unmarried stay @home mum separation advice please

[fridaysforfuturemum]

My partner asked for a separation in January.
We are joint owners of our home and have been living in a toxic atmosphere since then. We have two teenagers at High school. We're not married and I know I have no legal rights on anything but half the house. It was a joint agreement that I leave my job to be a stay@home mum. My partner now says it was my decision and legally he does not have to give me equal share of the savings etc..
I have no money as we just had a joint account. I really want to stay in my home with my kids. (they will stay with me one week, then him the next...)
The solicitors I spoke to were not interested in helping me because they said I was a cohabitee and had no rights. Appeal to his better nature was their top tip!
Can anyone suggest what kind of professional would be able to help me put a financial settlement proposal together that is fair and equal,takes into account what I have contributed to our family over the last 16 years and splits everything 50/50?
I'm saying to him it's about doing the right thing and what's morally right rather than what I'm legally entitled to. I asked him to treat me as if we have been married. We have been together 26 years :(
I've been a trusting fool like so many other women before me...

It's not rights over a human being - it would be a claim regarding assets acquired during the consented-to relationship.

It is rights over a human being. You can’t do that.

Consent has to be active and express even for cookies

Cookies?

Oh cookies, I was thinking biscuits.

Eeeep this is terrible - but moaning about how it was a joint decision and giving your reasons for being a stay at home mum for so long won’t help you!

You need to focus on taking your half of the house sale, getting a job and starting fresh on your own - sorry if that’s harsh - but that’s all you can do now!

I have to go back to work full time after my maternity leave - all those jobs(cleaning, housework, cooking, appointments etc, will need to be done by both myself and partner in free time - evenings & weekends! Its not necessary for one of us to be at home tbh - the baby goes to childcare - it cost nearly my whole monthly pay for the nursery - but it’s only for a few years and at least I keep my career - and never have any gaps - it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make to keep independence if anything does happen in future

@category12

Because there are lots of reasons why both parties deliberately choose to not get married. Imposing marriage on those people just because their relationship has lasted an arbitrary amount of time would be wrong.

Marriage is cheap and easy to do. If you want the rights, take them. If you don't, don't, but don't then whinge about the fact that you're not protected from your own decision to, er, not be protected

But I'm not advocating that people who choose not to marry or have a civil partnership shouldn't be able to opt out - you could have an equally cheap and easy legal waiver system in place - say £25 and a joint signature, job done.

And could extend the waiver to people like my boss who would like to marry her long-term partner for the commitment and status, but wants everything she owns to go to her daughter in inheritance etc.

Your argument (aside from the fact that it is daft at it's core) completely disregards the fact that for many, many people, marriage is (in addition to being a legal protection) a symbolic, emotional statement of commitment. We as a society have moved away from marriage being seen as the end goal and default, to go backwards would be deeply regressive.

The key point of my argument is choice. We talk all the time about a woman's right to choose. Choose to abort, choose to work, choose to have children, choose to leave, choose to stay, choose to marry. The fact that these are all now active choices that women get to make is a huge victory to feminism. Taking any one of those decisions and making it a default instead is an affront on progress and women's rights.

Your suggestion infantalises women. It implies that we are not capable of making good choices, it suggests that we need the government to decide our marital status for us, as if we're not smart enough to make those choices for ourselves.

And @category12 what your boss needs is a will, not a completely different form of marriage. You can do them online for £20.

But it's not an equal choice in fact, and not an equal playing field. You need to seriously shake up our society for that to be genuinely true.

We're still in a society where the default is the man proposing and the conventions are not regularly challenged.

If you're married, a will cutting out your spouse can be challenged quite easily.

@category12

But it's not an equal choice in fact, and not an equal playing field. You need to seriously shake up our society for that to be genuinely true.

We're still in a society where the default is the man proposing and the conventions are not regularly challenged.

So basically because society is not progressing, we should enforce laws that actively regress it?

So women have no agency because they’re female ?

I'm not sure why you see it as a regression. Why is an opt-out choice more regressive than an opt-in?

@category12

If you're married, a will cutting out your spouse can be challenged quite easily.

If she believes that her spouse would contest her child receiving her inheritance I'd question why she wants to marry him. Similarly if on her death she wishes to leave him completely nothing. Neither of those sound like signifiers of a relationship suited for marriage.

@category12

I'm not sure why you see it as a regression. Why is an opt-out choice more regressive than an opt-in?

Please reread my previous posts, I've made it very clear.

@Frdd

So women have no agency because they’re female ?

Far from it, but pretending there are no power dynamics at play in society is at odds with reality.

fridaysforfuturemum I dont think your arrangement is all that different to many other women TBH. Lots of us have done the same! Often circumstances beyond our control ,such as Childcare provision as you say can break down and it is often us Mums who bear the brunt sadly .Even if you were at work ,how would you be able to pay the mortgage by yourself anyway?Unless you had a F/T well paid job which many women dont as they are trying to do School Pick Ups /Holiday care and so on.Its a viscous circle really .Many men these days seem to be wary of Marriage and seem to evade it at all costs .No one in a loving R/L for more than 20 years imagines that one day it will end ,or there would be no point being in that RL would there!

Which power dynamics prevent women from using their own brains to make their own decisions? This whole argument is patronising and infantilising.

It is possible to create a system whereby rights are acquired without marriage - Australia has managed it: www.gotocourt.com.au/family-law/de-facto-relationships/. That protects people in OP’s position who have taken matters on trust.

As a PP said: this persistent romantic trap that some women fall into that it is up to the man to propose but meanwhile the woman will provide all the benefits of marriage (cohabitation, family, home-making etc) while she is waiting - that myth is deeply unhelpful also. The bottom line is you need to be unromantic and insist on marriage or make sure you remain financially independent and don’t need the protection.

That said, I do think that OP should have gone back to work at least part time years ago (I was raised never to depend on someone else for my income and we are raising our DDs the same) but being out of the workplace very long term demolishes confidence in the way OP has experienced.

There is some helpful information here about making the transition back to work: www.topresume.com/career-advice/11-tips-a-mothers-guide-to-getting-back-into-the-workforce

If she believes that her spouse would contest her child receiving her inheritance I'd question why she wants to marry him. Similarly if on her death she wishes to leave him completely nothing. Neither of those sound like signifiers of a relationship suited for marriage.

Age and experience of being done over in previous relationships.

I question why a person would live with someone for donkeys years, have children with them, and then want to dump them in the shit and walk away without setting them on their feet.

OP, you were a fool. For 26 years. You made a crashing mistake. We've all made mistakes, a lot of us will have made big mistakes.

Get on with selling the house and taking whatever is your share. You gave all those years of service with only 'love' as your payment. He knew all along that you were the unpaid housekeeper. He isn't going to suddenly decide that you are worth half the wealth he has accrued.

It's shit. It happened. Sort out what's happening next.

Maybe because they've supported them for 15odd years and have had enough?

She's an adult. It is her job to make sure she can stand on her own feet. Whether that's insisting on marriage before giving up work, insisting on a separate pension and savings as part of being a SAHP, insisting on returning to work, or leaving if those conditions aren't met, that's up to her. Doing none of those things is a recipe for disaster, as many women find out, but it is not the result of anything but their own choices.

The thought of both parties having to opt out through joint consent is very unrealistic. It would effectively create a power struggle in a relationship at the 5 year point.

Let's hypothetically say a woman lives with a man for 5 years. She has built up assets, works full time and has children. She doesn't want to get married and wants to protect the assets she has accumulated. She wants to sign a waiver to opt out at the 5 year point Her partner wants to ensure his rights are protected as he has no assets and the kids are not his. He doesn't work but wants to ensure he is protected in case they split up in the future. They are at stalemate. She decides she wants to end the relationship because they cannot agree. He refuses to move out and stays on till they pass the 5 year point, at which point he can now claim half her assets.

Your proposal would create a ripple effect across a variety of different situations.

@Whitehorsewaves

The thought of both parties having to opt out through joint consent is very unrealistic. It would effectively create a power struggle in a relationship at the 5 year point.

Let's hypothetically say a woman lives with a man for 5 years. She has built up assets, works full time and has children. She doesn't want to get married and wants to protect the assets she has accumulated. She wants to sign a waiver to opt out at the 5 year point Her partner wants to ensure his rights are protected as he has no assets and the kids are not his. He doesn't work but wants to ensure he is protected in case they split up in the future. They are at stalemate. She decides she wants to end the relationship because they cannot agree. He refuses to move out and stays on till they pass the 5 year point, at which point he can now claim half her assets.

Your proposal would create a ripple effect across a variety of different situations.

Thank you! @category12 this is why it is more regressive than opt in.

People bandy around the Australian law in this scenario a lot. A lot of countries have different laws across a spectrum of issues, doesn't mean to say that they are suitable for this society. Each country has it's own identity and sense of fairness. The US favours the US constitution and it's assertion of the rights of its citizens against government interference (right to bear arms as an example). The UK doesn't subscribe to the same philosophy.

One country's solution is not a panacea for all countries.

Personally I like asserting the right to have agency over my own life. I don't want a state that enforces obligations on me without my consent, simply because an arbitrary amount of time has passed.