if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
Partners to get marriage-style financial rights
Change of law would allow claims for property and pensions on separation
Unmarried couples who split up will be given the right to make divorce-style claims for financial support from their partners, under final recommendations unveiled today.
The Law Commission has concluded that couples with children, or those who have been living together for a minimum period – they suggest between two and five years – should be able to seek most of the same financial remedies as people going through a divorce.
Partners would be able to claim lump sums, the right to live in the family home and possibly a share of their partner’s pension, under the new rights recommended by the independent body which advises the government on law reform.
at the risk of alienating my co-habitating friends, i’m not sure i agree with this.
let me state upfront that i’m in full support of couples who elect not to marry or become civil partners (an option here in the uk for couples of any gender pairing), for *whatever* reason – whether that be because they neither need nor want the state to “legitimise” their relationship, whether that be because they don’t believe humans are naturally monogamous creatures, whether they’re of the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” camp…. whatever the reason, it’s cool with me. i’m married and will absolutely agree that it’s not for everyone.
i do, however, think this is one of those instances where you can’t expect to have your cake and eat it too. if you choose not to have the government involved in the beginning of your relationship, why should the government then be required to get involved at the end? one of the more obvious practical reasons that people choose to get married or become civil partners, is because it offers them both legal advantages and protections – along with a concomitant level of risk should they split. and while i don’t believe this new proposal in any way serves to undermine the “institution of marriage”, i do think that co-habitating couples who’ve decided not to get married or civilly partnered, do so knowing that they then take on a whole different set of risks – one of which is an understood lack of available avenues of recourse if the relationship should fail.
and from a different perspective: if you have *deliberately opted out* of the available legally binding commitments, should you then be able to be held by law to the same level of financial entanglements?
i’m also not entirely sure that it’s a particularly needed intervention anyway. this seems to me to be a case of inventing a solution where no problem exists. almost all aspects of the breakup of co-habitating couples are already covered under existing provisions. if children are involved, then financial responsibility for their care is already established via any custodial or paternity proceedings. if arguments over furniture or belongings are involved, that can be dealt with through the claims courts. disputes over money are easily attributed to whomever is legally responsible – if you’ve combined your finances, each person listed on the deeds and bills and bank accounts is entitled to half the savings AND half the debt. the same as if you were flatmates, or sisters or any other pair of people who chose to make a mutual financial commitment.
in the end analysis, it’s all about a delicate balance of risks, responsibilities and rewards – each couple has to decide what kind of balance is right for them. but given the number of relationships that end badly, i’m not sure it’s the job of the government to try to protect adults from the unfortunate consequences of a failure of trust. it sure as hell can’t protect them from the heartache.