Coercive control and cohabitees’ rights to property - Maria Wheeler and Labour

[LoobiJee]

From a Guardian article.

”Labour would also seek to give common-law wives who live with their partners the same rights, including over property, as married women should their relationship end.”

Bit misleading. That right couldn’t be restricted to women. It would also be available to men who move in with a woman who owns her own property. Which would make a woman subject to coercive control even more unable to leave the relationship.

Possibly, but I think it would probably protect and benefit far more women than men.

Those that can afford the legal fees.

Labour’s view of women really seems to be from the 1970s, including the preference for a sex-blind approach, and the concern that this would have unintended consequences is a valid one.

This also undermines marriage. Of course there are valid criticisms of marriage as an institution but at least both partners have to sign a binding contract and know what they are getting themselves in for. It also seems to be, at least from the empirical evidence, a more stable context for raising kids. Of my friends who have split up with their male partners, those that were not married tend to be worse off.

This. An inconvenient truth. But it's true nonetheless.

It’s also quite a middle class view:

• It’s of no benefit to cohabiting couples living in rented accommodation.
• It’s of no benefit to those who don’t have the money or skills to get a lawyer.

And there’s a question of: why should you be entitled to half someone’s property just because you’ve been living with them? The answer is: because you had kids and you lost your earning potential as a result of not being able to afford childcare.

So here are two alternative “policy solutions” to address that problem: free universal childcare, and making absentee fathers actually pay for their offspring.

But those policies a) cost the government money and b) don’t create a lucrative new income stream for law firms.

“but at least both partners have to sign a binding contract and know what they are getting themselves in for. “

Agreed. Same for civil partnerships. This: “know what they are getting themselves into” in advance is the key point for me.

I'm conflicted about this. I don't think it's right that just because you live with someone you have rights to their property.

This may mean people don't move in together, not great for the housing crisis.

Whilst I agree it is normally women who come off worse perhaps education of this is the answer, of both men and women. I don't like Labour and this already shows their nanny state approach.

Absolutely this!

“It also seems to be, at least from the empirical evidence, a more stable context for raising kids. Of my friends who have split up with their male partners, those that were not married tend to be worse off”

Interestingly, not my experience.

Amongst my extended family, it’s the cohabiting relationships that have endured longer than the marriages.

And amongst my friends, it’s not whether they were married or cohabiting which was the key factor in their post-separation economic circumstances. The key factor was whether the kids father was a feckless / useless sort, and how much income of their own they had pre-separation.

edited to add the missing quote.

I live in Ireland, where this is already largely the case, and I've just gone through a split. I spent more than 20k (and him 5x that) - and it wasn't even particularly complicated or acrimonious. Even if we'd agreed on what was fair, and had gone the minimum route, it would have cost 7k in total for both of us.

It's all very well having the law, but the fact of the matter is that it's only accessible for a small number of people who have the money for solicitors, and that means that it's not going to do anything to protect women with children, who have the least time and money to spend defending themselves.

It will be used by abusive men, to further pummel women.

I think I recall this being suggested years ago and people asking how do you define such a relationship - length of time? number of children? it works for marriage because there are the witnesses and the marriage certificate, but how do you prove you have those rights without it?

And I'd expect the Guardian to know there's no such thing as 'common-law wives.' Or husbands.

i think this stuff is ridiculous. People can choose to be married or they can choose not to be.

It really isn’t ok to sneak the obligations of a legal contract on to people who’ve chosen not to marry.

There is a law on cohabitants' rights in Scotland.

Does anyone know of a study or studies on how that has worked?

Here’s a review of a recent book by a U.S. economist that makes a strong, data-driven case for marriage. The review’s author is very much on the left but recognises the robustness of the data:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/27/opinions/two-parent-privilege-kearney-marriage-single-parenthood-filipovic/index.html

Labour needs to think through and robustly test its policies. Shouldn’t be too much to ask after this long in opposition.

“Even if we'd agreed on what was fair, and had gone the minimum route, it would have cost 7k in total for both of us.” 😲

Do you know which organisations led the campaign for “you can’t live together and then not live together without it costing you a fortune” being put on the statute book in Ireland, Icansee? Was it women’s refuges and VAWG campaign groups or was it representatives of the legal sector?

From memory, it’s been mainly lawyers who’ve been campaigning for it in the UK.

Totally agree, I'm not married BECAUSE I own a house and if we were to split he could take half. I worked bloody hard to buy my house. Bought well before I got together with current partner. I'd be pissed beyond belief if this law came in. So I'd have to chuck my partner out to keep my house safe. Seems a bit ridiculous after 15 years together. But I would nevertheless chuck him out.

What housing crisis?

This is a really good point. And highlights a lack of understanding of consent, in effect

Those could be good policies.

Incentives for workplace childcare would be good I think.

Also financial incentives for workplaces to provide transport provision from something like a railway station hub if they're not on public transport routes. Not everyone can afford to run a car, some families run one car and need to access different workplaces /different hours.

I lost 15 years of work experience (and self esteem) at home with my children. I know many women with STEM qualifications who became childminders to bring an income in, but that requires home space that complies with regulations. I know of one professionally qualified couple who both childmind because it's so lucrative.

Apologies for the derail.

Lots of abusive men will be benefitting from this. Many already target single mothers for somewhere to live - imagine if they could take their homes too.

How likely would this be?

The phrase ‘common law wives’ is really unhelpful.

Living with someone should not make you a de facto ‘wife’. Lots of women very much choose not to be wives.

I chose not to be a wife, fortunately my partner is a good man and put me on the title deeds of the house but things like inheritance and parental responsibility also need to be looked into for unmarried couples.

The thing about inheritance and such like is that, if you want the rights (and responsibilities) that come with a marriage contract… you should get married.

I don’t want to get married but I want to cherry pick the bits of the contract that suit me and have them apply to everyone is not a reasonable position.

My mum and stepdad are not married. After being married to my dad, my mum is certain she never wants to marry. They’ve been together for decades. Their estates won’t benefit from inheritance tax rules for married couples - but they choose not to be married and that how these things go.

I think this (and generally, provisions favouring cohabitants in respect of legal claims over a deceased's estate) very unfair towards the children. Children of a previous marriage/relationship are already in a precarious situation and often lose out over a parent's new relationship. It's one thing if the parent has chosen to make a long-term commitment in law, and another on the basis of 'well, they were in a relationship'.

In terms of the couple itself, what a benefit to the 'cocklodger'! Screw a woman over and screw her out of her house.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/legal-opinion-cohabitation-legislation-urgently-needs-information-campaign-1.1454114

This is an article about how it works, from a google, it came off of a Law Reform Commission report - but I'm not Irish, and wasn't living here at the time, so I don't know who campaigned for it.