De facto relationships

[Puddinger]

In Australia, if you've been living with your partner for 2 years, you have the same legal status as if you were married (de facto marriage), but it sounds like in the UK you can live with someone for 20 years and it means nothing!

I feel bad because there are all these threads from mothers who are living in a partnership with kids and everyone is saying oh no you are financially vulnerable. Why should they be? Why shouldn't they get compensation for liss of income, for example, if the relationship ends or access to their partner's pension? Do people not see this as a feminist issue?

It is a feminist issue.

Lack of legal knowledge is also an issue in other areas. I think law should be taught early and practically. Concepts like reasonableness, contracts, consent, duress, culpability and so on are useful in so many areas.

Yes it is a feminist issue.

Everyone should consent to marriage, not find themselves in a legal contract to which they had not consented, and people should be free to live together without a legal ties.

What is needed is a considerably better component in the (existing) SRE curriculum covering the legal differences between marriage, CP and cohabitation; done in a way which empowers young people to decide what it is that they want and not settle forna faked future.

I agree that everyone should consent to marriage, but I've recently become aware that the children of separated unmarried couples often get less support from their father than they would if their parents had been married. That seems quite unfair, if true. I suppose it's hard to separate out support for the children from support for the resident parent. I'd say it's a feminist issue but also a children's welfare issue.

Yes, all in favour of more education. However, given that women seem to regularly be stuck in these positions - and that men seem to be making these vague promises all the time or that the promises are implied all the time - to me it doesn't seem enough to say they should have been better educated about the law. They weren't! And anyway, the financial burden of children falls unevwnly on the population, why should that only be addressed through marriage law?

I don't think there should be such a thing as a de facto relationship. The legal obligations (as well as rights) marriage confers should be, and remain, opt in.

I'm in my 50s. After years of working bloody hard, I own my own house. I want, eventually, to leave it to my son. I certainly don't want some bloke having a claim on the equity simply because I've been shagging him for the requisite amount of time (and I presume were the circumstances reversed, he'd feel the same about me).

The pooling of assets marriage allows for protects the child-rearing member of a young couple (almost always the woman) against the career and income hit child rearing inflicts. It's therefore a good thing that the option to get married is there.

But it makes no sense for couples in late middle age, and I wouldn't want it thrust upon me.

If people want the protection of marriage they should get married
It could be unfair to have the legal consequences of marriage foisted for n people who had not signed up for them
One thing,you talk about UK ,but the law in Scotland is different than in England

Well maybe child support needs more work.

The common law thing seems to work well in Australia, Canada etc. though. Not sure it's a bad thing in and of itself.

I don't think the Scottish law is really any different these days. I think there was some custom of "habit and repute" but that's no longer the case.

See Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006
Not the complete solution but a start
Old marriage by fact and deed largely irrelevant

The child support system does need a massive overhaul.

For starters, where the man is on PAYE, child support payments should be deducted at the same time as tax.

And we need proper education about marriage in school PHSE lessons stressing that its primary purpose is as a legal contract to protect the financial interests of the two parties and their children in the event of divorce, and the surviving spouse and children in the event of death.

I certainly don't want some bloke having a claim on the equity simply because I've been shagging him for the requisite amount of time

Sure, but it doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's more when one person gives up work, or even just misses opportunities for overtime etc when there are kids, they should be compensated for income difference when the partnership ends, married or not.

you talk about UK ,but the law in Scotland is different than in England

I didn't know! Thanks.

I think it's that income made during the partnership is split, but not assets going into the partnership, depending on children/length of time etc.

Marriage as it is in the UK gives people a choice. If you want the rights, protections and obligations of marriage then get married.

I think the problem is that society now sees marriage as 'a piece of paper' and women are still shamed if they dare ask a man to marry.

Women need educating on what marriage actually means and the legal benefits you gain if you leave work to have children.

Marriage needs to stop being demonised.

Marriage needs to stop being demonised.

And proposals and weddings lauded. Wrong way round. And we need to stop telling women it's an achievement and men it's something to fear (the mortality statistics would say the opposite).

in the UK you can live with someone for 20 years and it means nothing!

It means that you have chosen to not pool financial assets with someone else. In the UK there is that choice. You can marry/be in a civil partnership or ... not.

Marriage / civil partnership protects the financially weaker party.

This was a major topic when I was in college in the '70s. I do not understand why the message still has hot got out to everyone.

The legal and romantic sides of marriage need seperating.

I love my husband. The weddig day was great. But the legal part was far more important (especially I DHs line of work). It's the main reason we married so young.

Ultimately marriage IS a legal contract, it’s the piece of paper (signed by the two of you, and two witnesses) that is the important bit. Weddings are really just a bit of theatre to make the paperwork less boring and a party to celebrate that signing of the legal contract has occurred.

Should there be a similar legal contract formed between two people who haven’t deliberately, willingly and knowingly entered into it?

No, I don’t think so.

I agree that it’s a feminist issue, but perhaps better solved by consciousness raising (especially for older girls and young women).

I had a baby completely on my own, it was a decision I made at the time and in hindsight, the right one. I had no financial support but I wasn’t tethered to a dickhead for two decades.

I had a second with the intent of raising the child as a partnership with the father and knew enough by that point to realise that the different circumstances required a different approach - the legal contract of marriage.

Cohabiting and having children with a partner without marriage is rarely the better option for women - if the woman had lots of assets prior to beginning the relationship and intended to take only the minimum of maternity leave, it might be different but the reality for the vast majority of women is that having children affects your ongoing earning potential, either due to practical reasons (choosing to be home more, being the ‘on call’ parent for emergency pick ups etc) or due to prejudicial reasons (being overlooked for promotion or rejected at interviews because you are perceived to be less committed to the work because you are a mother).

As a previous poster has noted, for couples who meet later in life and couples who intend to be child free, the lack of a legal contact can be beneficial.

@CaraDuneRedux

I don't think there should be such a thing as a de facto relationship. The legal obligations (as well as rights) marriage confers should be, and remain, opt in.

I'm in my 50s. After years of working bloody hard, I own my own house. I want, eventually, to leave it to my son. I certainly don't want some bloke having a claim on the equity simply because I've been shagging him for the requisite amount of time (and I presume were the circumstances reversed, he'd feel the same about me).

The pooling of assets marriage allows for protects the child-rearing member of a young couple (almost always the woman) against the career and income hit child rearing inflicts. It's therefore a good thing that the option to get married is there.

But it makes no sense for couples in late middle age, and I wouldn't want it thrust upon me.

This ^ ..... definately this..... am glad we don’t have this in the UK

@PlantMam "tethered to a dickhead for two decades" really made me laugh for some reason!

I absolutely don’t agree with this if you want rights of being married have a cp or get married
Cohabitation shouldn’t be blended same as into being married
Not all women want or need to be married, and don’t need it by stealth

I knew of a couple of blokes in Oz who had to more or less kick their live-in girlfriends out as the girls were refusing to leave, but they'd been in (his) house for 1 year 11 months.

Due to circumstances I moved in with my partner after knowing each other 6 months, but I set up a DD to his account, called 'rent' so he knew I wouldn't be trying to screw him over as I was his 'lodger'!

Yes, it ended well, 23 years married. 😊

De facto marriage is a bollocks idea and would prevent couples living together where there is financial disparity and no kids - I'm buying a house this year and my DP has no means to do so. If he moved in with me in my house I would not expect to have to hand over a portion of my property if we split. I'd rather he paid no rent and I keep my own asset. Why should our relationship become de facto marriage if we don't choose to get married??
Kids are a different matter but even so I firmly believe women should insist on marriage before cohabiting with children if they are likely to be financially vulnerable. You still can't impose marriage on people who haven't agreed to get married.

If you’re basing your musings on posts from here, what about the women, often single mums, who find themselves saddled with a useless cocklodger who moved in by stealth, doesn’t pay his way, eats, drinks and uses utilities while choosing not to work and the only saving grace is she can kick him out when she sees the light and isn’t obliged to give up half hers and her children’s house in the process? Two years isn’t long. People often find themselves in these shit situations in the wake of a previous abusive relationship and don’t realise what’s happening till they’ve already given too much.

The feminist issue is women should avail themselves of information to they should be entered into marriage by stealth
If you chose cohabitation understand the pro and cons of it

I need to say common law wife isn’t a thing in Scotland
Take a look this website useful summary