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 don't get it - if people are living together in a committed relationship, committed enough that they decide to bring children into the relationship, but don't like the whole Marriage with a capital M thing, what's wrong with a civil partnership, which offers structures and protections to them and their children?
Why is something else needed? am I missing something?

I’m as you describe there. It’s the expectation of a service that puts me off doing the legal thing.
weve not needed to do the legal thing before (renting with little to no assets) however we are now in a position where unpicking it if one of us dies might be tricky.
if we could go to a solicitors sign a piece of paper and go.
I know it’s basically the same, the expectation of a service and society pressure is what puts us off formalising anything.

You are missing nothing. nothing, it's crazy. It's almost like an infinite regression. Maybe next they will produce a standard "cohabitation agreement" and then some people will think that is too much like being married and want another version, and on and on....

I blame Joni Mitchell, and her silly song about not needing a piece of paper to show they really love each other. Totally missed the point.

Women on benefits can ask the men to leave with no negative consequences though. They won’t be forced to give any money to the men or have men forcibly added to council or rental tenancies so they can’t be made to leave.

Those women will be free. Women who own property would be trapped.

I'll think about that.

You can have a civil partnership with no service or ceremony. Just signing the document with a registrar and two witnesses. And you'd need two witnesses for some solicitor documents anyway, like a will.

You can get married the same way at the registry office.

Mmm, I don't see what more the state could do to facilitate a low ceremony option really.

I'm in error: to marry you must also exchange vows. There is still no need for a religious service, a guest list, a reception, a posh dress, etc... Just you and your intended, two witnesses, and a registrar at the registry office.

“Those women will be free. Women who own property would be trapped.”

Or will have to give half their assets to their ex boyfriend, along with a top-slice for the lawyers.

My father pointed out that marriage is a binding contract.

You cant just 'bump' people into a contract they have to sign up to it.

I’m not in the uk, but when I had a registry office wedding, our “vows” consisted of us having to say out loud to the judge that we wanted to marry this person. It was one sentence each. She literally just had to hear us say something out loud in addition to signing the form.

The vows are really just the substance of the contract, at one time there wouldn't have been a paper - you made your contract verbally in front of witnesses.

I think there is something to that really. A lot of people think a paper contract is just an artificiality. There is something about stating your intent openly to the other person, in front of witnesses, that adds weight, IMO.

It didn't add any weight to XH#2! The vicar had to tell him to look at me when making the vows. He basically married the vicar. 🙄 More to the point, the gov page PP linked to says you do not need to exchange vows for a civil partnership. I didn't know this; it looks like the contract under discussion already exists!

The only difference would be that you can't build a time limit into a civil partnership - but the dissolution process is the same as divorce and, once you have children, review periods would be more or less off the table.

The main sticking point seems to be financial assets. If pre-nups were more consistently respected in the UK, they could maybe cover most concerns. That said, if you're going to use a lawyer to build an agreement that suits your circumstances, you might as well build a binding partnership agreement instead.

It comes back to the real problem being ignorance & misconceptions about 'common law marriage'.

Absolutely appalling idea.

You don't need to exchange vows. The minimmum is two short sentences, one declaring you are free to marry and the other agreeing to marry the person that is there. All before two witnesses. You also have to give notice. The main difference between marriage and civil partnership is that the legal bit for marriage is verbal whereas for civil partnership it is signing a doc.

One thing the government could do would be to tighten up and enforce child maintenance payments from the absent parent. It is ridiculous how many absent fathers get away with tax fraud and hiding their income to avoid supporting their children.

I hope this goes nowhere. Marriage is a contract and this idea forces others into a contract because what? Some people believe they're in a contract? Makes no sense and is ripe for abuse.

This would also force those NOT in a legal marriage to be in one, which would reduce options for women wanting to leave such a situation. This would even further limit exit routes for women dealing with "honour" based violence and abuse.

It's a terrible, terrible idea.

Quite.

This.

"I've got no income, so I can't give anything" whilst driving around in a flash car cos it's all tied up in the business.

It's a form of depriving your kids.

Terrible idea. How on earth would this work for someone cohabiting with person A whilst still married to person B? Are they now polygamous? Does moving in with a casual partner or having a fling with a flatmate invalidate your will? What if an unmarried couple are living in a flatshare with other people, and one of the couple has an affair with a different flatmate? How does the law decide who is in a relationship with who, and what happens if a couple disagree about how committed their relationship is? Would an engaged couple in a long distance relationship have less legal standing than a couple who moved in together a few weeks after meeting?
Legal car crash of an idea.

The gov should definitely be much more aggressive in forcing payment of child maintenance, and remove passport rights from absent parents who don't pay. They have the ability, they just don't really care that much.

You can - there are standard (but customisable) contracts for cohabitation agreements. Drawn up by a solicitor, signed and witnessesd. Costs about the same as the most basic civil partnership or marriage, and you can probably get a bundle price if you do wills at the same time. Doesn't get you the inheritance tax benefits.

And the 'expectation of a service' for the other options is largely in your head. You dont have to have one. You don't even have to tell people you're married/parnershiped if you don't want to.

It is true that you don't have to tell anyone, but you do have to issue a public notice of your intention to get married or to become civil partners.