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.

agree.

I would be very wary of teaching anyone that marriage is straightfowardly protective and the right thing to do to. It’s far more complicated than that, especially for women who have built up their own assets before meeting a partner.

Similar situation here. I'd also worry about cocklodgers preying on vulnerable widows etc.

No, marriage does not always protect, especially if you have assets - which is why nobody should find themselves in a situation in which they are quasi-married against their will.

Which would make a woman subject to coercive control even more unable to leave the relationship.

Yes this is exaclty what these laws did to women in NZ.

Absolutely!

What happened in NZ @TheClitterati ?

Another woman here who would have to kick my partner out rather than risk my house.

I guess we aren't voting labour then.

Definitely not.

the useless fathers need to be chased to pay their fair share of childcare; which would be an unpopular thing for a mainly male political force to impose on males.
but honestly based on my years of mn, the shady pay dodgers are the crux of the problem. no under the table work, and no claims of being unemployed while living the dream lifestyle.

and if that means they are legally not allowed to cohabitate with another woman for 21 years so be it.
i'm in canada where there are common law regulations, but also where HMRC (called CRA here) knows if you sneeze at night.

De facto/common law relationship are very common in nz.

Late 90's (ish?) they changed the law so after 3 years living together everything became jointly owned. Even if no children were involved. Or property was owned prior to the relationship. It was meant to protect women.

Except now women who own property are losing their homes after relatively short relationships if they split up.

Or as is the case with women I know the financial entanglement means they are staying put in coercive relationships as they would lose half or have to buy him out to stay put.

That's horrendous @TheClitterati - i didn't know that at all. Thanks for the update.

Also, would this "legalise" bigamy?

What happens, for instance, if someone is legally married to person A, but living with person B? Or just plain living with both persons A and B.

Legislation in this area should always be based on fairness. Those hoping for something other than a 'sex-blind' approach (@TheirEminence for example) will have a long wait on their hands. No government needs to be encouraged to snip away at Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.

Oh, I know that anything other than a sex-blind approach is not going to happen. This proposal is a really bad idea and I hope Labour scrap it. A good example of how clichés about ‘vulnerable women’ can be used to empower bad actors.

Not sure what article 6 of Human Rights Act (right to a fair trial) has to do with this?

So do nothing? Can’t win, can they?

Seriously, back of the fag packet policy announcements that fail to understand the actual problems and the wider implications are harmful.

This isn’t a ‘oh poor politicians; they just can’t win’ scenario.

Issues around women trapped in abusive relationships will never be solved by sneaking a de facto form of marriage on them. In fact, this issues can be made much, much worse by that.

Also, how is this a pressing issue? It feels like it's being sneaked in. Where's it come from, what's the evidence and what's the urgency?

I'd far rather they did something about social care for elderly people, or disability payments.

There's something really off about this idea

The UK law commision has looked into the subject and made its recommendations. The link below is for their summary. It is a difficult issue and there will always be pros and cons - winners and losers. The Govenment decided shelve it. I don't think there has been a change to this area of law.

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/03/lc307_Cohabitation_summary.pdf

I’m not sure it is urgent.

It’s more likely that this is one of those flashy type announcements that looks like it’s all about caring and social justice and - if you don’t really look at it closely - might sound vaguely reasonable to people who have no direct experience.

Political parties are very keen on this crap - especially in the float stuff and see what doesn’t sink period of the election cycle.

This is a terrifying comment tagged on the end. There is no guaranteed opt out - which means that actually there is no safe way to cohabit and ensure your own financial well-being.

The courts may well interpret ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ in ways that do not match reality. They currently do so in divorce - and in unpredictable ways because it depends so much on the individual making the decision.

This stuff is dystopia dressed up as social justice and protection of the vulnerable.

This. I think it's not good for dear children.

Not one of us is asking for this particular potential law to be anything but sex blind. We just dont want it as law.

I do wish all political parties would do a tiny bit of critical thinking around potential legal issues, not just write something on a napkin and then tout it as a great idea, will serve women well, look how popular this will be with the wims, when it patently wont work in so many cases. And it's not as if those could be legislated for.

Terrible idea for all the reasons above.