Cohabitation Rights - campaign from Rights of Women

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/cohabitation-rights/

Campaign here from the organisation Rights of Women.

I'm wondering if there may be arguments against it, or any unintended consequences?

Anyway, info here, plus template letter should you wish to write to your MP.

'We want the Government to change the law, so women’s rights to justice and safety aren’t dependent on their marital status.
The Law Commission and Women’s and Equalities Commission have recommended introducing legal protections for separating cohabitational partners with children, and that cohabitational partners should have the right to inherit from each other.'

I have more assets than my DP. I like living with him, but don't want to hand over half of them if we split up. Therefore, we are not married.

We have carefully chosen how we bought property, how we divide expenses, which assests are joint and which are not. When we moved in together we drew up a legal cohabitation agreement.

The current legal framework gives us this flexibility. Yes, some abusers exploit it - but abusers will exploit any law.

The problem is education, not the law.

You’ve mistitled the thread Arabella. The title should be Divorce Lawyers’ “Monetisation Of Unmarried Couples” Campaign.

Cohabitation partners have the right to inherit from each other. You can choose whoever you look to inherit from you, the donkey sanctuary can inherit from you if you so choose.

I am opposed to this because it forces me into a legal contract against my will. If I wanted my partner to get my pension/ have rights to my property/ inherit my things I would make arrangements for it to be so.

This also opens the door to abuse because it gives abusive men a claim over women’s property without their consent.

From what's written in the briefing, I think what they mean is they want the intestacy provisions changed. But it's disingenuous to frame it in the way they have. I don't like that.

Ha, yes!

My DM had several disastrous relationships. She married 1 and 3, but not 2. Getting out of the marriages took years and wiped out her savings both times. Getting out of the cohabitation was simple, cheap, and done in a couple of months.

Strongly disagree with this. Men could use it to claim women’s assets and homes without marriage.

there is a simple contract that protects women before having children. It is cheap and easy to obtain. Women also have access to abortion if men refuse to sign the contract in the case of an unintended pregnancy.

we have to stop treating women like they have no agency. Increase education campaigns and emphasize the legal and economic consequences of not being married.

ultimately, women are allowed to put themselves into whatever risky situation they want. You can’t always save people from themselves.

“I'm always suspicious whenever the issue is framed only in the context of the latter.
**
I'd definitely support an education campaign,”

You’re right to be suspicious. The Law Commission are not campaigning on behalf of women, they are campaigning on behalf of divorce lawyers. If fewer couples get married, then fewer couples can get divorced, which means less income for divorce lawyers.

They are campaigning for the government to award them an income stream from couples who have decided not to enter into a legal agreement by taking that choice away from couples and making it for the government to decide that a contract should have been entered into, and therefore we are declaring that it was.

If the Government actually cared about abused women and impoverished children, they would fund refuges properly and sort out the child maintenance system.

Funny how the divorce lawyers aren’t campaigning on either of those things.

Based on what? How long together? There is marriage and civil partnership already. Educate more.
Thankfully exp has no claims on my pension etc

Quite.

For example how would they differentiate between a boyfriend and a lodger? If I give a male friend a place to stay how long until he can claim he owns half the place?

I have made a conscious decision not to get married ( have been in an abusive marriage). I shouldn't be forced into a marriage like agreement, if I don't want to. I do agree with a campaign to highlight the pitfalls / advantages of cohabitating and of marriage

The laws are fine as they are what is lacking is education and understanding. There needs to be more focus on education. Maybe it could be focused onto family planning and maternity services.

I agree with PPs that there needs to be awareness, education, and better understanding. It's absurd to attempt to conform legislation to the currently flawed understanding of 'rights' and overlook the issues that that would create.

There may be ways to circumvent coercive control. I can't see that this campaign would resolve more issues than it would create.

Or indeed female. Any change in the law would have to apply equally to same sex couples too, or it would be rightly considered discriminatory.

This is one of the benefits of marriage/CP. In nearly all cases, it will be obvious whether a couple are married/civil partners or not, and there can only be one at a time. The same is not necessarily true of cohabitants.

Lots of good points, everyone.

Just got round to reading the report. The first line seems to make all subsequent points redundant:

'There is no single, legal, definition of cohabitation.'

We've all seen what happens when laws are made based on vague, undefinable terms.

Oh, and it seems the laws are different in Scotland.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/2/crossheading/cohabitation

https://www.thorntons-law.co.uk/knowledge/cohabitation-in-scotland-and-your-rights

NZ bought something similar in years ago - it was meant to protect women & children. Except the women I know who didn't want to marry ended up doing very badly under it.

Basically live with a cocklodger for 2 years & he gets half your house (or at least half your equity).

Professor Emerita of the Dickson Poon School of Law

Brief interlude while I definitely do not laugh at 'Dickson Poon' because this is a serious thread.

I disagree with this. What is needed is an ongoing information campaign to dispel the myths about 'common-law' marriage.

The current system gives legal certainty, and leaves it up to adults to agree to the legal relationship they want.

Unintended consequence of this change would be to incentivize absent fathers, at least in theory. That's the opposite of what we want.

It's heartening to see so many posts disagreeing with this and instead highlighting the need for education about rights.

Neither males nor females should be obliged to give up their hard earned money/assets outside of a contract that has been actively opted in to.

This is ill thought through and I think they’re forgetting it would go both ways

Hugely against this, for all the same reasons listed above and selfishly for my current set up. I've got a great thing going on and if this became law I'd have to end the relationship before it came into law, seems a huge waste of the last 15 years imo.

Definitely do not want this. I choose to not marry to protect 'my' house and hopefully my children's inheritance. Those who want this should marry.

I too, am opposed to this.
If you want these rights, then get married or have a civil partnership. You can do this for about £200.
Education is needed to young people understand that there's no such thing as a common law marriage.

I don't think the law commission are campaigning though - this campaign is from a domestic abuse charity who presumably don't make any money from separations.

Maybe people should start telling their kids, and daughters in particular, that if a man won't agree to marriage, that could be a red flag.

It means that person does not want a relationship with those kinds of responsibilities and protections.

And maybe if you are shacking up with someone (I am speaking to men here mainly but women facing potential cock-lodgers as well) and you think she is a moocher or user, and will take advantage of you, so you don't want to marry - you probably just shouldn't get involved with her.