What do we think?

[Marmora Man]

Unmarried couples who split up should have the right to claim financial support from their former partners, under new recommendations.

The Law Commission has concluded that cohabiting couples with children or those who have lived together for a minimum period should have more protection if the relationship ends.

This recommendation seems to me to be potentially another unnecessary imposition of rules and regulations. If two people freely enter into a relationship and decide not to take up the shackles of marriage it's up to them. From what I have read about this proposal such couples will, in the future, have to sign up to some form of semi formal recognition of their relationship - which given even average government bureaucracy will probably be more onerous than a wedding certificate. I therefore oppose the introduction of any such legislation on the grounds it restricts freedom of choice.

However, I'm sure there are other views!

[Keef]

I want to say that it's all a load of bollocks, but what if.

He had bought the house with a previous partner, she'd been basically paying the mortgage whilst they'd been together, and now they've split he's still in his house and she's got nothing....

Guess she should have put her name on the mortgage, but there you go.

I kind of think that married or not, if there are no kids involved, both parties should go their own way, split the home / belongings, and have done.

[LostThePlot]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unmarried couples who split up should have the

> right to claim financial support from their former

> partners, under new recommendations.

Do we presume this means the man having to support the woman, irrespective of the circumstances that lead to the split?

I have two friends, both of whom cheated on their husbands, and both of whom are now being awarded money for troubles, one even though she is now living with someone.

Yes, I am sure there are some very deserving cases for payments to be made, but from my experiences with friends and aquaintences the whole divorce thing, and payments thereafter seems is very biased towards looking after the women.

Must add I'm not wanting to start a sex war here!

Also agree with Keef's last comment

[Brendan]

Another blatant imposition of state control over the individual, shrouded in the guise of protecting the vulnerable.

Viva la revolution!

[SeanMacGabhann]

I tend to agree with you on this one - but I am not fully-informed enough so am open to argument

The marriage thing (or not) I'm not too bothered about - regardless of status, when 2 people have a relationship and it doesn't work out then it's hard enough anyway without legalese getting involved

The big BUT you saw coming, is when kids are involved. Then it stops being 2 people sharing a period of time and becomes something where sarcrificed get made along the way (be it job, money, time) and when the break-up happens one of the 2 people can find themselved left stranded. Saying they entered freely into it isn't a big help because if everyone worried about the implications then no-one would bother. So at this point I think that, again regardless of marital status, some kind of deal needs to be reached

[SeanMacGabhann]

3 posts by the time I finished blathering - and all I did was agree with Keefs last sentence..

[Marmora Man]

Agree divorce - or whatever it might be called if an unmarried partnership breaks up is always painful but the more so if children involved. However, the moment new rules start to be written to cover the situation they will fail. Relationships are messy.

Set a two year qualifying period for the new rights - how do you measure the start - the first date, the first coffee, the first overnight stay? Or the end - when you slammed the door, only to return three days later for clothes & books, or when yoiu finally split up that collection of CD and kitchen paraphanalia? What if it "ends" at one year and 51 weeks - surely that's almost two years and should qualify for rights.

Leave such couples well alone to do their own thing. Even with children it's probably best to avoid lawyers if at all possible and settle not out of court but before court.

[DaveR]

If you get married you accept certain legal consequences regarding property etc. - you may not agree with how they are applied, but it's a free choice. If you don't, but you want to ensure that your rights are protected in the event of a split, it's up to you to make arrangements - it shouldn't happen automatically. I do agree that people should be encouraged to think about it - if you see a lawyer for 1/2 hour and sign a basic agreement at the start, you hopefully won't have to see lawyers again, let alone a court room.

[citizenED]

Tend to think that the comments so far are looking at this from the position of a man and woman of roughly equal education, career, prospects, social standing etc. Thats all well and good and in fact I suspect that many people in this postion would agree. You know,"shame, it never worked out but these things happen - lets be adult about this and do a fair split"

The situation gets way more complicated when kids are involoved, as people have already mentioned, and when people have complex lives - ie on the social, abusive childhoods, delicate psychological states etc. These people, I would maintain, don't choose relationships, they fall into them. So much of this is to do with protecting vulnerable people's basic rights. I suspect it is also to strengthen the protection of women, and crucially, children. Government cannot simply legislate for sections of the society it has to do it for the whole of society. Obviously laws like this are not to assist people who are well-off, and will continue to be well-off, to stay well-off - they are for vulnerable people who, when a relationship breaks down are currently left completely f**ked.

citizen

[SeanMacGabhann]

As ever Citizen, some good insight there

[Marmora Man]

CitizenED - I agree the vulnerable get a hard time at present but there must be better ways of helping than yet another raft of legislation, bureaucracy and government employees. Remember the Child Support Agency that was going to ensure absent Dads paid toward the costs of raising their child? Cost the country a fortune, added very little value to the average single mother's income and has been continually embarassed by IT and organisational cock ups.

Unfortunately the people you describe are unlikely to have the opportunity / desire / knowledge to obtain the necessary bits of paper / evidence to support claims. Decent social services, citizen's advice and other existing agencies would, and do, do more for them than some "nearly marriage" rights that will require recourse to the courst to obtain.