It is a disgrace. 29 years ago both my partner and I went through a horrid divorce, and because of this we put the children first and decided not to marry so as not to upset them. We did get engaged though so the intention was there at some point. We managed to purchase a home in 1987, the only way we could afford it was to satisfy the building society and not marry so we could benefit from the double miras relief,

In 2000 my partner was diagnosed with a form of early onset alzheimers. We couldn't marry then as he would have had to be in sound mind. I gave up my career as a legal executive to care for him, right up until he became doubly incontinent, it was then decided that he should go into a nursing home, which he did. By that time I had retired so there was no chance of my continuing my career. I went to see him at the nursing home every single day to help care for him, i.e feed him etc.

Unfortunately he passed away on Friday morning 6/11 in my arms. Now because we were not married I will not got any widows benefits or none of his pension. Now I am worried that the house will not automatically be transferred into my name as a wife, even though we have spent the last 21 years in it together. I know my partner would not want me to go through all this.

It's clear that there needs to be a revolution in the courts annd judicial system when it comes to family law and judgements.

A) The CSA and what its become now has a very ignorant and often politically oriented action plan...its weak againsat those that have the money to pay for support of their legitimate children and also want to maintain contact with them...i.e. millionnaires in some cases finding loopholes n the laws to pay only £25 a week and leaving their partners suffering with the majority of living costs.

B) The old male mentality of too many of the judges who sit in family courts are automatically assume "the children can only be happy with their Mother if a separation/divorce occurs" the Men are by default seen as "Bad apples and players - for whom seeing their children once a month should be enough to "build a relationship as one judge once said quoted by a national tabloid.

C) The CSA and its successor in all likelihood are highly ignorant and incompetent when it comes down to the spirit of fairness.
One case was: a 15 year old boy who slept with a 22 year old woman (who knew how old he was) called him up two years later at 17 and said that "Oh by the way - Ive had yur baby anf you now owe me a minimum of 10,000 pounds + ongoing child support payments".
Because she was crafty enough to "have a baby" the police didnt even so much as give her a formal warning...and when challenged by the media the CSA claimed "Oh we cant worry about anything else, our job is only the newborn child in mind".

It's a shame really that thew country has fallen to such unfsair levels for both women and men alike in differing circumstances and the juicial system is filled with too many an "out of touch cant understand what it feels like official".

Maybe if parents of either gender who want a relatioship with a child should have to sit before an "legal arbiter" and thrash out a deal there n then after giving both sides of the story.
And if they arent willing to pay then the state should help to a realistic degree the lone parent looking after the kids...controversial maybe but the price of not paying would be: They lose all access rights...and if they want them again...then the goverment can demand that they pay the iRS back...something the government is exceptionally good at, getting money off people.

* I think that also even unmarried couples who have lived n loved their partners who say more than 5 years or longer should have rights like that of a husband and wife should something befall their other half like one poster above mentioned in a heart rending story.

Although its my view that if couples are intent on going their separate ways then neither boys nor girls should be able to claim "a percentage of future earnings" only a settlement of a lump sum at the time of parting and nothing more in other wealthier cases for example.

I wish you all whove suffered with realtionships in your lives for whatever reasons...that you find Justice and light at the end of your respective situationary tunnels and can move on from it.

I do not know what to do with myself because i lived with my partner for 6 years and this month he turned 50 then to days later he came home collapsed and died.
The trouble i have is that he was still married and he told me he made a will which i cannot find.
They have been apart for 13 - 14 years so why is it i do not have any rights this is so unfair and it looks like i will be out on my ear.

I am sorry but unless there is a good reason why cohabitees CANNOT marry they really need to get a grip. I am utterly exasperated by cohabitees who go on about their lack of rights.
Firstly, why don't they just marry?
Secondly, do they not understand that UNLESS there is proof that a couple were actually a couple (i.e. marriage certificate or cohabitation agreement) NOBODY else can be reasonably expected to know what went on in their private life.
Why cannot they understand this very simple concept?
A judge cannot be expected to know about the couple's private life. Living together does not necessarily mean any kind of committment.
Thirdly, the call for "new rights" will take away the right for a couple to have a completely no-strings attached relationship.

How OLD FASHIONED - why should couples have to get married. It is a very expensive and stressful experience and when cohabiting couples are happy living together why risk it with financial worry and stress of planning an un-necessary wedding!

The ANSWER to much of the 'Abject Misery' highlighted above is to 'REFUSE OUTRIGHT' to have kids outside a marriage [Not bleat for equal rights with married women later!!]

Grandma was no Mug, in the words of the Song 'Love & marriage, Go together like a horse & carriage'.

Wether you like it or NOT ladies men [Certainly some men] are programmed to flit about pollinating females like busy bees, The CSA & Marriage are both designed to reduce the risk of your being left 'Holding the Baby', If YOU live like a star of the Jeremey Kyle Show [To a more or lesser degree] then you take certain risks, including V.D., H.I.V., Being left etc Marriage was developed over the ages in all societies to protect women & kids, increasingly since the sixties WOMEN have decided they DON't Need it, Great for blokes, sex without commitment!!
Wish I was young again.

So get wise Girls, although I am NOT religious, [Darwin had it about right.]I AM OLD enough [66] to see the results of changes in terminologies ['My Partner' = Means whatever either party want it to, day to day, week to week. STD [Sexually Transmitted Disease.] Really Means V.D. [Why make it pleasant or anonymous sounding!!] Credit Cards = Really Means 'Debt Cards'

Modern Life is great, as stated 'Wish I was YOUNG' However though you are much better educated than us it seems that the basics elude you guys & girls, but especially the Girls. [By the way you have smaller Livers so cannot drink like males either - Not sexist but a bio-fact.]

I hope you girls get it together before my little granddaughters are adults.

Are those in favour naive enough to think this would strengthen relationships? Of course it wouldn't. Cohabitation- for the majority at least- is about the avoidance of commitment. Men would ask their childless partner to leave before the 2 year limit is up or -if she is pregnant with their child-not even live with her in the first place.
The feckless will be feckless and these silly new proposals will not help at all.
A decent man will make sure the mother of his child/children has a roof over her head married or not so what exactly is the point of these proposals?
Another thing is this; why do people assume that they are important enough for a court to spend hours and hours of time deciding whether they were a couple or not? No-one cares! The marriage certificate is important because it is simple, obvious proof that at one point in time a couple made a commitment to be a couple. With cohabitees half the battle is deciding whether or not they were a couple in the first place (more difficult than anyone thinks-especially in the case of a childless couple). A man could say he was just letting a woman stay as a friend. Please wake up, people. If you want the same rights as married, get married.
The government has put off these proposals time and time again. There's always been some reason to delay.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you, then I met my partner whose wife had died after suffering with cancer, both he and the 2 children were devasted. It has taken a long time for them to come to terms with her death and although they seem to have accepted our relationship I know I have to tread carefully. Most people would probably agree that teenagers are hormonally challenged at the best of times but having lost their mother under such tragic circumstances I feel it would be very unfair to contemplate marriage until they are older and settled. Not an easy task!
We have considered changing our wills to accomodate all our children and ensure no one is left in an awkward position should anything happen to either of us.
I'm sure there are many other couples with good reasons for not getting married within the first few years of living togethe. Perhaps these are the people who need protecting.

Most of the comments seem to relate to lack of financial provision after one partner has died. Unmarried couples are able to make wills to specify who they wish to inherit. This is no different from married couples who can, if they wish, choose not to leave their wealth to the surviving spouse. Unmarried couples can ensure they do make provision for partners and any children from previous relationships.It doesn't require marriage to ensure survivors are provided for. Therefore those who choose not to marry, for whatever reason, can take steps to avoid the difficult circumstances that some have highlighted. If the relationship ends you can always change your will to reflect the changed circumstances. I have every sympathy though for those who didn't make wills and are now left homeless or penniless as a result.

I can understand there are many reasons why people choose not to marry. What I find annoying is where, on divorce, the offending party (adulterer) expects and gets half of everything.