The Gazette reported last week that there has been a surge in cohabitiation cases as a result of the recession.Reaching a fair arrangement in terms of custody of children and financial provision is tough enough when a couple is married, but it is all the more complex and difficult when they do not have a marriage certificate. The lack of legal certainty means more scope for disagreement between the parties, and that is both bad for their own state of mind, and that of any kids.
So surely anything that gives more legal certainty to the rules governing assets and children when a couple splits up deserves some consideration?
In our news story, Caroline Falkus, partner and collaborative lawyer at London firm Bross Bennett, called for civil partnerships to be available for heterosexual couples. That prompted immediate remarks in the comment box that heterosexuals do already have this option; it’s called marriage. Indeed, as civil partnerships are (as I understand it) intended to convey all the same rights and rules as marriage, then this does seem a sensible point. But the reality is that there is much more to marriage than simply legal rights.
There are plenty of cohabiting couples out there who would welcome the degree of legal protection and certainty that marriage, as opposed to cohabitation, brings. They want their arrangements to be on a firm legal footing.
But they don’t want to get married.
Getting married is not just about signing a document. I have plenty of friends who have talked about just popping down to the registry office with no big fuss. But somehow it never works out like that.
Every friend I know who has got married, has ended up having the full traditional setup. Not necessarily that fancy, and not always in a church, but there is always a white dress, numerous guests, a big meal, speeches, a honeymoon of some kind, and a hen or stag do beforehand. It is a wonderful occasion of course, but it costs money, and not everyone has the readies to pay for it.
Even friends who were adamant that they weren’t having a big wedding have always somehow ended up being sucked in. You start off small, then it snowballs. You don’t want a big do, but if you don’t invite this uncle or that cousin you might cause offence to that side of the family. Such-and-such won’t know anyone else, so you’d better invite her boyfriend whom you’ve never met. And it seems mean to tell people they can’t bring their kids. Then before you know it you have 60 guests where you only really wanted 10. You weren’t going to bother with flowers on the table, but your mum thinks it will look funny if you don’t. And so on. The average wedding these days is said to cost £20,000, though this must surely be an exaggeration. I hope.
Of course it is not just the money that puts people off being ‘married’ as opposed to entering a civil arrangement. Some people have been married before unhappily, and don’t want to do it again. Some even mark the moment they got married to their previous partner as the point at which it all started to go wrong.
It is true that couples can already help themselves by entering into contractual agreements. I met a mum-of-two last weekend who mentioned that she and her new partner had drawn up a cohabitation agreement. She had previously been through a highly acrimonious divorce, which saw her former husband trying to claim maintenance payments from her as she had been the higher earner, although they did not have any children. As she had been married for less than 10 years he didn’t get very far, but the experience has put her off marriage for life.
But while cohabitation agreements are a sensible option, they are little known. Any introduction of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, on the other hand, would be accompanied by a wave of publicity – both good and bad – that would mean everyone was aware of it as an option. It would also be seen by many couples as a positive step to take together, rather than drawing up a cohabitation agreement that essentially outlines how things will be handled if and when the relationship turns sour.
One big concern over heterosexual civil partnerships is the fear that they could undermine marriage. Would this be the case? It would almost certainly reduce the number of marriages. But in a sense, I think it could heighten the status of marriage itself. As people could obtain the same tax and financial benefits through a civil partnership, those who chose marriage would be taking an extra step. And that would be making a statement that their union was about more than just practical matters.
No comments yet