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.

Eastie77 introducing common law marriage as a legal entity WOULD be forcing cohabitees into marriage though. How would they opt OUT of that? What would the parameters be?

Re your 2nd paragraph of that post at 1621 not Everyone lives in London/south east and even if they do there's plenty of other poorer people inc single mums who do, I'm so sick of "but what about London/south east housing costs..." The country doesn't revolve around sodding London! You can't bring in or reject legislation based on how it affects Londoners!

Re abusive men - they'll be abusive whatever the laws! They'll go around whatever laws are put in place and legislating for common law marriage may protect some women but it would make others - I suspect a roughly similar number - more vulnerable to abuse. It's impossible to have a system that works for all abuse victims, I wish it were possible to have one that did protect and support all victims but that's just never going to happen unfortunately.

"Nrps will never be able to bare the cost of half of raising a child." Why on earth not?! RP's bloody well have to and then some! Nrps not only don't have the costs of the children living with them they have more earning capacity as a result too. My ex absolutely could have afforded this and he's not particularly well off!

"I for example use childcare on the days I have my son. My exh doesnt. Why would he pay for half that?" Because he is half responsible for the child too.

Motherofdragonite - and how would people DISPROVE a relationship? No! A legal contract should not be the default position.

You are in favour of common law marriage FOR THOSE WHO WOULD BENEFIT from it - myself and others have asked numerous questions about how do you avoid it negatively affecting those who WOULDN'T benefit from it who DON'T wish to be legally joined to another BY DEFAULT.

In terms of Canada I have looked at and discussed how it works there with people who live there, it DOESN'T work for everyone.

There are issues with Canadians not understanding the laws, especially if they migrate across provinces, if they don't agree and can't provide proof of when they became cohabitees, if one partner runs up lots of debt that the other is then liable for, if how much each partner contributed is disputed and there's no proof etc my relative was run afoul by this on the debt side, they're now working 2 jobs as a single parent to pay off debts relating to money borrowed that they never saw a penny of! It's far from the ideal system you're claiming it to be.

A marriage is a clearly recorded, witnessed and defined statement of when those 2 people agreed to be legally bound to each other.

Sure, but if you look at a lot of marriages and how they end, it's not ideal for everyone either.

I'm not saying the idea of common-law marriage is perfect, but it is an improvement on circumstances where a woman can be in a relationship for 15 years and 3 kids, take time off work to care for one child who is disabled, and end up with very little protection of any sort.

Yes, it could be an issue for cocklodgers, in theory although I'm not sure that the number of cocklodgers is really as high as the number of women who are financially dependent on men they aren't married to. You seem to be saying it's fine, not having common-law marriage protects women with assets from asset-grabbing cocklodgers. Well, only as long as they haven't gone and married them!

To my mind, having a long-term relationship with somebody is in fact already a commitment that in fact has many similarities to marriage. The difference is that you haven't necessarily chosen to make it official on one particular day. The other 15 years of life together have many things in common with a marriage of the same duration.

Of course, just like one can avoid marriage, it's perfectly possible to avoid common-law marriage. If you don't want a common-law marriage, it's perfectly possible to avoid getting into a long-term relationship where you live with somebody and share finances.

Because he is half responsible for the child too

I take your point. But I have to arrange care in my days. I cant anyone imagine telling a woman she should pay for after school club for the days the father has them

You seem to be saying -- it's fine, not having common-law marriage protects women with assets from asset-grabbing cocklodgers.

No I saying that there will be women still being damaged. Still getting trapped in relationships. I know lots of women who now have assets. Far more than 20 years ago. Common law would mean none of these women can live with their partner. None of them can choose the wort of relationship they want.

Similar to marriage isnt marriage. The OP in this case had significant savings that she chose to put into the house. Personally I think she should be able to get that back, assuming she can prove it. She could have used those significant savings to house herself. She could have refused to put them into the house until they were married or her name was on it.

If you don't want a common-law marriage, it's perfectly possible to avoid getting into a long-term relationship where you live with somebody and share finance

So you want to go back to the days where you cant live with someone unless you, in effect married?

Going back to the point where the law stepped in to make abuse and rape within marriage illegal. That's not stepping into relationships. That's updating the law, to reflect what happens outside a relationship. It's not ok to abuse someone outside a relationship, its not ok to attack someone you aren't in a relationship with. It was part if making marriage, not be about ownership.

And no one is addressing the fact that men will still abuse women. Women will still bare the costs of raising the kids and the career damage from being the primary carer. They just wont live together.

People should be able to choose to get married and choose not to. They should be able to set the level of 'sharing their life'.

Why on earth not?! RP's bloody well have to and then some! Nrps not only don't have the costs of the children living with them they have more earning capacity as a result too. My ex absolutely could have afforded this and he's not particularly well off!

I think I worded that badly. What I mean is that most nrp, cant hand over half of what it costs the rp, to house the child (mortgage or rent), Bill's etc. And maintain their own home, bill etc to provide the child somewhere when they stay with them. But then I am not convinced 50:50 care works.

The current system regarding childcare doesnt work. It's not enough and, honestly I dont know the answer. But that needs fixing. Because it is wrong. Too many nrp pay too little and not having the career damage. I particularly, dislike that CMS is reduced when the nrp goes on and has further children

However, women will still be in this position under common law. Bastards who are happy for their partner, to give up work and take on all the risk without protection will do the same but not live with the woman and still not pay enough towards kids.

And common law may gave sine women access to money in the property.

But that wont fix the issue of career damage that resident parents suffer. It wont make living as a single parent easier or getting the father to pay out easier. You may get some money to set up a home.

But spousal support isnt really a thing, apart from for the highest earners. The rp will still be reliant on CMS payments and in the shit if the nrp doesnt pay. That's why that system needs fixing. That would benefit parents, mainly mothers far more than common law.

@Frenchmontana - what do you mean 'report me to MN'. I think you're misunderstanding me. You pointed out that you are not a smug, married woman and I was writing in support of that: I didn't presume you were smug, married - i.e. that is not the way you come across in your posts.

I'm not suggesting for one moment you are not who you say you are

Eastie77 apologies. Read it differently. I though you were hinting I am probably a divorced man, hence not wanting common law.

Totally my fault for missing reading.

Ffs mis-reading

I don't believe you will be successful in persuing a beneficial interest in the property through the courts.

You clearly state your DP said he would do that when you started pay half the mortgage which you have been unable to do.

He will be responsible for paying maintenance for your children if you separate.

You have been silly and should have either got married or transferred the property into both names.You can only take your chances in court now but I don't hold out much luck.

@adaline

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.

Actually, the fact that you are married does not automatically mean that if you and your DH split up the children would stay in the family home with the primary caregiver.

I speak from experience unfortunately 😡

@adaline - supporting the rp to some degree is part of child support (to a limited extent). Children need care and time. That can have a very significant impact on the rps income. You shouldn’t need to get married to get proper support for your children.

Conversely, in the absence of some sort of caring obligation, I don’t see why anyone should support another adult whether married or not. Get a job!

I would like to see a much more robust system of child support which ensures a lot of the unpaid work women do is compensated. I think that can include dividing assets of the nrp. Then I think we might see true equality.

My ex earned in excess of £105k pa whilst I put my career on hold to raise the kids. When I left him I was working 3 hours a week as a teacher but was lucky enough to be offered a ft position within the school I was at. My earning potential is currently £35k pa, his is now in excess of £105k. As custody was enforced on me 50:50 he doesn't pay me a penny. Five years on we remain in a small two-bed rented property whilst he remains in the five-bed executive family home. Did marriage protect me? Definitely not.

Did marriage protect me? Definitely not

Were you not awarded spousal maintenance? It’s not so common anymore but in your situation wher he is a very high earner and you have facilitated it then i would have thought it applied?

supporting the rp to some degree is part of child support

I don't agree, I'm afraid.

Conversely, in the absence of some sort of caring obligation, I don’t see why anyone should support another adult whether married or not. Get a job!

But if you're in a marriage you have signed a legal contract to support one another. If you're just in a regular relationship you haven't agreed to anything like that in law. There's a big difference but a lot of people choose to ignore the legalities of it all.

@reallyanotherone No. My barrister advised I wouldn't get it. Ex (Chartered Accountant) had squirrelled away money left, right and centre.

Adeline - eh? Is not really about agreeing or not. Child maintenance already has a small amount to compensate for the additional costs and lack of ability o work that the rp has. My argument is that it should be more. Being a rp is costly and depending on how much of the burden the nrp takes, should be financially compensated for.

Adaline - tell that to people getting divorced. Financially supporting each other is the last thing they usually want to do. Marriage isn’t actually a contract in law, it’s a status. And support given to those making sacrifices for their joint children (ie working part time, etc) should not depend on marriage.

In any event, I think as a public policy matter, the days when a perfectly healthy adult should be expecting someone else to support them all their life should be well over.

Ella1980 you did get a settlement though. No matter how bad it was, you got more than you would have done if you weren't married.

And he would still have gone for 50:50 care.

So whole you were ripped off. It was still better that you were married.

Marriage is an agreement to support eachother. Definitely think a divorce should reflect that decisions made during the marriage, that left one financially worse off should be made up for during divorce. So one becomes a sahm and isnt financially secure, the divorce settlement should give them more.

But I dont think that support should continue indefinitely. Marriage is an agreement, which divorce dissolves.

I, personally, think anyone becoming a sahm really has to think hard and long before doing it. Married or not. Being married gives you a bit extra protection but doesnt make it rosy.

@Frenchmontana

A tiny settlement as he lied on his Form E.

I regret marrying him for many reasons. It gave him more control. Even if it was only psychologically. And I still don't know if he would have got 50:50. Not sure why but all of the legal forms ask if you were married to X at birth of children?

Ella I understand that. But no matter how tiny. It's more than you would have had if you jednt have been married.

The parents being married has no impact on shared parenting. He would have still got 50:50.

I guess a part of me is embarrassed to have been so stupid to have married such a monster.

ella you weren't stupid. I married a different type of monster. You cant punish yourself forever, because he chose to be a cunt. It took me a while to realise that, stop focusing on my mistake (marrying him) stopped focused on what he took from me and focused on my future and trying my best to make that the best I can.

@Frenchmontana

Aw thank you. I'm getting there mentally although it's still hard. Weekly counselling is helping.

I now have a fiance who says although he will never perhaps fully understand why I do some of the things I do (learned behaviours) he will always support me I dealing with them. He's stayed true to his word as I know I can be bloody difficult to love at times. He gives me space which is so important.

It's really reassuring to know I'm not the only one who married a man who turned out to be a beast but also that we can come out of it the other side x

Ella my dp doesnt and cant get it. I know he did get frustrated that at work I can make big decisions at the drop of a hat. I am so sure of myself. When he hears me on calls with work he says it's like a different person.

In my personal life, I cant make a decision to save my life. How I wanted my house decorated, what the garden should have, where I want to eat, what I want to do. Exh trained me out of knowing what I want or like to the point i stopped even thinking about what i would like. I went through a phase of thinking what i wanted when with exh but wouldn't voice it. Somewhere, I stopped even having an opinion.

I cant get my opinion back. As work never involved exh I had an opinion there. So never lost that.

Dp says he cant fully understand how I just dont have an opinion, but just accepts it.

If you ever want to PM me. Please do. I am not there yet. But I am getting there. If I can help anyone else at all, i am more than happy too.

No one is stupid to end up in a bad relationship. People change or can mask poor characteristics for years. No one can tell the future.

Children should be properly provided for by both their parents. Women are left impoverished by children in a way men are not. We should address this as a matter of public policy both by taking action to improve flexible working and childcare and improving child support to a level that actually covers children’s needs.