Is it easier to separate when not married?

[Weddingname457]

Is it really ‘easier’ to separate when not married? People talk about divorces as expensive and tiring, but is separating from a long term partner any less expensive or hard work-You also would not have the legal support for splitting finances etc?

I know you could technically ‘cut & run’ if not married but most people would surely have a house together if not children anyway?

I guess it depends on the individual circumstances. My DP lives with me and my children in my house. At this point if we split it would be quite straightforward. If we married, he would potentially have a claim on my house.

Depends if you have joint assets, and who has the assets.

If your finances are entwined, it can be a nightmare.

And if you have children, and one of you has gone part time, is a lower earner or is not working, then they are in a ridiculously vulnerable position.

Oh, and if one of you dies, and you are over the nil rate band for tax, then you'll have to find the inheritance tax.

With children, it’s infinitely worse if you’re unmarried and the partner who has taken a career hit to be at home with children. No rights to pension. Salary impediment. No chance of any maintenance aside from CMS. Probably better if you’re the partner who kept working and relied on the other parent for child rearing and care.

Yes, divorce is a legal process needing a solicitor (usually) and court hearings. But if you’re unmarried, you have all the practical and financial complications of untangling two lives, without any legal protections whatsoever.

It’s children that complicate it. Leaving a childfree marriage is easier than splitting with a partner when you have children.

Was very simple for me, and we had children. He left (the house was mine) and we sorted out child arrangements.

He paid CMS and that was that.

BIL and SIL (not married but she was my SIL in every way but legally for 15 years) were not married and had no children.

But they did have a house and two cats. It was messy and rumbled on for 3-4 years. Neither really wanted to sell the house. She moved out and pretty much in with a new partner. He stayed in the house with a lodger and the cats. Then she wanted a cat. They ended up splitting the cats. They did a couple years of therapy, even though she’d moved on. Then she moved back in the house and he moved out (with a cat and a new partner as well). He ended up after 4 years needing to threaten to force a sale as she wouldn’t sell and wanted to buy him out, but couldn’t.

They did finally sell and agreed on who would have what cat and he said, absolutely no more therapy, we’ve moved on. It was messy though. I think it can be as messy as people choose to make it. Breakups are hard. Children do complicate them, but people can make it harder on themselves than it needs to be, if they choose.

Of course it's easier, especially if it's amicable. My ex and I owned a property together and all it took on my part was one quick visit to the lawyer. He was a decent guy so he may have had more visits to save me the hassle.

I split up with my partner of 14 years, father of my two children, by telling him I was leaving and moving out. I was the only higher earner and we didn't have shared bank accounts. He is still a bit of a drain but it is within my gift to just let him go hang. Much easier than a divorce

These were my thoughts! I keep hearing it’s better to not get married because of high divorce rates etc but I feel like it would be equally hard to split being unmarried with a shared property and children.

But if you’re not married the property is simply split based on how you own the property / joint tenants 50% or tenants in common with unequal shares.