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

Comms69

Gloomendoom wrote: »

There is no official record of how many unmarried couple split up. If it is as high, or higher, than the number of married couples that split up, it would suggest that getting the extra protection that a marriage contract affords would be beneficial, particularly where there are children involved.

Except ofcourse it doesn't work that way.


Every married couple will have numerous failed relationships behind them.


Given marriage is 'supposed' to be for life, it's slightly different....

Beans27

Interesting reading. My partner and I are not married, have no intention of doing so - we have one child, own our house 50/50, have joint life insurance, joint bank accounts. I currently pay for everything as he is a stay at home dad - but to me that is his job, and if we were to split, everything would be 50/50 down the line.


I appreciate there must be more 'protection' for people getting married, but I'm comfortable in knowing both he and I are rational, sensible adults who could sort ourselves out amicably should it be required

Pixie5740

maman wrote: »

I think the issues arise when children are involved. I don't know a great deal about how that works but can't a non resident parents be expected to support children whether they're married or not?


I suspect that most issues arise when women (and it generally is women) choose to give up work and become a SAHM and want the partner to fund that lifestyle choice. That's not really different to many of the financial issues in divorce

It's not just the maintenance of paying for the children though. The parent who takes on the majority of the child care loses not only on career opportunities but pension contributions.

Yes there are some SAHP who would never have had particularly well paid jobs but I know people who have given up or limited their careers in law, engineering and teaching when children come along. Meanwhile their spouses can continue to develop their careers by being able to work longer hours, go offshore for 2 weeks at a time or increase business travel. A lot of the time it works out fine but sometimes the person who took on the lion's share of the child rearing is left without a pot to !!!! in.

Comms69

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's not just the maintenance of paying for the children though. The parent who takes on the majority of the child care loses not only on career opportunities but pension contributions.

Yes there are some SAHP who would never have had particularly well paid jobs but I know people who have given up or limited their careers in law, engineering and teaching when children come along. Meanwhile their spouses can continue to develop their careers by being able to work longer hours, go offshore for 2 weeks at a time or increase business travel. A lot of the time it works out fine but sometimes the person who took on the lion's share of the child rearing is left without a pot to !!!! in.

Probably should've got married before having kids..

ViolaLass

Gloomendoom wrote: »

There is no official record of how many unmarried couple split up. If it is as high, or higher, than the number of married couples that split up, it would suggest that getting the extra protection that a marriage contract affords would be beneficial, particularly where there are children involved.

Hardly. If that data existed, it would suggest a correlation, which is not causation.

e.g. it might be that the people who get married are also the people who stick at a relationship longer or the relationships where you get married are ones where you've considered the situation more or...

ViolaLass

maman wrote: »

I suspect that most issues arise when women (and it generally is women) choose to give up work and become a SAHM and want the partner to fund that lifestyle choice. That's not really different to many of the financial issues in divorce

Or are pushed to

Or are shown by society that this is the expectation

Or don't realise they really have a choice

Or are with someone who expects this of them/who doesn't want to help much

Or only mean to do it for a few years and then struggle to get back into work that fits around their commitments

Or...

Comms69

ViolaLass wrote: »

Or are pushed to - by who? Surely it's something you discuss BEFORE having a child.

Or are shown by society that this is the expectation - Can you point me in the direction of the big 'society' sign that says this?

Or don't realise they really have a choice - probably aren't capable of looking after a child then!

Or are with someone who expects this of them/who doesn't want to help much - Probably should not be with that person then?

Or only mean to do it for a few years and then struggle to get back into work that fits around their commitments - cruel employers wanting to set work patterns and all that...

Or...

.... Don't have a baby and expect nothing to change?

Pixie5740

Comms69 wrote: »

Probably should've got married before having kids..

Indeed. I was just pointing out that there's more to consider than child maintenance. Considerations that married SAHP have that co-habiting SAHP do not.

Tabbytabitha

Top_Girl wrote: »

Facebook official...

maman wrote: »

I was assuming that some couples are put off by the idea of a traditional wedding and just want the relationship formalised. I was using the analogy that gay couples seemed to think that there was something more involved in marriage when they campaigned for it.


Surely there are ways of making sure neither party is penalised if a couple spilt up. Although DH and I are married if we weren't, we still have wills, separate incomes, separate savings, separate bank accounts, house in joint names etc etc.


I think the issues arise when children are involved. I don't know a great deal about how that works but can't a non resident parents be expected to support children whether they're married or not?


I suspect that most issues arise when women (and it generally is women) choose to give up work and become a SAHM and want the partner to fund that lifestyle choice. That's not really different to many of the financial issues in divorce

Couples aren't " penalised" when they split up, it's just that 2 households are always going to be more expensive to run than one.

Comms69

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Indeed. I was just pointing out that there's more to consider than child maintenance. Considerations that married SAHP have that co-habiting SAHP do not.

Sure I agree.


I don't personally like the idea of marriage, so not advocating that. Just think people should be responsible for their own decisions