Unmarried Rights

justme111

Go figure what mood the judge is in today and whether he/she is symphatetic to blondies or brunette ones

markharding557

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

Exactly. I bring a contract along with me whenever I go on a first date.

I get through a lot of them as, for some reason, I never seem to get a second date.

I meant when people start living together:rotfl:

Loughton_Monkey

Wonder if people like Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Phil Collins etc. are monitoring this forum right now?

Would be interesting to hear from you guys!

sjaypink

Crikey there are some paranoid blokes out there.... :cool:

Its only common sense that laws are changed to reflect the way society evolves!

If you've been with someone for a long time, most likely had children, contributed to the progression of the family finances (either direct contributions or through supporting the other to earn etc) its only fair that you have the right to claim the same support through the Courts - property adjustment, pension sharing and so on - as if you were married.

And yes OP, you are correct IMHO, there probably is an element of greed on the behalf of those who stand to gain most in pushing this forward, but thats not to detract from the issue of future co-hab rights, which is something that does need to be addressed.

LydiaJ

lemonjelly wrote: »

You have it wrong StevieJ, but you know that, don't you, you naughty little devil!;)

For my money, Hall has it way wrong in the majority of cases. Where biological parentage can be proven, then maintenance can & will be applied for & awarded. Only via the CSA or whatever they are called now. This was done with the express view to take pressure away from the courts service.

Child maintenance, yes. But divorcees can claim spousal maintenance for themselves too, and ex-cohabitees can't. If my divorce had gone through, I'd have got child maintenance for my kids, and some spousal maintenance for myself as well, in recognition of the fact that I was only working 65% of full time in order to spend more time bringing up the children.

ILW

justme111 wrote: »

Go figure what mood the judge is in today and whether he/she is symphatetic to blondies or brunette ones

They have women judges nowadays, get one of them at the wrong time of the month and the poor bloke could lose everything.

toby3000

Seems very sensible to me. Especially since lots of people seem to believe that common-law marriages exist under UK law.

If I was going to move in with someone and they asked me to sign a contract I'd probably reconsider, since it probably shows they're a money-grabbing !!!!!!! who would try to screw me over and think the I'm the same.

Loughton_Monkey

ILW wrote: »

They have women judges nowadays, ......

Any views on women touch judges?

Degenerate

lemonjelly wrote: »

But people don't alweays make decisions based on long term futures, but on what is/feels right at the time.

2 people can move in together, with the best intentions, to "try it out". 15 years later, they could still be there...

When the partner with something to lose declines to make a commitment, it's up to the other partner to give them the ultimatum:- either s**t or get off the pot.

Again, the courts have no business turning cohabiting into a similar legal commitment to marriage. The fact that some people lose out because their partners won't marry them, and they too weak to break away and look elsewhere, is not a problem that should be shifted onto the rest of us with bad laws.

ILW

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

women touch judges=QUOTE]

Sexual harrassment.