to their fate because others are ok.

You are also ignoring the point of women with assets, who are in abusive relationships with cock lodgers. Do they not deserve protection as well?
Yes they do but as I've been informed multiple times on this thread apparently in the vast majority of cases it's men who wield financial power in these unmarried set-ups. It's not my personal experience but numerous Mnetters insist that that number of women with assets + poorer men is statistically insignificant.

I've never thought you were a smug married woman btw.

If they don't want to get married that's fine. If they do that's fine as well. My entire point is whether you are married or not you should be entitled to the same protection under the law. There shouldn't be some kind of hierarchy. I am not trying to force men or women to get married. Quite the opposite.

So people cant choose to live together but not join assets? You are enforcing marriage. You are enforcing people to live alone or join assets.

Yes we can. It's been done before. There are laws in place protecting women precisely for that reason. Remember once upon a time a man was free to rape his wife? The law changed. Not because all husbands were rapists but because some were. We can't leave just some women to their fate because others are ok.

I wasnt talking about the law in general. I was talking about this law. You cant force someone into a legal binding xontract, if they dont actively choose too. Some people are abusive and common law will hurt women. But just a different group.

Well that's what I'd do. But if a woman has a disabled child who requires round the clock care then refusing to give up work is rarely an option. What does 'organise their own property' mean? Buy one? Hmmm. They'd better not live in London as a 1 bed starts at about £500k where I live. Renting..well £1500 a month will get you a room in a house share. Too bad if shit hits the fan and you live in the South East then.

Presumably, where they would plan on living if they had of split up when the woman chose to move into a house that she didn't own. You know, like you make a plan. Yes of course having a disabled child makes it more difficult. But again, if you are being forced into giving up work then marriage is a must.

No one said alot of women dont have assets. Alot do. Some sink it into a property they dont have their name on like op. There are a lot of women in the ops position. There are also alot of women who have assets and still get abused. They end up with less or no assets.

But once a woman gives up work her assets dwindle. Ending in this situation. The women generally have less because they gave up work.

Common law would mean for a lot of these women, that they have to sell their properties to pay off the ex what about the children of these women? What if they have disabled children. Or dont these kids count?

You didn't think I was a smug married woman? So what, what did you think? I am a man? Divorced man?
I am a divorced woman, dont believe me report me to mn. I have been here 10 years. I was abused and raped so dont presume to tell me how hard it is for abused women.

My entire point is whether you are married or not you should be entitled to the same protection under the law.

No no no.

The whole point of marriage is to add a legal aspect to your relationship. People should be able to live together without interference from the law should they so choose.

I didn't marry my ex for good reason. It made our break up much easier and it meant I could just walk away without a backward glance. I'm currently married and TTC - which means I have legal protection in place for myself should I choose to give up work, spend time as a SAHP or put my career on hold for a few years. It also means my children are protected too.

They are two totally different relationships and people should have the right to choose.

If you want to be protected in law, then it's very simple - GET MARRIED.

@french your post doesn’t make any sense. What I’m suggesting is that child support should be actually cover half the cost of looking after the children including caring for them. I think that’s entirely fair. I don’t agree with common law marriage proposals either.

Also @adaline - you claim your children are “protected” because you are married. I assume you mean financially.

If that is in fact true, how on earth can that be fair? Your children did not make any choice whether their parents were married or not. Why should the quality of their financial support depend in law on that? How is that in any way fair to children?

Time has passed when it was acceptable for children born outside marriage to be discriminated against.

I also can’t see for the life of me what rationale there is for the
“protection” marriage supposedly brings (ie a share of the other persons assets) in law if we had a proper child support system. For me I am simply not interested in living off someone else.

Also @adaline - you claim your children are “protected” because you are married. I assume you mean financially.

Well, I mean they're protected in the sense that if DH and I split up, they don't have to leave their home. They can stay, with the primary caregiver, in their home until they're grown. They're also protected because, if one of us dies, the other will get widows' allowance which will help the remaining parent support their child.

I chose to get them that protection by getting married. If other parents choose not to, that's their choice and their decision. They're the ones choosing not to get that protection in place. That's their fault. Not the governments.

It's not the governments place to enforce legal contracts on people who choose to live together without the protection of marriage. Some people have legitimate reasons not to marry - they should be able to live with their partners and children without having marriage rights forced upon them.

I also can’t see for the life of me what rationale there is for the
“protection” marriage supposedly brings (ie a share of the other persons assets) in law if we had a proper child support system.

Child support has nothing to do with whether the parents' are married or not. The NRP has to pay the same level regardless. But marriage does offer additional protections on top of that. If a woman wants those protections for her children, then she needs to get married. If she feels as though they're not necessary, or has alternative means to support her children in the event of a break-up/death, then she has the choice to stay legally single.

The key word in all of that is choice. Don't take away grown adults' right to choose.

Nrps will never be able to bare the cost of half of raising a child.

And what's half? Because both nrp and rp have to maintain a home each. So the nrp isnt going to pay for half the rp home.

I for example use childcare on the days I have my son. My exh doesnt. Why would he pay for half that?

Clothes, both should have clothes at their houses

Yes, I know some nrp are shit and dont do the above. Which is why the system need fixing. Not changing the law.

The parents made that decision on behalf of the kids. Just like parents do every day. Still dont think the state or law should be involved in a relationship unless both parties actively agree.

Again, what about the kids of cocklodgers? You dont dont mind them losing out? because that's what will happen if common law came in.

They can stay, with the primary caregiver, in their home until they're grown.

Just be aware, that's not a given anymore.

Still dont think the state or law should be involved in a relationship unless both parties actively agree.

Exactly this.

If the protection marriage gives you and your children is so important, then insist on it. Protect yourself. Don't have children outside of marriage, or if it does happen, don't give up your job, don't leave your home and don't give up your financial independence.

Too many people sleepwalk into situations where they get pregnant, give up their jobs and aren't protected, and then want help from the government when it all goes wrong several years down the line. Having children is such a life-changing decision, why would you not plan for any eventuality?

@Graphista

"Of course it shouldn't be all of those ridiculous things"... - this was in response to your saying: "Would someone who's lived there one night be entitled to claim? And if not what time limit WOULD be acceptable? People would NEVER agree on this AND it would leave women vulnerable to being kicked out the day/week/month before they became eligible to claim. What's to stop an actual lodger claiming? What about couples who choose to be child free and therefore don't have that proof they were in a relationship? What if a ons occurs between lodger and landlord resulting in a pregnancy?"

Of course somebody who's lived somewhere for one night wouldn't be entitled to claim common-law marriage. Of course an actual lodger can't claim. And of course there are other ways of proving a relationship other than having children.

Questions like these are already addressed in places where they have brought in common-law marriage. And yes, I do know people in Canada who are in common-law marriages and also some people whose common-law marriages have ended, so I am very familiar with how it all works. As with marriage, the division of assets in common-law marriage is complex and also looks at factors such as how much was brought into the relationship and what contribution each party made. It varies by province, because a lot of law-making is devolved to the provincial level. And yes, the OP would have been better off in Canada. I know somebody in very much her situation.

I can see that you really object to the idea of common-law marriage. So do a lot of posters on this thread. However, my own experience is that it is something that protects people who are financially dependent in a relationship (not necessarily women) and any children of the relationship, particularly when it comes to how likely they are to be able to remain in their family home if their parents split up. It is also not just to do with splitting up. Common-law marriage means that you can have the right to visit your partner in hospital, make end of life decisions for them, be next of kin, inherit pensions etc.

I am in favour of common-law marriage because it gives a legal standing to long-term relationships in which people live together, and in my view it does give greater protection to the more vulnerable party if there is an imbalance between economic and domestic contributions to the household.

"Still dont think the state or law should be involved in a relationship unless both parties actively agree.

Exactly this."

@adaline @frenchmontana -- the state and law already play a significant role in most forms of relationship, whether you agree to it or not. The law sets out what kind of behaviour is abusive, for example, in any kind of relationship. And the state and laws play a role in regulating the amount of child maintenance that is payable by the non-resident parent. Again, this is not something that both parties actively sign up to.

Again, this is not something that both parties actively sign up to

You sign up to support a child when you have unprotected sex and become a parent. But supporting your child is not the same as supporting the other parent of that child. They're two completely different things and should be treated as such unless both parties actively choose to sign a legal contract that states otherwise.

As for your other example, abuse is (thankfully) against the law and that is why the government get involved in those cases. Having a child with someone and not marrying them is, thankfully, perfectly acceptable and should continue to be acceptable.

I think you're mixing up supporting the child and supporting another adult. Adults are all responsible for their own finances unless they choose to enter a marital contract that changes that - and that's how it should be. Women (or men for that matter, although it's never men) shouldn't give up work and stay home with their children without adequate financial protection in place.

It's not upto the government to step in and protect you after the fact. If you want that protection, you need to actively sign up for it beforehand. It's a bit like taking life insurance out on someone after they've died. Or employment insurance once you've been sacked or become too ill to work. It doesn't work like that. You need to plan ahead as far as possible.

There's nothing wrong with sacrificing your career for your family or staying home to raise your kids, but for the love of God have the sense to protect yourself beforehand - that doesn't have to be through marriage, either. But ultimately your wellbeing is your responsibility. If you want the governments help when it goes wrong, then you need to sign the contract that allows them to step in and help.