What are you entitled to?

[irishmum]

BF's 7year relationship has broken up-they're not married,have a 5yr old son & her
ex owns the house they live in.
He's very well off,is my BF "entitled" to anything money wise?

child support.

presuming she gets custody.

Just realised I didn't really give enough info-she will have custody-he has offered to "lend" her enough money for a deposit a house-while she knows this is generous,she doesn't want to be tied to him for ever(money wise).As an unmarried couple is there nothing she can push for?

What else could she possibly push for but child maintenance?

Unless she contributed financially to his assets, eg the house........

She has very few rights in law as an unmarried partner.

Her partner is financially responsible for the child but that's about it.

This is why I always advise getting married.

Agree with expat. It only takes a few minutes in a register office and costs peanuts.

sorry to hear about your friend but tbh I wouldn't dream of asking for anything from partner after only 7 year long relationship. Of course he should and presumably will pay for his son, but struggling to see why she should be entitled to anything?

there are suggestions going to the govt to give cohabitees some rights

but will be too late for your friend

flowery I would say that women who look after children make a contribution to the household bills (ie free childcare allowing man to work)

so if she's a SAHM she has made a contribution

but if she's not married it is not recognised

agree totally with expat; women are leaving themselves open in this kind of situation

i'm presuming when you say "he owns the house" you mean he owns it outright and she never made any contribution to the purchasing of it or mortgage. in fairness offering to lend her the money is bloody generous considering they have just split and she's lucky that they are so amicable as it bodes well for the child. i understand why she might not want to borrow from her ex as he could hold it over her so if she is uncomfortable with it she should not.but as for entitlments she has none individually only relating to her child.
but in fairness what does she expect?

"flowery I would say that women who look after children make a contribution to the household bills (ie free childcare allowing man to work)"

well if you are going to argue that minding her own child is a contribution to the household bills surely he could just counter that free room and board and food for her child was her payment and she has been more than fairly re-imbursed.
i don't mean to sound cold but if she attempted to brek down the relationship into a balance sheet in that manner i'd imagine that financially(and i stress only financially) his contribution more than covered her financial contribution.

see what you mean cappucino. Maybe it's me being naive - I was just going with what my reaction would be - I would expect financial support for the son, including enough to go towards bills, housing etc, but I wouldn't expect any payment for myself to recognise providing 'free childcare' for 5 years. I suppose I would think that it's swings and roundabouts, I would have been saving DH from paying for a nanny or whatever, but similarly he would have been saving me having to work, iyswim?

I have no experience of anything like this though, so as I say, just giving what my reaction would be. And that would apply whether married or not as well, tbh.

TheMan -

Two people have a child.
One takes paid employment
one stays at home with the child
each role facilitates the other

The stay at home parent has contributed to the income by facilitating the wage earner.

How about if both took paid employment
jointly paid equivilent of 1 wage in childcare

Would you argue that one parent in this situation did not deserve a share of the assets?

theman it is their child not hers

'free room and board and food for her child was her payment and she has been more than fairly re-imbursed/

certainly I don't feel that my husband provides me with room and board for our children as a payment to me

we're talking about a long-standing relationship with children to which they have both contributed

however I am married and she is not so her contribution is not valued in law

that's all

"theman it is their child not hers"

i know i only made that point because her argument for contribution was free child care which would also have been a financial saving for her as presumably had she been working she too would have been paying for child careand i was saying that if you tried to break down the payment it would just become a profit and loss sheet.

as i said i was only stressing the financial contributions which can be proven and argued at law. i know that room and board aren't an actual payment and things like being a full time mother will never be properly valued in financial terms.
unfortunately the two were never married,therefore there was never a contract to become partners in the eyes of the law and things such as becoming a stay at home mother will be viewed as a purely individual decision as the two are not viewed as a partnership in the eyes of the law. and as such things like living in the mans house without rent will not be accepted as making a financial contribution to the household.

"How about if both took paid employment
jointly paid equivilent of 1 wage in childcare

Would you argue that one parent in this situation did not deserve a share of the assets?"

sorry i don't fully grasp the situation you are proposing.
do you mean exactly the same as the op except the woman did not become a sahm but went back to work and the two parents paid equally for the childcare?
i'd need to know in this instance wether or not she made any contribution to the purchasing of the assets in question,helped out with mortgage payments or paid him "rent".
i understand the argument that is made for the partner who stays at home in this situation in that they have sacrificed alot and should receive maintenance in that there is an implied contract and arangment. but in such situations it is equally as valid to argue that the conscious decision to not get married/form a partnership shows that there was never any intention to form a legally binding partnership.

In this particular case, it really comes down to whether or not the man owned the house outright before the child was born.

PeterDuck that is a good point about career break impacting on future earnings, I hadn't thought of that.
I think if it were me though I would still rather stand on my own feet, take the hit in my personal career and earnings and work my way up again than accept money for myself from a partner in a relationship of 7 years.
Doesn't mean that's right though, and as I say, maybe I am being a bit naive/proud!

that is what i took it to mean.in that the house was his outright from the beginning.and i misunderstood your question.
of course if the house was being paid off at the time when the mother was a sahm she would have an argument for contribution.
sorry i took it to mean he owned it when they got together apologies for any confusion.

the career break argument is valid in common sense but not in law as they were not married. as there is no partnership it will normally be argued that the decision was one taken by her ion an individual level and that her individual decisions can not legally bind another and make them liable for payments.
where as with marraige it is assumed to be a joint decision and so both parties are jointly responsible for the loss of earnings to a degree.

That's the difference in the eyes of the law, though, Cap, he's your husband. These two were never married. Until the law changes, that can have very serious ramifications for people like irishmum's friend in the event of a split.

expat exactly

I said further down this thread that I'm like you when it comes to marriage

i.e. do it