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?

Why do we need to continue with the archaic system of marriage. If we are honest do men really want the 'special day'. We should get rid of the whole mrs / miss, changing surnames, the 'virginal' white wedding dress and the corny vows.

I would be very unhappy at what would, in effect, be forced marriage. At my age I don't want to risk my house just so I can live with my partner. I have actively chosen not to marry.

We too are not married after 10 years, I do like living with him. I'd prefer not to have to kick him out after 2 years to avoid a de facto marriage. Or could we then explicitly opt out? Like a pre-nup!

@Flapjak

Why do we need to continue with the archaic system of marriage. If we are honest do men really want the 'special day'. We should get rid of the whole mrs / miss, changing surnames, the 'virginal' white wedding dress and the corny vows.

The white wedding dress crap is a load of patriarchal shite.

However the legal contract which recognises that you are now a partnership with joint finances offers invaluable protection to whichever partner puts their career on the back burner while the couple jointly have children - and since 9 times out of 10 that's the woman, I'd say that from a feminist perspective, the option to marry is something young women intending to start a family need.

@Flapjak

Why do we need to continue with the archaic system of marriage. If we are honest do men really want the 'special day'. We should get rid of the whole mrs / miss, changing surnames, the 'virginal' white wedding dress and the corny vows.

You can get married and not do any of those things.

The point of this thread is to discuss whether the legal rights and responsibilities should only be actively opted into (i.e. marriage), or if they should also be conferred by default if a couple cohabit.

(And yes, plenty of men do want "the special day").

The white wedding dress crap is a load of patriarchal shite.

Not really. It was a fashion trend started by Queen Victoria. White was not the usual colour for a wedding dress before she chose that colour.

@Flapjak

Why do we need to continue with the archaic system of marriage. If we are honest do men really want the 'special day'. We should get rid of the whole mrs / miss, changing surnames, the 'virginal' white wedding dress and the corny vows.

I think you are confusing weddings with marriage. You can marry without any of that wedding stuff.

@Puddinger

It seems to me that there are men extorting women's labour by stealth when she finds to her surprise that he won't marry her after all and she has no rights to any financial aspect of their lives three children and 18 years later, like on another thread. How is that less stealthy? Know the law, everyone says, it's the same.

Sorry, but after 18yrs of not being married it’s not really a surprise by then that she is not married to this man? How hard is it to say to a partner well before 18yrs have passed “marry me” and expect a yes or no and not allow a maybe.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

It’s by stealth if it’s not an active choice and becomes conferred after 2 years

Agree. If my DH passes on. And I, a rich older woman want to move my cabana boy into my home to comfort me in my old age. I certainly do not want him viewed as a de facto spouse who inherits ALL my money. Nor would I want the faff of having to kick him out and advertise for a replacement every 18months to avoid such a stupid law. I’d be constantly house training new men.

I'd prefer not to have to kick him out after 2 years to avoid a de facto marriage. Or could we then explicitly opt out?

You could draw up a financial agreement, yeah. You don't need to kick people out unless you want to. My view is that after 2 years it's reasonable to make it explicit anyway.

The only thing might be if they could prove that their income suffered directly as a result of the relationship, eg SAHM, and then they might have rights over and above the agreement.

Can I ask why are so vociferously advocating for this op

My husband did almost all the organising for our wedding. I just picked my outfit. The venue came with a wedding planner who was very confused and kept calling DH to ask him to ask me things. Apparently it’s not usual for grooms to be making decisions re: table cloths and floral arrangements (in reality, neither he nor I were particularly bothered about any of it but he has a higher tolerance for making/answering phone calls 😂)

I agree with the comment posted previously about needing to separate the legal contract from the wedding gumph. I think this was probably clearer years ago when the ceremony and the party were always in two different venues (church or register office, then elsewhere for the party)

I would’ve quite happily had the very basic, smallest room package (literally an office with space for couple, two witnesses and registrar, takes less than 10 minutes) but it was booked up for absolutely ages! Anyway, there is clearly a demand for contract-only scenarios, despite what the wedding-industrial-complex magazines and shows want us to believe.

Interestingly the longest married couple I know had a basic registry wedding, handful of guests, pub afterwards. There are only two photos from the day and the bride has already taken her hair down and her shoes off.

I think many former U.K. colonies have this de facto marriage (Aus/NZ) or common law wife/husband (US/Canada) in their legal system as an outdated vestige from being so remote. It dates back to when you’d have pioneer communities with no priest or minister available to marry willing partners.

The law dates from the 1980s though, and it's current form 2009. I think it was put together in response to the declining popularity of marriage.

Either way, don't let your distaste for the colonies put you off this idea! A previous poster explained that there are provisions for cohabitation in Iceland and I'm sure in other cooler countries as well.

Can I ask why are so vociferously advocating for this op

How am I being vociferous?

Why are you advocating for this?

Well, I'm just curious. It makes me sad to see women in that situation, it seems unfair and a structural problem. I'm surprised that feminists are so in support of it but only people who live with a law can know its implications, I suppose.

Doesn’t make me sad on the least. Nor is it unfair. People need to avail self of information

I'm surprised that feminists are so in support of it but only people who live with a law can know its implications, I suppose
I don’t get what point you’re making here?

I don’t get what point you’re making here?

I mean that I defer to the judgement of people on the ground although I don't understand it.

@Puddinger
I have no distaste for colonies. Their existence as former colonies is key to why and how these laws came about. As for the dates you list, those are simply the most recent versions currently in effect, that’s not when they were “invented”.

Common law marriage existed in England until the 1753 Marriages Act which specifically stated it did not apply to the colonies. So common law or de facto marriages have persisted in these colonies, and even when they gained independence and to this day. The 1753 Marriages Act also did apply to Wales but did not apply to Scotland and they recognised common law marriage until they abolished it in 2006.

Which is why English couples would elope to Gretna Green....

Are you in uk?

How would you test what constitutes a relationship?

I've lived with one housemate for 4 years (just us on our own), so twice as long as the Australian deemed relationship period. We're definitely not together!

Having children is no proof of a relationship either. All it proves is that you had sex at some point previously. It does not mean you are together now.

Having a child together and living together? On stronger ground here, but what time limits would you impose? What if the couple don't want to be legally tied? What if the relationship is in trouble or failing but then suddenly whoops it was our 2 year anniversary last week and in addition to having serious problems in our relationship we're now married.

What if there is abuse or violence in the relationship and you've just legally bound the victim to the abuser because they've lived together for two years? All that will do is make it harder and more traumatic for DV victims to detach themselves.

What if you go "on a break" and one person moves out? What if someone is in the military, for example, and is away for months and months each year?

And how would you define the starting point of the relationship which sets the clock on your two year limit? Your first date? First time you sleep together? Move in together? Does him staying over at yours 4 nights a week and you at his the other 3 constitute living together even though you both maintain seperate addresses?

There are as many variables as there are people.

It seems to me that in order for this system to work and people don't find themselves legally bound to friends / one night stands / someone they hate, you would need to get both parts of the couple to declare that they're in a relationship and wish it to be recognised legally... A bit like marriage...

What is needed is better education. Not defacto legal contracts.

We have the Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 in Ireland and it more or less ensures I'll never get to live with a partner again. I own my house, I plan to own it by myself for as long as I want. As it currently stands, I want my DS to inherit it in the event of my death. I can't imagine ever wanting anyone but my DS or any future children of his, to benefit from it's financial value. If I ever do want to change that, I want it to be my conscious decision.

I feel too unsure about whether or not a partner living in my house could claim ownership of part of it under the 2010 act. Even if they can't under that legislation, I don't feel confident that the law won't change to allow them those rights at a future point. And could you imagine the scenario where you and a partner are happily living together but you need to tell them move out because the law is about to give them rights over your house?

I know these laws are set up to protect people who have paid toward the ownership costs of a house and then end up with nothing. But if I ever moved someone into my house, they'd be getting to live here for free. They'd be in a privileged financial position of getting to live somewhere rent free and then as a bonus get to make a claim on it.

Tbf, reading Mumsnet, my own marriage experience, the experience of pretty much all of my friends, etc, makes me never want to live with a partner again anyway. But I shouldn't be afraid of my assets being at risk should I change my mind.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Puddinger
I have no distaste for colonies. Their existence as former colonies is key to why and how these laws came about. As for the dates you list, those are simply the most recent versions currently in effect, that’s not when they were “invented”.

Common law marriage existed in England until the 1753 Marriages Act which specifically stated it did not apply to the colonies. So common law or de facto marriages have persisted in these colonies, and even when they gained independence and to this day. The 1753 Marriages Act also did apply to Wales but did not apply to Scotland and they recognised common law marriage until they abolished it in 2006.

Which is why English couples would elope to Gretna Green....[/quote]
English couples eloped to Scotland because you don't need parental consent in Scotland whereas in England you had to be 21. Gretna has nothing to do with de facto marriage. You can get married in Scotland aged 16 without parental consent.

I have been in the "no-one should just end up being in a legal contract, it should be actively consented to" camp. But this thread got me thinking.

If the absence of marriage represents a problem then it is a problem to just one party, the other one is happy with the situation. Otherwise they would get married or live unmarried willingly. So an imbalance of power takes place. The onus is on the interested party to be proactive, take steps, do the talk or leave if the marriage still doesn't happen. So they need to assess the relationship and decide whether it's worth the risk.

If however 2,3,5 years of living together ensured legal rights, then as the deadline approaches, it's the reluctant partly which will need to "wisen up" and either accept the impending financial obligations or lose the relationship. So now it's them who needs to be proactive, take steps and decide what is worth more for them.

Makes the whole relationship thing fairer on the face of it?

That's a very interesting point, @MandalaYogaTapestry, but it doesn't strike me as a very good basis for such a significant legal relationship. It should be a conscious choice to enter into that contract, made freely by both parties, not something that one of them wants but can't persuade the other one into, but then it happens anyway by default. Can't see that being well received by the recalcitrant party.

I would be much happier if we went all out to educate young people, particularly girls, about the legal and practical significance of marriage vs cohabitation, especially when you have children, hand in hand with real efforts to make girls more assertive and aware of their right to have boundaries and to enforce them (in all sorts of areas). The Mills & Boon stuff of waiting passively to be proposed to, wasting spending years planning and saving up for The Big Day etc etc is not healthy.

@TheLoneRager, no problem with the overlap! (Great name, btw.)