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...

Also, please do start warning other women - too many people still ignorantly rabbit on about marriage being "just a piece of paper" and love keeping themselves in denial when others try to warn them.

Yes, this. It's very important, and it's a message best delivered by someone who's been there and can't be accused of being a smug married.

I'm sorry for your situation. You've had some good advice on here, in amidst the arguments about whether the law should be different. I hope you're able to find work soon.

I’m surprised how little consideration there has been in this debate for the impact of the current laws on children. It allows fathers to walk away from families, throwing not just their partners but also their children into poverty. Our entire social culture, as well as our laws, enshrine the rights of men to their freedom over the welfare of women and children. It’s fine to argue that women should be smart enough to avoid these pitfalls, but isn’t that akin to arguing that women of lower IQ are fair game, and children are legitimate collateral damage?

That’s not to suggest anything about your intelligence Op. it’s a terrible situation to find yourself in. I hope you can find your way through this awful transition to a better future.

@thelegohooverer

I’m surprised how little consideration there has been in this debate for the impact of the current laws on children. It allows fathers to walk away from families, throwing not just their partners but also their children into poverty. Our entire social culture, as well as our laws, enshrine the rights of men to their freedom over the welfare of women and children. It’s fine to argue that women should be smart enough to avoid these pitfalls, but isn’t that akin to arguing that women of lower IQ are fair game, and children are legitimate collateral damage?

I’m surprised how little consideration there has been in this debate for the impact of the current laws on children.

There are already systems in place to support children - whether these systems work or not is another matter, of course, but the answer isn't to force couples into marriage-style contracts. Marriage is a legal contract and should remain an active choice, not something you sleepwalk into over time.

It allows fathers to walk away from families, throwing not just their partners but also their children into poverty. Our entire social culture, as well as our laws, enshrine the rights of men to their freedom over the welfare of women and children.

Alternatively, it allows couples to split up and move on with their lives without the legal entanglement of divorce. If you want to protect your children, the best way to do that is to get married. If marriage isn't on the cards, then take responsibility for yourself and stay in work. Don't rely on someone else to support you. There's nothing wrong with staying home and raising children but doing so without legal protection in place is financial suicide.

It's nothing to do with men being allowed their freedom. Too many women give up work without thinking about the consequences down the line. If you're not married, you're the only person responsible for your financial future - not your partner - you.

Men should pay child support - absolutely they should - but that's not supposed to cover all child-related costs as well as support for the mother. It's totally unrealistic for women to expect to be supported by an ex partner because they chose to give up work without any protections in place.

Financial consideration with respect to children is already in effect in law under Schedule 1 of the children's act. Where such a split would result in financial hardship on the children an application can be made on behalf of the children.

In terms of the OPs situation it probably doesn't apply as their kids are teenagers who will be looking at a 50/50 split in access so both parents need to be adequately housed. The impact is sadly primarily on the OP and her financial future.

THIS is why I think marriage should be either stopped altogether or the UK needs to bring in laws like Australia has regarding cohabiting with your partner. It's outdated and unfair that only marriage ensures financial security...too many men promise marriage and then won't do it.

And women, who have the children are put at a disadvantage.

Too many women give up work without thinking about the consequences down the line

Yes and this is true for professional women...but for the MILLIONS of women in unskilled work, there's little benefit to working when you're a parent. They can't afford childcare...they get paid badly for shop work or cleaning and their partners can usually earn more as tradesmen and similar...so they give up work to care for the kids.

If you're a professional woman then of course, you should stay in employment...then you're safe. Thinking like a middle class person isn't helping working class women with few skills.

@FortunesFave

THIS is why I think marriage should be either stopped altogether or the UK needs to bring in laws like Australia has regarding cohabiting with your partner. It's outdated and unfair that only marriage ensures financial security...too many men promise marriage and then won't do it.

And women, who have the children are put at a disadvantage.

No mention of the women for whom marriage, whether entered into deliberately or de facto, does the opposite of ensuring financial security?

Also, stopping marriage is an appalling idea when we as a society (usually) travel so much abroad. There are so many countries in the world that are nowhere near as good as the UK about recognising unmarried partners when the shit hits the fan, which unfortunately it sometimes does when people are on holiday. Whereas marriage, when it comes to relationship recognition, is pretty much an international gold standard. All you would do by stopping it is ensuring only those with sufficient resources and organisational capability access that gold standard by marrying outside the UK, and deprive everyone else of it.

I reckon OP could clean the lot out of the joint account. I wouldn't recommend it though. Half of assets held in joint names and maintenance for children. Best thing is to start looking for a job.

Orcus could you explain what you mean by this

No mention of the women for whom marriage, whether entered into deliberately or de facto, does the opposite of ensuring financial security?

Do you mean, women who are well off losing out financially because they lived with a man and had kids with him but he doesn't earn?

If so, then of course it works both ways. Maybe you're right about stopping marriage altogether...it wouldn't be sensible...but DeFacto laws need to be brought in.

Then people who wanted to protect their money would think twice about moving in with other people and having children.

@FortunesFave

Orcus could you explain what you mean by this

No mention of the women for whom marriage, whether entered into deliberately or de facto, does the opposite of ensuring financial security?

Do you mean, women who are well off losing out financially because they lived with a man and had kids with him but he doesn't earn?

If so, then of course it works both ways. Maybe you're right about stopping marriage altogether...it wouldn't be sensible...but DeFacto laws need to be brought in.

Then people who wanted to protect their money would think twice about moving in with other people and having children.

No, I mean women who have assets they would like to leave to someone other than a partner, usually their children. They exist too.

Basically, if you want to stop women like OP and some of the others in this thread from facing the situations they're in, you can't have an opt in system and probably not even opt out either, because then you'll just get partners with assets insisting on an opt out as the price of them staying. You essentially have to impose the marriage contract on cohabitants after a certain point, which means you are telling anyone they have assets they'd like to leave to their kids not their partner that they can't move in with anyone.

This means you're fucking over one group of people to protect another, and tbh I wonder whether the sort of man who refuses to give his partner the security of marriage wouldn't just make sure he stayed on the electoral roll and kept some bills at his mum's. There isn't a way to solve this issue without education, and we should be doing that before trying anything as radical as telling anyone who wants to prioritise their children over their partner in their will that they can't live with a partner.

@FortunesFave

Too many women give up work without thinking about the consequences down the line

Yes and this is true for professional women...but for the MILLIONS of women in unskilled work, there's little benefit to working when you're a parent. They can't afford childcare...they get paid badly for shop work or cleaning and their partners can usually earn more as tradesmen and similar...so they give up work to care for the kids.

If you're a professional woman then of course, you should stay in employment...then you're safe. Thinking like a middle class person isn't helping working class women with few skills.

But that's my point - they're not thinking long term.

If you don't earn enough to pay for childcare or have limited earning potential then for God's sake protect yourself. Marriage is even more important for women who are lower earners.

There is nothing wrong with staying home for a while to raise your children but to do so with no financial protection or fall back plan is sheer stupidity.

If you want the protection of marriage get married. It’s very straightforward.

Creating de facto laws would help a minority at the expense of others. We have a perfectly good situation for those that choose to use it.

@Orcus you make a very good point about education. For so many of society's ills and problematic issues, accessible, extensive education is really the answer as it would help prevent so many abusive (in the largest general term) situations from occurring in the first place. We'd teach both men and women how to respect each other and navigate the society we live in. Achieving some degree of that shouldn't be utopian!

Vanilla you sound very patronising. "Protect yourselves" indeed!

How? Are women to MAKE a man marry them? What if he's promised but keeps backing out? I've seen it on here time and time again. And some pregnancies are accidental...and then the man continues to live with the woman and STILL refuses marriage.

That shouldn't be allowed. If a woman is good enough to live with and raise your child, then she's good enough to receive financial help if you split.

That's why DeFacto laws need to be brought in.

@FortunesFave

Vanilla you sound very patronising. "Protect yourselves" indeed!

How? Are women to MAKE a man marry them? What if he's promised but keeps backing out? I've seen it on here time and time again. And some pregnancies are accidental...and then the man continues to live with the woman and STILL refuses marriage.

That shouldn't be allowed. If a woman is good enough to live with and raise your child, then she's good enough to receive financial help if you split.

That's why DeFacto laws need to be brought in.

Yes occasionally the first pregnancy is a genuine accident but come on, the number of people on here who are several kids down the line with someone making excuse after excuse not to marry them - at some point they need to be honest that they planned each pregnancy, wanted the kids, kept burying their heads in the sand and hoping he’d change his mind. No you can’t MAKE a man marry you but you can refuse to plan babies or a future with someone who won’t marry you and if you’re one of the very small number of women who genuinely falls pregnant while reliably using contraception and marriage still isn’t forthcoming you leave and set your life up as the single parent that you already are in a legal sense. You absolutely don’t have more babies and keep hoping for a ring while giving up work.

Yes accidents happen and life happens but only to some degree - at some point personal responsibility and autonomy kicks in. Saying we need the law to change so we don’t have to take any responsibility for our own choices is not something I agree with on any level. Some women are far better off not marrying and shouldn’t be forced into a legal situation against their will. Similarly, however much I don’t agree with men having babies with a women and not giving them any financial protection, ultimately that’s their right and if any woman is willing to keep having more babies with no legal protection then she has to take responsibility for that.

@FortunesFave

Vanilla you sound very patronising. "Protect yourselves" indeed!

How? Are women to MAKE a man marry them? What if he's promised but keeps backing out? I've seen it on here time and time again. And some pregnancies are accidental...and then the man continues to live with the woman and STILL refuses marriage.

That shouldn't be allowed. If a woman is good enough to live with and raise your child, then she's good enough to receive financial help if you split.

That's why DeFacto laws need to be brought in.

Patronising indeed

Why on earth do women need de facto laws to protect them? Are they not capable of making their own decisions without the government holding their hand?

Can't they take responsibility for themselves? Use contraception. Take the morning after bill. Stay in work. Remain independent. Don't sacrifice your financial future and earning potential for a man who doesn't care enough about you to protect you should it all go wrong.

If marriage isn't going to happen then why on earth is it patronising to tell someone to protect themselves? Nobody makes women stay home and have multiple children without any form of support or protection - that's a choice they make (abusive relationships aside).

Or are we going to keep peddling the narrative or "awful men" and "poor weak women" who need de facto marriages because otherwise they can't be trusted to look after their own futures and interests?

That's what I call patronising.

Also, going down the road of falling passively into legal contracts is very dangerous.

Signing a contract that gives you rights and protections in the same way marriage does should always be an active choice. It's incredibly dangerous IMO to let people fall passively into that kind of commitment just because x number of years have passed since they moved in together.

Women don't need de facto laws to protect themselves. How about people stop staying in relationships that aren't what they want? If you want marriage, make sure you get married first. No, you can't insist that someone marries you but neither do you have to stay with them, have multiple children and keep yourself out of the workforce for years on end.

It need not of course be marriage

It could be a civil partnership

No-one's legal partnership status should be changed without their active consent. People who want to cohabit without legal underpinnings should be free to continue to do so.

Important to point out that marriage doesn't only give rights, it can also take them away. I don't think that's acknowledged enough. It's understandable that the issue has been framed that way on this thread, given the OPs situation. But getting married or having a CP also means potentially giving up certain things.

If you eg own a home you want to ensure you can leave to DC with your partner having no claim, you best protect your right to testamentary freedom by not having a marriage or CP contract. If you want to keep any assets apart from your partner full stop, and not potentially have them pooled and split in the event of a separation, same. If you want to be able to cut ties with a partner quickly if the relationship ends, and not have to participate in a potentially long drawn out process to dissolve a contract you made together, you have that right... by not getting married.

Which of the bundle of rights and protections is more important depends on circumstances. Sometimes the same person falls into a different camp depending where they are in their life. OP obviously would've been better off being married here and now. Fast forward a few years, she's taken her half of the equity, got a job and been able to buy a small property herself. It's been bloody hard but she's back on her feet, and she wants her children to be the ones to benefit from all that when she dies. So when she meets a new partner, she wants the option of living with him without creating a legal contract that means he could claim some of the assets she has earmarked for her kids. It's very plausible.

Vanilla you honestly sound like you have no experience of what real life is for many women.

None at all. I can't argue with someone who has such a narrow view because I can't be arsed talking about the social issues which you're ignoring.

Yes, my boss was single parent for years, got a career going, and now she's at the peak of her career and she wants everything she made to go to her dd, as it was the two of them against the world for so long. She's also met a (younger) guy she loves but has his own money and career going. She wanted to marry him, but chose not to, to ensure her dd gets the full inheritance. Had a nice commitment ceremony instead.

It's all about what's right for your individual circumstances. If you're becoming dependent/partially dependent on your partner for reasons that benefit you both as a couple, like a sahp, it makes sense to marry.

@FortunesFave

Vanilla you sound very patronising. "Protect yourselves" indeed!

How? Are women to MAKE a man marry them? What if he's promised but keeps backing out? I've seen it on here time and time again. And some pregnancies are accidental...and then the man continues to live with the woman and STILL refuses marriage.

That shouldn't be allowed. If a woman is good enough to live with and raise your child, then she's good enough to receive financial help if you split.

That's why DeFacto laws need to be brought in.

Bollocks. Don't have multiple kids with someone who won't marry you if marriage is what you ultimately want.

It's a difficult one because at the moment, essentially the only protection women have got is to educate themselves and act accordingly.

People can feel however they want about the legal situation, campaign to change it etc, but for the moment the solutions to this issue, which disproportionately leaves women more vulnerable, are either men behaving better or women making better choices. The latter seems much more achievable than the former, particularly as we know lots of people just don't know the legal position wrt marriage v cohabitation so there's a fair amount of low hanging fruit.

But it's hard to say this in a way that people will be receptive to. Nobody enjoys being told they're ignorant and that their ignorance might leave them vulnerable, and often struggle to distinguish between your partnership means nothing legally v your partnership means nothing full stop. So many times on here a woman has had a very defensive, emotional reaction to the law being set out to her. One of the ways to ensure you don't have a child outside marriage is abortion if you do conceive, which is offensive to many women. These are emotional and thorny issues. And of course it's true that there will still be a cohort who are subject to coercion and abuse.

A Defacto contract could cause more harm than good. Currently, it is black or white as in you're married or not. A Defacto arrangment is very grey and could lull the woman into a false sense of security.

I can forsee a man telling his girlfriend that they don't need to marry as she'll be in the same position and protected in 4 years anyhow. Girlfriend trusts him and has 2 children in 3.5 year period. At 3 years and 11 month, he leaves her and she doesn't have the protection she'd expected.

Or the man disputes that they've been together 4 years on various grounds. For example, he insists they split up for 6 months in between so the 'clock' restarted (backed up by emails/text about the alleged split and a few bills directed to his friends house during this period as his friend helps him protect his money), the girlfriend could be completely unaware of their split and carries on thinking she's protected but it would be hard to prove a continuous relationship several years later.

Or he advises that he was dating multiple people for the first 18 months (not that his girlfiriend knew this) so they were only together 2 years.

Or he's been having an affair and uses that as evidence he was not in a relationship with his girlfriend for 4 years.

The legal system would be overwhelmed with disputes and more women would be left more vulnerable and have neither the time, money or energy to fight their ex-boyfriend.

Even worse, the man could use the girlfriend's desperation to reach the hallowed 'x years' point of the relationship in order to protect herself and the children that she feels she must comply with his unreasonable behaviour (e.g., DV, infidelity).