LIVE WARNING

I appeared as a guest on BBC Radio Tees this morning, ready to voice my opinions on the news stories of the day. Of course the mid morning hosts, Neil and Diane, came up with a celebrity linked family law story and I found myself being asked about the recent split of Leona Lewis and her longstanding boyfriend Lou Al-Chamaa. It seems he is demanding a £1.5million payout for helping her to become famous and believes that as a common law husband he is so entitled.

Of course, I don’t know the full facts of that particular case but it was a great opportunity to re-iterate once again that couples who live together rather than marry, potentially have no rights whatsoever against their partner when they split up. Common law marriage remains a myth in English law.

IS EQUALITY FAIR?

Last week we received a lesson in British justice or maybe in the lack of it. We know that there is a well perpetuated myth that if you live together long enough you have the same rights as married couples on separation. It is only a myth and quite simply isn’t true.

Have we ever considered, however, what happens when you live apart long enough; 15 years (to the commencement of proceedings) to be exact? During that period and since the only person living in the still jointly owned home, paid the mortgage on it as well as all the other running costs and didn’t even claim maintenance from her former partner and co-owner for their children.

Now most right minded people, including the first two judges who heard the initial case and original appeal, might think that after what is now 17 years of paying the mortgage and other outgoings, the former cohabitant would be able to lay claim to a larger share of the equity in the home than their former partner who contributed nothing during that time. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Our law is clear, if unsatisfactory. At the time of the separation the parties had equal interests in the property. Nothing happened to displace those interests and the passage of time alone was insufficient to do so. Unlike in divorce proceedings there is no discretion on the part of the court to vary ownership of a jointly held property.

I can’t help thinking that the claimant in this case would have done better to have rented a Council property for 15 years and then exercised her right to buy at a discount.

MARRIED OR NOT?

After hearing evidence and watching the DVD of the wedding of Gillian Hudson and Robert Leigh in South Africa, Mr Justice Bodey sitting in the High Court commented that it was a splendid and romantic ceremony. Apparently it took place on a rooftop complete with priest, full wedding trousseau, well dressed guests and the sea as a perfect backdrop. The Judge however ruled last week that nevertheless the couple were not married.

It seems that, sense of occasion apart, the couple, who had also intended to have a civil ceremony in Chiswick Register Office, separated before they could get there and the format of the ceremony they undertook was insufficient for the court to determine the existence of a valid contract of marriage. Unfortunately for Miss Hudson that means that she cannot divorce Mr Leigh and her financial claims against him are now essentially limited to support for their child and not for her.

Weddings have changed greatly over recent years with many no longer held in church but at non-traditional venues such as hotels, stately homes and even football pitches. This trend for personalising weddings has been fuelled by TV shows, such as “Gavin and Stacey”, where, as part of the ceremony, characters have quoted their own declarations of love to demonstrate the depth of their feelings.

In olden times it was accepted that jumping over the broom together was sufficient to form a common-law marriage. In England today all marriages must conform to statute law and the idea of a common law marriage is a myth. You can jump over the broom with whomever you choose, in as many romantic settings as you want but, at the end of the day if the necessary formalities are not complied with, you remain unmarried in law.

Furthermore if you are not married and your relationship breaks down, financial claims are severely limited, if not non-existent. That’s why Resolution continues to campaign for a change in the law in this area

LAW ON COUPLES OUT OF STEP WITH MODERN FAMILIES

Resolution is backing calls to bring family law into line with the needs of modern families and is supporting leading lawmaker Lord Lester’s Bill on cohabitation, which is debated in Parliament today. Lord Lester’s Cohabitation Bill aims to ensure that both cohabitants are treated fairly when they split up and to provide a safety net for vulnerable people. It gives legal rights to cohabitants who have shown commitment to each other without undermining marriage or civil partnership or freedom of choice. The Cohabitation Bill represents the third time in a decade that Lord Lester has stepped in to modernise family law. His Civil Partnership Bill 2002 was the predecessor to the government’s Civil Partnership Act 2004, and his Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill was passed into law with the support of the Government in 2007.

Family law on cohabitation is completely out of step with modern family life. Cohabitation is the fastest growing family type in the UK and marriage rates are plummeting. But couples who live together have no legal protection, regardless of the length of their relationship or whether they have children together.
Despite this, over fifty percent of people still falsely believe cohabitants are protected by ‘common law marriage’. It’s a disgrace in modern times that families across the country are still left at risk of serious financial hardship if the relationship ends or if a partner dies.

Lord Lester’s Cohabitation Bill, which will be debated in the House of Lords today, aims to give legal rights to cohabitants who have been living together for at least two years, or who have a child together. Couples will have the right to opt out of the scheme if they choose to.

Despite widespread popular support for reform, with almost nine out of ten people backing the right for cohabitants to make financial claims on the breakdown of a relationship or death of a partner, progress on this issue has been slow in Parliament. Now Lord Lester’s Bill will bring hope to millions of cohabitants across the country.

Lord Lester has said: “My Bill represents a new opportunity to deal effectively with this issue, and I am hopeful that the government and parliament will support it to prevent more and more people and their children from being faced with poverty and hardship in these troubling economic times.”

Families come in all shapes and sizes. At a time of recession, families need financial security through laws that protect them, whether they have opted for marriage or not.

CONSERVATIVE POLICY

The Conservative Party risks getting its policy on cohabiting couples badly wrong, judging by the proposals on family law announced this week by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith. Denying legal protection to couples who live together, however, is no way to strengthen the institution of marriage. The fact is that governments have a responsibility to make law based on society as it actually is, and the number of couples living together in the UK continues to increase. Governments should also ensure legal protection for the vulnerable.

Members of Resolution regularly see the injustice suffered when the relationships of cohabiting couples break down. Even after decades together, many people find themselves homeless and facing real financial hardship. This is fuelled by a widely-held misconception that cohabiting couples have “common law” rights combined with existing law that is unclear and inadequate.

That’s why Resolution wants a new law to protect cohabiting couples and hopes that the Government will support Lord Lester’s ‘Cohabitation Bill’ which he will be introducing in the Lords in December, aimed at giving rights to couples who live together.

LIVING TOGETHER INJUSTICE

Resolution is joining forces with one of Britain’s top law makers to introduce a Bill in the House of Lords this autumn. Resolution is supporting the Bill as part of a new campaign to end the injustice and financial hardship faced by thousands of cohabiting couples, carers and siblings who live together. The Bill to give rights to couples who live together will be introduced by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, a veteran human rights lawyer who successfully introduced the Forced Marriages Bill and was instrumental in developing the recent Civil Partnership Act.

It is a scandal in modern Britain that existing law does almost nothing to prevent people from losing their home or sliding into poverty if their relationship breaks down or their partner dies. Sensibly drafted legislation is urgently needed to tackle the vulnerability not only of unmarried cohabiting couples and their children but also co- dependent carers and siblings who live together.

The Bill’s introduction is part of a new “Living Together” campaign, launched by Resolution and Lord Lester’s Odysseus Trust.

Joyce and Sybil Burden, the elderly sisters who took their 30-year fight to protect their home from inheritance tax right up to the European Court of Human Rights, have added their support to the campaign: “We have always tried to secure each other’s future after the death of one, but have found it impossible under this system. It was a bitter disappointment to lose our case at the European Court. We do hope you can help us, as after all these years, we are getting quite past it for ourselves.”

One in six couples in the UK co-habit and do not marry according to the Office of National Statistics and this is predicted to rise to one in four by 2031. More than half of cohabitants (53%) still falsely believe in the existence of Common Law marriage. However, the Government has decided to postpone action on recent Law Commission proposals to reform cohabitation law pending research into the cost and benefits of reforms introduced in Scotland.

Lord Lester says that Britain’s more than two million cohabiting couples and co-dependents should not be made to wait any longer for justice: "The Government's proposed research won’t even begin until 2010 and if cost was the issue, one has to ask why the Government specifically excluded research on cost from the Law Commission’s original brief. Many other countries, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand already have protection for cohabiting couples. It is high time that Britain had a family legal system fit for the 21st century.”

The Government’s timid response also flies in the face of growing popular support for reform. Findings from the British Social Attitudes Survey, published earlier this year, show that almost nine out of ten people think that a cohabiting partner should have a right to financial provision if their relationship is a long-term one, has involved prioritising one partner’s career or includes children.

The campaign will also look at ways to extend protection to those who cannot marry but nevertheless live together in a co-dependent way. For example, it would cover siblings such as the Burden sisters, elderly parents and children who live with them and care for them.

The Bill would protect the vulnerable without equating living together to marriage or civil partnership in every way. For example, the Bill would apply only to people living in the same household for a minimum period of time in which the parties have provided a financial or other commitment to each other.

To protect freedom of choice, couples who wish to do so could “opt out” of the scheme provided legal advice is sought by both parties to protect the vulnerable.

COHABITATION LAW REFORM - DELAY MEANS FURTHER INJUSTICES

The Government’s announcement yesterday that it will delay acting on the Law Commission’s proposals for the introduction of legal protection for couples who live together, means continued distress and hardship when their relationships end.

Findings from the British Social Attitudes Survey published by the National Centre for Social Research in January 2008 back the case for urgent reform of the law.

“The government is seriously out of step with public opinion on this issue if it does not act now. The British Social Attitudes Survey revealed that nine out of ten people think that a cohabiting partner should have a right to financial provision if their relationship is a long-term one, includes children and has involved prioritising one partner’s career over the other’s,” said Jane Craig, a member of Resolution’s Cohabitation Committee.

“The present law creates real injustice for many people. Our members frequently see people who face financial hardship and even homelessness as a result of the current law. Any further delay inevitably means further injustice for some people,” said Jane Craig.

The British Social Attitudes Survey revealed widespread confusion over what protection couples that live together have under the law, with 51 per cent of people still believing that cohabiting couples have rights as “common law” spouses – but no such right exists.

A government-funded awareness campaign in 2004 clearly failed to get the message across sufficiently that living together does not provide cohabiting couples with financial rights if their relationship ends, even if they have lived together for many years and have had children together. Instead, these couples face increased insecurity and distress at the time of relationship break up.

At the request of the Government the Law Commission consulted widely on this issue and its proposals for legal reform were published on 31 July 2007.

“The Government must and should act now to ensure an end to the injustices and vulnerability created by the present law,” said Jane Craig.

COHABITATION - LAW REFORM

Findings from the British Social Attitudes report published on Wednesday by the National Centre for Social Research back the case for urgent reform of the law affecting couples who live together. The new report revealed widespread confusion over what protection live together couples have under the law, with 51 percent of people believing that cohabiting couples have rights as “common law” spouses – but no such rights exist.

A government-funded awareness campaign in 2004 has clearly failed to get the message across that living together does not provide cohabiting couples with financial rights if their relationship ends, even if they have lived together for many years and have had children together. Instead, these couples face increased insecurity and distress at the time of break up.

Resolution has been calling for a new law to protect cohabiting couples since 2000. Its members, including myself, regularly witness the injustices created by the current situation, including financial hardship and even homelessness.

On a more positive note, the report found that nine in ten people think that a cohabiting partner should have a right to financial provision if their relationship is a long-term one, includes children and has involved prioritising one partner’s career over the other’s.

Resolution very much hopes that the Government is listening and urges it to commit itself to reform that will provide cohabiting couples with a legal safety net.

FALLING DIVORCE RATE

Figures published last week by the Office for National Statistics show provisional divorce rates in England and Wales at their lowest for 22 years. The figures show a drop in divorces to 12.2 per thousand married men and women, a fall of 7% compared to the 2005 figure of 13.1 per thousand.

According to Resolution, the figures highlight several key issues:

1. The need for cohabitation law reform

The downward trend in divorce rates mirrors falling marriage rates, which are currently at an all-time low and can be attributed - at least in part - to the growing number of people who are choosing to live together and not marry. The number of cohabiting couples in the UK is expected to rise from 2 million to 3.8 million by 2030, and at present six out of ten cohabiting couples believe they have the same rights as married people on separation.

The reality is very different. The present law provides no protection for couples that live together.

The uncertainty and lack of clarity cohabiting couples face means increased insecurity and distress at the time of break up, as well as injustice and high legal costs if couples go to court to resolve their differences. The costs involved in sorting out property rights of cohabiting couples can often exceed those of a fully contested divorce - precisely because there is so little clarity.

Resolution welcomed the recent Law Commission proposals for reforming cohabitation law, and is now pressing the government to move forward and introduce new legislation without delay.

2. The case for a ‘no fault’ divorce system

The figures refer to husbands’ ‘behaviour’ being cited in 54% of divorce cases and wives’ in 32%.This highlights the current fault-based divorce system, which we are keen to move away from. Currently, to divorce, couples need to give a reason for the marriage split. Often they cite “unreasonable behaviour” or adultery to speed up the process, but this can lead to bitter battles. In so many cases, it is impossible to say who is most to blame when a relationship ends.

Resolution would like to see a no-fault system, which gives couples the chance to look forward, rather than back, and agree best how to co-parent the children and how fairly to sort out the finances.

3. The importance of putting children first

The figures show that whilst divorce rates are falling, there are still 125,000 children caught up this difficult and highly emotional process. It’s vital that separating parents put children first. They may no longer be part of a couple, but they will always be a parent.

Alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation and collaborative law are becoming more and more popular. Resolution members aim to minimise the pain of separation and divorce and we are keen to explore options where couples can sit down with their own solicitors, all together in the same room, to work out resolutions, face-to-face. This makes for a more civilised divorce process, giving couples and families a better chance of rebuilding their lives.

HOLIDAYMAKER RETURNS

Back from the slow pace of Mediterranean life I have been plummeted into what feels like the inside of a food processor, with only a feeble overgrilled body and a malfunctioning brain stuck in holiday-mode to help me cope.

Needless to say, I’m suffering from a cold (an allergy to my return to the UK no doubt) and my To Do List, before I even peep in the office, includes: chauffeuring Apprentice and Outdoor Men to a marina 50 miles away; taking the guinea pig to have its claws trimmed; arranging for the boiler to be serviced; tidying the house so the cleaner can get in; washing all our holiday clothes; reading the mountain of junk mail that’s been pushed through the letterbox; unravelling my vegetable patch from beneath a mountain of weeds; restocking the fridge; telephoning everyone to catch up with everything, whilst returning all the messages left on the answerphone. As for after lunch…

If the aftermath of a holiday is so stressful, imagine what the fall-out from divorce or separation must feel like!

Whilst I’ve been away I see that the Law Commission has left it until peak holiday season to publish its report entitled “Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown”. Resolution has long been campaigning for the introduction of new laws which would apply to couples who have been living together for two years or more, unless there are children, when there should be no minimum period. As the Law Commission’s Report acknowledges, cohabitation outside of marriage has become increasingly prevalent in England & Wales over recent decades and is expected to become more prevalent in the future. Shame then that Parliament has failed for so long to pass legislation to alleviate the suffering caused when unmarried families break up and how many more decades will it take to act on the Commission’s recommendations?

MOVING IN TOGETHER

The new motor moved in last night. Totally refined, grey, suave and sophisticated. That’s not quite how the sales literature described it but car manufacturers either lack imagination or else don’t write their brochures for middle-aged women.
It arrived complete with a bouquet of flowers on its front seat; this car certainly knows how to treat a girl. It also came with an array of gadgets which I’m sure I’ll be making use of before long.
I confess, and I giggle at the memory, to being locked in a lengthy embrace with its steering wheel immediately we got the opportunity to be alone together.
It has taken up residence in my garage as if it has always belonged there. A little different to what I’ve been used to over the past few years, but we’re working hard at getting our commitment just right. I was a bit peeved that I had to rearrange a few things to accommodate it in a way that suited us both, but we overcame that hurdle with acceptance on my part. After all I was too excited by its arrival to let a few plant pots and garden tools get in the way of the potential for a fulfilling relationship. I just know we’re going to have a long and happy time together.
Please wish us luck.

For the next instalment go to one-good-turn-deserves-another.