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

5651

37 37

610

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

Agree Disagree Don't know

2000 2006

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 relationshipthe 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

61 62

37 35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%

Should have same claim Should not have sameclaim

2000 2006

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

89 8793

69

81

38

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

Scenario1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

cohabiting married

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 supportSame rights to claim for financial

support as if they had been married?

% agreeing right to financial provision after 2 years

74

62

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

%

cohab + child married no child cohab no child

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

, 66

, 93

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

same rights after 2 years in 2006

same rights after 10 years in 2000

Beliefs regarding rights to financial provision on separation for married and unmarried couples

N/A

3197

74

3197

…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.Base

6238… couple for two years, one has a much higher income than the other and owns the family home.

8169… couple for ten years, one partner has well-paid job requiring frequent moves, other partner has worked where possible but has not had a settled career.

9387

… couple for ten years, no children, one partner worked unpaid to build up other partner’s business, partner who runs business also owns family home, other partner has no property or income of own.

NA89… couple living together for 20 years, 3 children, woman reduced work to part-time and then gave up work to look after family and home, man supported family financially and owns home, woman has no income and poor job prospects

If couple married

If couple not married

% agree partner should have right to financial provision on separation if …

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 commitment

devoted 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