Co-habiting couples warned of "common law marriage" myth

Gavin83

Happier_Me wrote: »

My brother in law is the only earner doing a job he despises and married to a woman that expects to be looked after. He does more than his fair share in the home too.

Well that's his own choice. He clearly isn't too unhappy with the arrangement.

onomatopoeia99

Happier_Me wrote: »

On the other hand, how many people are unmarried because their partner is so set against it and the alternative is separation? Not marrying may well be a form of financial control in some relationships!

If someone feels they are being financially controlled when unmarried, they can and should just walk away. Not that I can see how it is even possible to one adult to exercise financial control of another independent adult's finances by not marrying them.

haras_nosirrah

I suppose the main issue with cohabitting couples getting the same rights as married couples is what if the person is cohabitting with more than one partner?

The double life scenario - lives with partner a during the week and partner b at the weekend. Has children with both partners, two houses, two lives.

At least legally you can only have one wife. If co habbiting is enough to get assetts, a say over next of kin then how would the above scenario play out?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2601024/How-I-father-kept-secret-second-family-life-realised-spent-time-work-kept-missing-birthdays.html

Happier_Me

Originally Posted by Happier Me View Post
I think the solution to some degree is in raising awareness. As adults we should take responsibility for ourselves and that is in understanding the repercussions of the decisions we make.

There are pros and cons to marriage (and subsequently divorce) as there are in remaining unmarried. I know of people, male and female, that have literally been left with just the shirt on their backs after divorce, despite being the main or only earner and not always through choice. My brother in law is the only earner doing a job he despises and married to a woman that expects to be looked after. He does more than his fair share in the home too.

On the other hand, how many people are unmarried because their partner is so set against it and the alternative is separation? Not marrying may well be a form of financial control in some relationships!


Sorry what?


No it's not. The alternative is separation, just like with any other issue.


If it's a fundamental pre-requisite, then ofcourse you need to find someone else. But you cant force people into marriage by accusing them of being abusive!
Yesterday 6:55 PM

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that the alternative is separation, I said so in my post. As adults we need to take responsibility for our own actions or inactions. But that's coming from someone with a personality type that is highly unlikely to experience abuse. I'm not sure it's as easy as that for someone who finds themselves in an abusive relationship.

maman

maman wrote: »

Sorry but I know little of the benefit system. I thought that unmarried couples living together were already 'penalised' by the system in that they can't claim as if they were two separate entities.

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

That's certainly true but I wouldn't describe it as being penalised.

I wouldn't describe it as being penalised either (hence the quotes). I was just pointing out that the government can recognise cohabitees when it suits them financially but ignore it when it's likely to cost them.

maman wrote: »

I'm wavering.


There's been a lot in the media on this point this week. Today, for example, I read about someone who'd been given leave to appeal a decision that prevented her having a bereavement payout when her long term partner died as they weren't married. So it seems the establishment is questioning whether to recognise a cohabitee. However, on the other hand, the benefit system does take account of a live in partner whether married or not. It seems the whole thing is a construct of government and has unfairness and illogicality built in.


Food for thought.:)

On a related matter, I noticed that there's to be a Private Members Bill before parliament in the new year to end 'meal ticket' divorces and make pre-nuptial contracts legally recognised. I think this is a good idea. While I appreciate that provision needs to be made for young children, there are too many people, including the wives of Russian oligarchs, fleecing former partners.

Mojisola

I would like to see the legal part of marriage being completely separated from any other form of celebration of the event as happens in several other European countries.

The legal part should be seen as the only part that's absolutely necessary. Everything else is optional.

I would also like to see the formal statement amended to include the option of 'partner' to 'wife' or 'husband' - "I call upon these persons here present, to witness that I [name] do take thee [name] to be my lawful wedded wife / wife-husband / husband"

(And to replace 'thee' with 'you' if the couple prefer).

onomatopoeia99

Mojisola wrote: »

(And to replace 'thee' with 'you' if the couple prefer).

Quite, the second person singular informal pronoun dropped from common usage four hundred years ago across most of the country, no idea why it persists in situations like this.

Pixie5740

buglawton wrote: »

A myth so far, but this could be the start of some myth-confirming court judgements:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/nov/28/unmarried-woman-wins-legal-battle-over-bereavement-damages

Yes I saw this article too. I think it's the thin end of the wedge. If she and her partner chose not to get married why should she get the protection that a marriage contract provides? It reminded me of this woman earlier in 2017 who won the right to her late partner's pension.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/unmarried-woman-wins-automatic-right-late-partners-pension/

What really got me about her story is that the pension scheme involved does pay out to co-habiting partners if the pension holder signs a form nominating their co-habitee as a beneficiary. He never signed the form. Maybe he didn't want her to be a beneficiary. They'd been together for 10 years before finally getting engaged and neither was a spring chicken.

Pixie5740

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

I suppose the main issue with cohabitting couples getting the same rights as married couples is what if the person is cohabitting with more than one partner?

The double life scenario - lives with partner a during the week and partner b at the weekend. Has children with both partners, two houses, two lives.

At least legally you can only have one wife. If co habbiting is enough to get assetts, a say over next of kin then how would the above scenario play out?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2601024/How-I-father-kept-secret-second-family-life-realised-spent-time-work-kept-missing-birthdays.html

That's an angle I hadn't considered. You would hope that the spouse's rights would trump those of the mistress.