Money and Myths: attitudes to financial settlements for separating cohabitants

Money and Myths: attitudes to financial settlements for separating cohabitants Anne Barlow University of Exeter

Background to project • Funded by Nuffield Foundation – BSA survey 2006 + follow up purposive study • Revisits some issues raised by 2000 research • Considers attitudes to legal position of cohabitants • Provides background against which Law reform can be considered

Common law marriage myth • Common law marriage myth confirmed in BSA 2000 persists – 51% of people and 53% of cohabitants believe it (down from 56% and 59% in 2000) • No real inroad into those who correctly do not believe – 38% - although among cohabitants this has increased from 35 to 39% since 2000 • Those who are unsure has grown from 6 to 10%

Common law marriage myth • Common law marriage myth persists – 51% of people and 53% of cohabitants believe it (down from 56% and 59% in 2000) • No real inroad into those who correctly do not believe – 38% - although among cohabitants this has increased from 35 to 39% since 2000 • Those who are unsure has grown from 6 to 10%

Belief in a “common law” marriage, giving cohabitants the same rights as married couples

Scenario Questions • Focused on changing attitudes to remedies on relationship breakdown or death under consideration by the Law Commission • 10 scenarios explored how meritorious a partner’s claim for financial support was viewed • We examined views in both phases of the study (BSA and follow up study) and in the marriage and cohabitation contexts

Scenario Questions • We aimed to see how views changed according to variables such as - • the presence or absence of children, • whether the parties were married, • the length of the relationship and • financial and domestic contributions to the relationship • the circumstances leading to the claim for financial provision.

Changes over time? • A range of scenarios presented to respondents. Only one identical to BSA 2000 survey - • Imagine an unmarried couple with no children who have been living together for 10 years. Say their relationship ends. Do you think the woman should or should not have the same rights to claim for financial support from the man as she would if they had been married?

Whether woman should have same claim for financial support as if she had been married

Whether cohabitant should have right to financial provision when relationship ends 2006 • Scenarios • 1. 20 years, 2 children, woman gave up work to look after home/family, man supported financially and owns home • 2. 10 years, no children, one partner worked unpaid to build up other’s business, has no property/income of own • 3. 10 years, no children, one partner had well paid job requiring frequent moves, other lower paid without settled career • 4. 2 years, no children, one partner had much higher income / owns home

% agree partner should have right for financial provision

Short relationship + child? • couple living together for two years with young child and now separating. She will be child’s main carer and he will pay child support • Same rights to claim for financial support as if they had been married?

% agreeing right to financial provision after 2 years

Short relationship, no child + death of partner • Imagine an unmarried couple without children who have been living together for two years in a house bought in the man’s name three years ago, before their relationship began. Say the man died without making a will. Do you think the woman should or should not have the same financial rights regarding his property as she would if she had been married to the man?

% agreeing childless cohabitants should have same inheritance rights as married couples

Short childless relationships • The follow-up study reflected a range of views but the majority view was that 2 year childless cohabitations should not be followed by financial claims on breakdown • Men and women agreed in roughly equal numbers on this • Short marriages were viewed similarly by some -

Short childless relationships • Noreen, 30s cohabiting with 1 child felt even though they were married – • …there’s no children involved, why should one person be responsible for supporting you financially?

Longer childless relationship + sacrifice • Where the couple had been together for 10 years and one had moved around to facilitate the other’s career, most respondents were in favour of financial provision, but not all – • Euan, 20s cohabiting for 7 years, earning less than partner remarked- • Well I mean they didn’t have to follow them round all the time, did they?

Longer childless relationship + sacrifice • And Saul, 30s recently married, no children- • They should both have the freedom to walk away • Most who thought this way were younger men • Ruth, in her 30s and a cohabitant with 3 children, saw it differently – • Because in a partnership people make compromises and quite often it’s the woman that makes compromises and that’s part of the deal. If it then turns sour…they shouldn’t be penalised because they’ve made sacrifices

Longer childless relationship + ‘joint enterprise’ contribution • Where the couple had been together for 10 years and one had worked unpaid in the other’s business, all but one of the respondents were in favour of financial provision. People felt on balance this claim was more meritorious than merely sacrificing a career but it was close and both represented commitment – • Paul (late 20s, long term cohabitant, no children) • I mean, they’ve actually done the commitmentdevoted their life to that other person

Longer childless relationship + ‘joint enterprise’ contribution • Harriet, 50s, former cohabitant, no children - • It think the second one has a slightly stronger claim, but I think they’re similar issues…Let’s face it, it’s nearly always the male who has…and that’s what happens. That’s what women do…is make sacrifices for their children or their partner. Yes, I do actually think there should be some way of recognising this

Key Findings • Clear majority view that short cohabitations (2 years) with no children should not lead to financial remedies on separation – fits with Law Commission view • Little appetite for the law to distinguish between financial remedies for married and cohabiting couples (of 2 years+) on death of a partner – in contrast to Law Commission view

Key findings • Whilst the concept of relationship-generated disadvantage was a reason to provide financial provision, our study found far less support for the law to distinguish between financial remedies for separating married and cohabiting couples where • relationship long term or • there are children of relationship or • there is evidence of joint enterprise contributions e.g. to business

Key findings • Views change across the generations • Difficult to know for certain if this is a periodic or generational effect • Younger people without children tend to more readily endorse financial autonomy • Most people are very child-centred in their thinking • Those who are older or with more than one child tend to favour more equal recognition of financial and non-financial contributions

Money and Myths: attitudes to financial settlements for separating cohabitants