Myth of common law marriage still strong

[snopes]

Just over half the population still think that common law marriage exists in law, according to a British Social Attitudes survey. 51% of those surveyed believe that cohabiting couples are protected by 'common law marriage'.

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/library.asp?i=3390

[BringTheNoise]

Hmmm. I wish I had my family law textbooks to hand, because we were certainly taught SOMETHING about common law marriage offering limited protection in certain circumstances (IIRC, it related to the death of a "spouse").

[Andrew of Ware]

Count me as another one who thought 'Common Law Marriages' meant something legally. I am sure I have heard television reports where a common law 'wife' gets maintenance for children when she splits from her 'husband'.

In Canada, common-law spouses (defined as those who have lived in a marriage-like relationship for two years) have all the same rights and responsibilities as those more formally hitched.

[tribrats]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

Hmmm. I wish I had my family law textbooks to hand, because we were certainly taught SOMETHING about common law marriage offering limited protection in certain circumstances (IIRC, it related to the death of a "spouse").

Not in New Hampshire! When step-Dad died his greedy, ***hole kids went so far as to try and take the house that Mom bought. His daughter loved Mom's bedroom set so much she tried to claim it belonged to her father before he moved in with Mom. Thank goodness we had pics that had the bed in it from when Sis and I were little!

Didn't matter that Mom and step-Dad lived together for almost 10 years. The judge ruled in the kids favor on many things (including the van that was in both my Mom and step-Dad's name) and it still pisses me off that they still ended up getting some stuff that had been in my family for generations. Just because we couldn't prove they had been.

At least I can be happy in the knowledge that someday they will get what they deserve. They make a habit of lying and cheating people. Someday that is going to come back to bite them bad.

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

Count me as another one who thought 'Common Law Marriages' meant something legally. I am sure I have heard television reports where a common law 'wife' gets maintenance for children when she splits from her 'husband'.

Maintenance for the children is a completely separate legal matter, unrelated to marriage. (g)You would still be liable for (g)your children, even if they resulted from a one night stand.

Originally Posted by tribrats

Not in New Hampshire!

In the United States, common-law marriages are determined state-by-state.

Pogue

[tribrats]

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

In the United States, common-law marriages are determined state-by-state.

Pogue

That was the point, they aren't recognized in New Hampshire.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by Grendel

In Canada, common-law spouses (defined as those who have lived in a marriage-like relationship for two years) have all the same rights and responsibilities as those more formally hitched.

Two years in some provinces, three in others. One year federally.

[Lawgiver]

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

In the United States, common-law marriages are determined state-by-state.

Pogue

Here is a list of the states. I remember trying to convince a friend of mine it wasn't recognized in Tennessee. She never believed me.http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/2...8/304/192/FAQ/

[tribrats]

Originally Posted by Lawgiver

Here is a list of the states. I remember trying to convince a friend of mine it wasn't recognized in Tennessee. She never believed me.httphttwww.nolo.com.article.cfm.cfm/pobjectIdc709FAEE4AABEAA4E174BA34836388313A3C3catI da697DBAFEB20FF2467A49E9395985EE7E825E825/118/304/192/FAQ/

From the link:

New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)

They should add that it's only if not challenged by deceased's blood family or ex spouse.

[Not_Done_Living]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

Maintenance for the children is a completely separate legal matter, unrelated to marriage. (g)You would still be liable for (g)your children, even if they resulted from a one night stand.

Actually, in Canada you can be required to pay child support for your one month girlfriends kids IF they think of you as "dad".

It has been documented that more then one woman is collecting full child support from more then one man for the same child.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

Actually, in Canada you can be required to pay child support for your one month girlfriends kids IF they think of you as "dad".

Are there any actual cases of someone having to pay child support for "one month girlfriends' kids"?

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

It has been documented that more then one woman is collecting full child support from more then one man for the same child.

Please supply such documentation, please.

Pogue

[moonfall]

Not only does Florida not allow common-law marriage, cohabiting is still technically illegal. The law is never enforced, but some lawmakers feel like repealing the law would be "sending the wrong message." Is it "cohabitation" if you have an unmarried, unrelated male and female living together if they aren't in a sexual relationship? I know plenty of people who share apartments (but not bedrooms) with opposite-sex roommates.

Despite the fact they never married, I sometimes refer to my father's now-deceased girlfriend as my stepmother, both because we were close and because they'd been unofficially engaged for a number of years.

[llewtrah]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

Hmmm. I wish I had my family law textbooks to hand, because we were certainly taught SOMETHING about common law marriage offering limited protection in certain circumstances (IIRC, it related to the death of a "spouse").

Common-law does mean something in Scotland (it gives a live-in partner some property rights e.g. right to remain in the jointly occupied home), but not in England or Wales (there's no such thing as "British" Law; Scotland has a separate legal system). Otherwise it is just a term used to describe a living arrangement and to suggest something more formal/stable than bf/gf.

Most things covered by marriages can be covered by other contracts: house deeds, mortgage (or tenancy contract) etc. Child maintenance can be pursued regardless of marital or live-in status. Household possessions belong to whoever bought them. A "common-law" partner has no claims on the other partners savings (held in sole name) if the couple split.

However ..... some authorities will consider common-law partners as married couples ... but only when it means they can pay out less or claim more from the couple! A friend lost her widow's pension because she had a live-in b/f (they got married in order to get the married person's tax allowance to offset the loss of her widow's pension).

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by llewtrah

However ..... some authorities will consider common-law partners as married couples ... but only when it means they can pay out less or claim more from the couple! A friend lost her widow's pension because she had a live-in b/f (they got married in order to get the married person's tax allowance to offset the loss of her widow's pension).

In my line of work live-in partners aren't exactly equivalent to married people (and those with civil partnerships). They get the same benefits but have to apply for them, they aren't automatic.

And widow(er)s keep their widow(er)'s pensions even if they remarry.

[dlloyd1]

Originally Posted by llewtrah

Common-law does mean something in Scotland (it gives a live-in partner some property rights e.g. right to remain in the jointly occupied home), but not in England or Wales (there's no such thing as "British" Law; Scotland has a separate legal system). Otherwise it is just a term used to describe a living arrangement and to suggest something more formal/stable than bf/gf.

There used to be a form of common-law marriage in Scotland, but it's been abolished.

Until recently in Scotland, there was a form of common law marriage called 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute'. The theory behind this law was that if a man and woman cohabited as husband and wife in Scotland for sufficient time and were generally held and reputed to be husband and wife and were free to marry each other, they would be presumed to have consented to marry each other and if this presumption was not overturned, they would be considered to be legally married. This form of common law marriage has now been abolished by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 which comes into force on 4 May 2006.

While they are still recognised somewhat for pensions purposes, you have to go to great lengths to prove you were married by habit and repute.

[my2pence]

Originally Posted by Lawgiver

Here is a list of the states. I remember trying to convince a friend of mine it wasn't recognized in Tennessee. She never believed me.http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/2...8/304/192/FAQ/

*Hijack* I love the nolo website. Lots of good, accessible information on a variety of legal topics. *end hijack*

[llewtrah]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

Are there any actual cases of someone having to pay child support for "one month girlfriends' kids"?

I'm pretty certain there are, but getting info is hard because of data privacy laws.

Basically, if the mother puts a guy's name down as the father on the birth certificate the Child Support Agency will go after that guy for payments - whether he's a 1 month or a 1 night b/f! There have been cases where a guy has had to prove he is not the father and has had no sexual contact with the woman who named him as father. I recall one case from quite a few years back where the man named as the father was gay and had never had sex with any woman in his life, but it took him a long while to get the Child Support Agency off his back. Other cases have caused problems where the named person was married to someone else and had not been unfaithful. Such cases abounded (at least in newspapers) in the early years of the CSA when they were accused of being heavy-handed.

The CSA can deduct payments from the guy's salary. I believe the mother can face penalties if she refuses to name the father (obviously she won't face penalties if she genuinely doesn't know the father e.g. a rape victim who does not seek abortion).

When faced with the prospect of paying child support after a one-night stand (or "one-month" g/f as you mentioned) it is sensible for a guy to request a paternity test.