"Plan to grant legal rights to cohabiting couples criticised"

iptba

nouggatti wrote: »

So if you have one spouse earning 100k and the other earning 20k, then once the marriage breaks up the lower earning spouse can claim maintenance on the grounds that were they still married their income/access to income would be different etc.

Well, I have a problem with this principle being applied to non-married couples.
I imagine such a couple are not likely living the life of two people on 20k. They are leading a better quality of life. There is on average an indirect transfer of assets during this period from the person on 100K to the person on 20K. The person on 20K is benefitting during this period. I don't see why they should have any entitlement for this quality of life to continue and paid for by the person on 100K after they are no longer together.

If I bought a winning ticket, I could do lots of things. But I didn't, so I can't. This person could be living that life if they were still living together; but they're not living together anymore so why should there be any right to have the same lifestyle.

iptba

rolly1 wrote: »

A discussion on it here also
http://www.rollercoaster.ie/boards/mc.asp?ID=325839&G=37&forumdb=1http://

Thanks again.
Correct link:
http://www.rollercoaster.ie/boards/mc.asp?ID=325839&G=37&forumdb=1

iptba

nouggatti wrote: »

Well you'd have contributions to mortgages, supporting a partner, differences in income and the adverse affect that will have on the divorced spouse if they are the lower earner?

Contributions towards mortgage is already covered:

From here:
http://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/cohabiting_couples.pdf

"where your name as cohabitant is not on the
house deeds but you have made direct
contributions to the mortgage, purchase
price, deposit on or upkeep of the house,
then you may have a beneficial interest in the
property which you may need to go to court to enforce"

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Well, I have a problem with this principle being applied to non-married couples.
I imagine such a couple are not likely living the life of two people on 20k. They are leading a better quality of life. There is on average an indirect transfer of assets during this period from the person on 100K to the person on 20K. The person on 20K is benefitting during this period. I don't see why they should have any entitlement for this quality of life to continue and paid for by the person on 100K after they are no longer together.

Agreed.

TBH, I already have deep reservations to this with divorce - not only because of what you outline above but also because it only considers the financial contributions and ignores non-financial ones.

However, at least with marriage one can make the argument that both parties signed up to this commitment, consciously and actively and this legislation allows for a situation whereby you need not even have to be aware of this anymore to become entangled.

With the legislation coming closer to becoming law, I wonder how many couples, already cohabiting for years and who never envisaged this, are going to end up breaking up?

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

It would be interesting to know the thought process. Was it designed to support parents? If so, why did couples who don’t have children together get dragged into it.

According to one of legal experts interviewed in the Prime Time program on it the other evening, the legislation has appears to especially target couples with children, often to the detriment of the rights of those without. So this would lend credence to my earlier, cynical, suspicion that this legislation is largely designed to shift the cost of lone parents from the state to the non-custodial one.

metrovelvet

I saw that primetime program and I didnt pick up on that.

I heard three years without kids gets you rights, two years with kids gets your rights.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I saw that primetime program and I didnt pick up on that.

It's an opinion expressed early on (about six-and-a-half minutes into it) in the program by the professor from UCC. In it he comments:

The bill seems to be designed, particularly, to help someone who's been involved in child rearing, and who has become financially dependent as a result.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's an opinion expressed early on (about six-and-a-half minutes into it) in the program by the professor from UCC. In it he comments:

So will it be renamed The Male Homelessness ( Extension of Provisions)Bill ang give unmarried guys all the same disadvantages that married guys have:eek:

iptba

Article on this in Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7094399.ece
- people would need to act fairly quickly if they want to make representations on the issue.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Agreed.

TBH, I already have deep reservations to this with divorce - not only because of what you outline above but also because it only considers the financial contributions and ignores non-financial ones.

However, at least with marriage one can make the argument that both parties signed up to this commitment, consciously and actively and this legislation allows for a situation whereby you need not even have to be aware of this anymore to become entangled.

With the legislation coming closer to becoming law, I wonder how many couples, already cohabiting for years and who never envisaged this, are going to end up breaking up?

Interesting how things may change in the UK with regard to divorce settlements:

From The Sunday Times

April 11, 2010


Plan to end ‘gold digger’ divorces

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7094293.ece

iptba

rolly1 wrote: »

Feature on the bill coming up now on Primetime

It's still at: http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0406/primetime.html if anybody wants to watch it - two pieces, 21 minutes in total.

kangaroo

CDfm wrote: »

is there a camaign against it ?

There's a Facebook group that has all of 15 members: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106512869378959

There's a petition at:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/part15/ which has, wait for it, 80 signatures after 3 weeks. It's goal is a mere 50,000.

Looks like this is going to go through unless people make a fuss in some way e.g. contact parties and/or members of the committee: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/J-JusticeEDWR/Membership/document1.htm

CDfm

its a pity the petitions dont have wider publication- why arent they up on usfi or amen or parental equality sites?

iptba

Passionate letter in Irish Examiner (19/4/2010)

There was also a letter in the Sunday Times but I don't think their letters are online.

Partnership bill creates ‘a paradise for parasites’

Monday, April 19, 2010

AT long last the truth about the Civil Partnership Bill has emerged thanks to the IFA.

To date, the debate on this proposed legislation has concentrated exclusively on its effects on the institution of marriage and on same-sex couples.

The reality is that the most severe consequences of this legislation will be felt by heterosexual cohabitants, especially men.

This legislation will impose marriage-by-stealth on cohabiting couples without their knowledge or consent. These couples have probably made a conscious decision not to marry. Making this an opt-out rather than an opt-in provision is an attack on the most fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens of this state.

It is now imperative that men, especially young men, be warned of the draconian provisions of this bill as currently drafted. If a man should allow a woman to cohabit with him in his home and live off him, rather than providing for her own upkeep, for a period of three years, she will acquire legal powers which will potentially have the most horrendous consequences for him.

She will be entitled to apply to a court for a share in his home, exclusive right of residency (to his exclusion) in his home, possibly even sole ownership of his home, as well as a range of financial orders, including lump sum payments, maintenance payments (possibly for the rest of her life) and even a share of his pension.

The only requirements, provided in the legislation, to entitle her to apply for these orders is that she has cohabited with him for three years and is economically dependent on him (living off him).

Hardly surprising, therefore, that Prof Ruth Deech, professor of law at London’s Gresham College, said the Irish law was set to be a "windfall for lawyers but for no one else except the gold-digger".

(The reported response of Justice Minister Dermot Ahern to the representations of the IFA is to suggest increasing the qualifying period from three to five years.

This futile and meaningless gesture should be treated with the contempt it deserves by the IFA. Among the other detrimental consequences of making cohabitation a no-go area for men will be an increase in fatherless households and increased costs for the social welfare system.

Unfortunately, it seems the minister is intent on turning cohabitation into a parasites’ paradise.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/partnership-bill-creates-a-paradise-for-parasites-117529.html#ixzz0lVHryG00

Dr Galen

So bearing the above and other posts on the same lines in mind, (which from my reading are totally valid), how can such a Bill, conferring legal status on same sex couples etc be formed, without basically screwing people?

I've seen mention of an opt-in system. Would that work?

iptba

Dr Galen wrote: »

So bearing the above and other posts on the same lines in mind, (which from my reading are totally valid), how can such a Bill, conferring legal status on same sex couples etc be formed, without basically screwing people?

I've seen mention of an opt-in system. Would that work?

From what I recall, the part where gay couples register their relationship is actually separate. One doesn't need a part like this for heterosexual couples - they can marry.

But an "opt-in" system to me is hugely different (to opt-out) and I don't think I'd have problems with it (I don't claim to have thought through every issue).

rolly1

According to this 2002 document (pdf) opt in is the system used in
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France, Germany, Belgium and the
Catalonia region of Spain.
On the governments reason for not making it an opt in system this article by david Quin says:

The final government argument in favour of this measure is actually more subtle and somewhat more compelling. It is that in some cohabiting relationships one person wants to get married and the other doesn't but they find it hard to leave the relationship because they have become financially dependent on their partner.
Therefore, it is argued, such individuals should be given the right to apply for maintenance and a property settlement in the event of a break-up.

In the same article he suggests:

I think the way to do it is to provide the protection this bill envisages but after seven years or so, not three.
It probably takes about this length of time for a condition of financial dependency to properly develop in a cohabiting relationship, but the fact that most cohabiting couples will have broken up or got married before then protects both marriage and personal autonomy.

I would just like to know how millions of west europeans living in opt-in systems deal with this dependancy argument? as it cannot be unique to Ireland.

Another aspect is the question of constitutionality of the cohabitation agreement. This agreement serves effectively as a semi-legal pre-nuptial agreement and yet pre-nuptial agreements are at best a grey area legally in the courts here. So for any people looking to enjoy a marriage-like state without the legal liabillities on their finances they could just sign up to one of these. This is an obvious disincentive to marry.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

its a pity the petitions dont have wider publication- why arent they up on usfi or amen or parental equality sites?

Because it not about fathers rights.

There is no real 'unified' masculinist movement out there. It's still very much issue driven by those affected by those issues, and if not it's all "I'm all right Jack". Until that changes, nothing else will.

My only objection to this bill is that it is an opt-out law. It's not even opt-out, as any opt-out can be overturned by a court under 'extraordinary' (in that they are undefined) circumstances.

Bottom line is that, unless you want to be an underachiever and/or marry, from this point on any cohabitation has a best-by date.

CDfm

i predict a rise in vasectomies

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because it not about fathers rights.

all men are potential fathers if they have working testicles

[quotes]There is no real 'unified' masculinist movement out there. It's still very much issue driven by those affected by those issues, and if not it's all "I'm all right Jack". Until that changes, nothing else will.
[/QUOTE]

Balls said the Queen if I had them I'd be king.

Its about the way you look at it. Someone elses job.

Its like tGC people had to ask for it and when they were told no keep going back. Then others had to come in and start thread to make a buzz.

So if people dont contact the webmasters of sites with news items and links how are they going to generate support.

Its like Dr G with his bowel cancer thread. Ya have to want to do it.

Now back to my Laughing Gnome group to start a thread on foods that make you fart

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because it not about fathers rights.

There is no real 'unified' masculinist movement out there. It's still very much issue driven by those affected by those issues, and if not it's all "I'm all right Jack". Until that changes, nothing else will.

Yes, I didn't think it was that suitable for a fathers' rights website. If they want to highlight, they can but it might be better to stay focused on their particular issue that quite a lot of people have sympathy for and where they may have success in time.

I agree that a general unified masculist movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism would be good.
I'm already actively involved in another movement and I have to be careful not to spend too much time on men's issues myself unfortunately (I have got a bit behind on my work because of my postings on tGC in the last couple of months - some might say it serves me right!).

iptba

There was a piece on the Today with Pat Kenny Show today:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

Civil Partnership Bill
The proposed cohabitant's clause in the CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL will allow unmarried couples living together, whether heterosexual or homsosexuals to have a claim on their partner's property and income rights. As it stands this would kick in after three years together but that's likely to be amended to a five year period.

When writing about the clause in the Sunday Independent recently Journalist Emer O'Kelly asked "should a woman who stops earning her living to sit on her backside and be kept by a man's labour in return for sexual favours, then be entitled after a break up to claim part of his income perpetuity, and even have a right to his estate after death?", something she says is enshrined in this legislation.

The whole matter is highly contentious and with Pat to tease out some of the issues was Emer O'Kelly herself and Muriel Walls Partner with Mc Cann Fitzgerald Solicitors.

You can listen again for the next week at:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

It is on 17:05-37:20

Emer O'Kelly started off well but, by the end, the solicitor probably had the upper hand.

What wasn't brought up was that if somebody (a woman, say) decides to make a sacrifice, at that stage she could say "I'll do this if you'll sign this cohabitant agreement" i.e. an opt-in system can cover it.

And what wasn't brought up in the second "half" was that there can be unfair outcomes (e.g. a woman who becomes a "lady of leisure" then looks for money when the relationhip ends).

You can send in comments to the show todaypk@rte.ie and they might read them tomorrow.

CDfm

Communal living -thats the way to go with this.

tGC mods give the vasectomy thread a bump

EDIT On a more serious note

http://www.herald.ie/lifestyle/parents/homework-hoovering-and-hot-meals--meet-the-stay-athome-dads-1869583.html

Given that less than 40% of mothers are in paid employment could it be that there will be a huge review of benefit payments in Ireland.

The benefit strucure has meant that working parents subsidise the unwaged and that is the expectation among the population.

if the cost of childcare is an issue then payments should be made to subsidize childcare as opposed to single parenthood.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Given that less than 40% of mothers are in paid employment could it be that there will be a huge review of benefit payments in Ireland.

The benefit strucure has meant that working parents subsidise the unwaged and that is the expectation among the population.

if the cost of childcare is an issue then payments should be made to subsidize childcare as opposed to single parenthood.

I think the problem is a particularly Irish problem and not dissimilar to the problem we have in general with generational unemployment in certain areas.

In the latter's case, it has long been accepted that successive governments effectively tolerate a culture of welfare dependency in certain sections of the community. There are homes, all but paid for by the state naturally, where you will literally find three or more generations where no one has ever held down a job. Any attempt to tackle this problem is almost a taboo, regardless of party, as these entitlements have become a de facto way of life for some.

Similarly we have found ourselves in a situation whereby the state does the same with single parents. Even if the government were to tackle the affordability of child care, single parents supporting themselves still would remain a thorny, if not untouchable, issue (as the negative reaction to recent government suggestions that LPA should be stopped once a child reaches their teens demonstrated). We have bread a culture of entitlement whereby single parents feel they are 'employed' to be full time parents.

If the government had any balls, it would adopt a similar approach to the Germans, who (once the child is in school) effectively tell the single parent to go out and get a job. But, as with generational unemployment, it does not, and so rather than deal with the problem, the proposed cohabitation bill simply seeks to pass the financial buck.

Nevyn

The way the school year and community child care is structures in Germany makes it possible for single parents to go back to work, for that to be feasible here would mean major changes on several fronts. It is incredibly frustrating to be looking at trying to go back to work and seeing all the hours that you have to find child care for and then there are surprise half days and days off.

When writing about the clause in the Sunday Independent recently Journalist Emer O'Kelly asked "should a woman who stops earning her living to sit on her backside and be kept by a man's labour in return for sexual favours, then be entitled after a break up to claim part of his income perpetuity, and even have a right to his estate after death?", something she says is enshrined in this legislation.

You can reverse the genders on that, if the woman owns the property and the guy she is living with earns less or ends up unemployed and she is footing the majority of the bills this cuts boths ways. I know two couples where one of them has a house which the the bf/gf moved in with them both had to make sure they had a tennacy arrangement in place or leave themselves exposed to their partner if things went badly
have a claim on the house.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

The way the school year and community child care is structures in Germany makes it possible for single parents to go back to work, for that to be feasible here would mean major changes on several fronts. It is incredibly frustrating to be looking at trying to go back to work and seeing all the hours that you have to find child care for and then there are surprise half days and days off.

The government, regardless of party, will never go for any reform in this direction. Status quo and all that. Hell, a woman's place in the home is even in the constitution.

You can reverse the genders on that, if the woman owns the property and the guy she is living with earns less or ends up unemployed and she is footing the majority of the bills this cuts boths ways.

Absolutely, but statistically in Ireland it is the man who loses out financially, the vast majority of the time.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The way the school year and community child care is structures in Germany makes it possible for single parents to go back to work, for that to be feasible here would mean major changes on several fronts. It is incredibly frustrating to be looking at trying to go back to work and seeing all the hours that you have to find child care for and then there are surprise half days and days off.

The Belgians made the change.Childcare costs are subsidised.

It is incredibly odd that thw womens movement does not look for changes like this. Its almost like there is a conspiracy against dragging Ireland into the 21 st century.

Nevyn

I know and it seems that the only way a woman who has kids can be in work full time is to exploit other women be it the less then minimum wage of child minders, or grand parents or the low paid child care workers in creches, if she is not lucky to have co parent who is willing to be the stay at home a parent or can work from home or work flexihours.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I know and it seems that the only way a woman who has kids can be in work full time is to exploit other women be it the less then minimum wage of child minders, or grand parents or the low paid child care workers in creches, if she is not lucky to have co parent who is willing to be the stay at home a parent or can work from home or work flexihours.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Maybe this will come accross as a bit harsh and you may be able to rehash it a bit.

You have women who are qualified etc and who want to work and you have the "womens budget" being spent on single parents. EDIT -Thats a bad choice of words but the amount of public expenditure earmarked for female welfare.

Also when we had the tiger years jobs were available that were filled by migrants. Go into any supermarket or KFC and you are served by a foreigner.You also had foreign engineers, IT workers, doctors,nurses etc migrating here -all jobs that qualified Irish women could have done.

The whole benefit structure for women in Ireland is based around socialist principles.

The Belgian system is built on the transfer of funds and correcting inequality in the labour market via subsidised childcare for everybody. So not working is a personal choice - but working means you retain more money, have adequete childcare, and women childcare workers are not exploited.

The system is simple and its to have women in the workplace.The mentality that has the system the way it is in Ireland is so 1960s and 70s.

So the system needs to be dragged into the 21st Century and you cant afford both the benefit structure thats there and subsidised childcare.

The amount of money thats there is finite and probably is badly spent.

So the system is not serving you and the money is not being spent in a way that benefits you or other women in your situation and yet you support it. Whats with biting the bullet joining a Women in Business organisation and looking for change.

The system isnt benefiting you - so would you be breaking ranks with the sisterhood.

A Danish couple once said to me that the system there dragged good people down rather then brought others up. No matter what your talent or energy you got stuck in a hole. Maybe its the same here.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I know and it seems that the only way a woman who has kids can be in work full time is to exploit other women be it the less then minimum wage of child minders, or grand parents or the low paid child care workers in creches, if she is not lucky to have co parent who is willing to be the stay at home a parent or can work from home or work flexihours.

So are you for wholesale changes to the system so that mothers can work or do you prefer to see it how it is??

iptba

This one is from April 1 but little has changed.

http://www.ifa.ie/News/tabid/640/ctl/Detail/mid/2250/xmid/3524/xmfid/23/Default.aspx

BRYAN CALLS ON GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW PROVISIONS ON COHABITING COUPLES FROM CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL


2010-04-01

IFA President John Bryan has said the Government should withdraw the part of the Civil Partnership Bill creating legal liabilities for cohabiting couples. Mr Bryan raised “serious concerns that the Bill’s provisions relating to cohabiting couples are neither widely known nor understood and are creating rights and obligations in an area where there has been little or no public debate. I am calling on politicians on all sides in Leinster House to recognise this fact and for this aspect of the Bill to be withdrawn to allow an informed public debate take place.”

“I believe it would be a cause of serious concern to the farming community that legal claims for the transfer of a property, a lump sum, maintenance payments or a share in pension entitlements or a claim on an estate could arise following the ending of a relationship between a couple living together for as little as three years. This means people previously living together would find themselves open to maintenance and property claims quite similar to those arising following a marriage break-up with the potential also for costly legal disputes and court proceedings.”

John Bryan said “it is unsatisfactory that these provisions are buried within the Civil Partnership Bill because that title is a misnomer and has deflected public interest and debate from the co-habitants provisions which have far-reaching consequences for over 120,000 cohabiting couples. Insofar as the general public has any understanding of the Bill, this relates only to the introduction of civil partnerships for same sex couples and not to the substantial legal liabilities that would arise for cohabiting couples throughout the state.”

The IFA President said “the provisions relating to cohabitants have the makings of bad law and the Government would be unwise to proceed with this part of the Bill in the absence of proper public debate and scrutiny on the airwaves and in the media generally. Clearly this debate has not taken place.”

“The fact that legal liabilities are being imposed on couples living together, who have chosen not to enter into a legal commitment through marriage, is a very substantial change in the law. The proposed legislation presumes that such legal liabilities are accepted by cohabiting couples after three years, without their express agreement. This is a major change in social policy, for which there is no evidence of strong public support or strong campaigning by cohabiting couples.”


“Couples getting married expressly undertake legal obligations to each other and if couples living together wish to establish a legal relationship, then provision could be made to allow them to do so, but to foist legal liabilities upon them after three years without their express consent is inappropriate and uncalled for. The provision of an opt out-clause, whereby people living together would have to engage solicitors, get legal advice and make a legal agreement about their financial affairs is entirely unsatisfactory and unrealistic. In this and other respects, this Bill will be a happy hunting ground for lawyers.”

“The best course of action is for the Government to withdraw the cohabitants part of the Civil Partnership Bill now and to allow a full public debate to take place on all these issues,” John Bryan concluded.

iptba

Not my usual reading fare but this came up under recent media articles for 1 hour ago. It's basically the IFA position but appears to be a more recent statement.

http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/290410/ireland___prehistoric_laws_and_the_pwer_of_the_church_.aspx

iptba

I thought the underlined bit was interesting. Also lawyers can have a good way with words.

http://deirdremcgowansolicitor.blogspot.com/2010/04/ifa-notice-civil-partnership-bill.html

IFA Notice Civil Partnership Bill

The IFA have issued a press release criticizing the cohabitation provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill. It is very interesting that they have no difficulty with Civil Partnership, maybe that's a row they don't want to have. They are focusing on the sections of the bill giving potential property rights to qualified cohabitants. Their negative views are justified, the law reform commission report on which this part of the bill is based gives no indication of the policy behind it. The "protection of vunerable cohabitants" is mentioned but not discussed in any level of detail. I haven't seen any policy statements from government. The IFA are particularly critical of the need for cohabitants not wishing to come within the act to visit a solicitor to draw up a cohabitation agreement. I would agree with them on this one. A lot of people cohabit because they do not want formality in their relationship. Forcing them to think about a relationship agreement to preserve the informality really makes the law look like an ass. And how will all of this affect conveyancing, will solicitors now have to ask not just about their clients marital status, which is easily proved or disproved, but also whether they have an intimate relationship, and how long it has lasted, and if they just broke up with someone, how long did that relationship last? Crazy stuff!

iptba

Letter from a female doctor in the Irish Times today [most of the debate is about the gay/homosexual civil partnership part of the bill but I'd prefer that, if people want to discuss that, it was in another thread and we keep this for cohabitants (which does, indeed, incl. gay couples)]:

Madam, – The Civil Partnership Bill, relating to cohabitants, is under debate.

Section 199 outlines the way in which couples can contract out of the Act. It proposes to give property rights, on a par with marriage, to cohabiting couples whose duration of relationship is three years plus. This right will apply unless the couple opt out using solicitors.

By doing nothing, the law will apply.

The average duration of marriage before ending in divorce is 16 years in Northern Ireland and 11 years in Britain.

In light of this, I suggest a longer duration than three years of cohabitation should apply.

In life most people have a right to “opt in”. Here you are obliged to opt out. This ideal is not compatible with a free society. It undermines the freedom of the individual. – Yours, etc,

rolly1

It's gas isn't it how this law will be brought in to protect those supposedly "vulnerable" people. All the while the male in that relationship is legally inferior to the female and can have his kids robbed out of the country if he doesn't go about getting the official embodiment of his discrimination i.e. a guardianship document.

Someday somebody is going to have the balls to sue the arse off this country for its legal apartheid against unmarried fathers. That day can't come soon enough.

iptba

rolly1 wrote: »

It's gas isn't it how this law will be brought in to protect those supposedly "vulnerable" people. All the while the male in that relationship is legally inferior to the female and can have his kids robbed out of the country if he doesn't go about getting the official embodiment of his discrimination i.e. a guardianship document.

Someday somebody is going to have the balls to sue the arse off this country for its legal apartheid against unmarried fathers. That day can't come soon enough.

While I might agree with the principle, the likelihood of very large numbers of people getting money in this way seems unlikely to me at any stage.

If people are annoyed, it’s best to make a fuss now.

iptba

Most of the letters in the Irish Times have been about homosexual couples, but here's another one on cohabiting couples:

Madam, – The final one third of the Bill (Part 15), is about relationships between two people living together but not married. If the Bill is enacted, when such a couple split up after three years living together (two years if they have had at least one child), one person may sue the other person for maintenance, a lump sum of money, rights to the house they have lived in together, and a share of a person’s pension.

While a majority of people in Ireland think that marriage is the best scheme for two people to live together and have children, there is a substantial minority which thinks that the rules of marriage take away from a person’s freedom to such a big degree that it is not worth it for the financial safety net provided. Of the many people who live together not being married, a substantial portion do so as a definite choice, different from marriage, because they value their own independence and do not like the idea of being an adult dependant.

Up to the middle of the 20th century, while this was always an option under the law, social norms put strong pressure on young people not to live together (unmarried), but rather always to marry.

Irish society has improved in the past 30 years so that people can exercise a choice that was always legal. The earliest couples living together had to struggle for this social right. They risked their families cutting off contact with them. Subsequent generations of couples living together have it easier because the early couples pushed society to change. The social freedom to live together and not marry has been hard won.

If the Civil Partnership Bill is enacted, such people will have their hard-won option reduced. If the Bill is enacted the State will be telling people that they may live together and not marry, but if they split after three years they will be treated much as married persons separating or divorcing, with one person having a legal financial hold on the other person. This would be a serious reduction in freedom to choose between the somewhat dependent form of couple relationship (marriage) and the form of couple relationship where both parties plan to be more independent and self sufficient.

The Bill provides that people can opt out of its obligations, but this requires both parties’ agreement, and a court can override the agreement.

It is those aged 25 to 35 who will be affected. They have little awareness of this Bill, and perhaps they are less driven to seek influence with legislators, so this section of the Bill needs to be the subject of public discussion. – Yours, etc,

rolly1

iptba wrote: »

While I might agree with the principle, the likelihood of very large numbers of people getting money in this way seems unlikely to me at any stage.

If people are annoyed, it’s best to make a fuss now.

The discrimination against unmarried fathers in Ireland is unique among common law countries according to this examiner editorial. I don't know whether it is possible to take a class action on this against the state, but I reckon it would be more worthwhile looking into rather than sending pesky emails to politicians, newspapers etc. who don't really give a ****e..Might also help them re-consider Part 15 of this Bill..

iptba

rolly1 wrote: »

The discrimination against unmarried fathers in Ireland is unique among common law countries according to this examiner editorial. I don't know whether it is possible to take a class action on this against the state, but I reckon it would be more worthwhile looking into rather than sending pesky emails to politicians, newspapers etc. who don't really give a ****e..Might also help them re-consider Part 15 of this Bill..

Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat as they say so people are free to try whatever they like.

But they'd want to get a move on with whatever they want to do that might affect this bill as otherwise it will be passed in the next month or two.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

But they'd want to get a move on with whatever they want to do that might affect this bill as otherwise it will be passed in the next month or two.

I don't see any serious movement to stop it, TBH.

Pittens

This bill is ridiculous. If people want rights then let them get married,or sign a civil partnership law ( even on-line).

As usual with rushed legislation it will be repealed when the first travesty of justice occurs, somebody sues their long time opposite sex house mate for his/her lottery win. DOes it matter how many people are in the house? Plenty of people share with couples. So how do we prove if any relationship is a couple, or not? I share with a girl who shares with me and a guy. There is only one relationship. Do we have to go to court to probve which one?

Does this act assume that all relationships covered are hetrosexual. If not can we be sued by anybody who lives with us?

Is it about sex?

What about a housemate who gets together with his or her housemate on a once off ( or more if there is drink). Are they now in a relation ship - how can the law tell the difference between those two and a couple with a low sex drive?

Stupid law. Let people who are together and want rights tell the State they are together by signing something.

iptba

Pittens wrote: »

Stupid law. Let people who are together and want rights tell the State they are together by signing something.

Yes, that's the opt-in system that's in various European countries.

However, here are opt-out systems in Australia and New Zealand. Am not confident it will be appealed.

rolly1

A resumed hearing on the Civil Partnership Bill before the Justice Committee is provisionally listed for May 27th
according to the oireachtas website.

Did the IFA get to meet with the minister does anyone know? From here

IFA SEES OVER-REGULATION AND BAD LAW IN THE CREATION OF LEGAL LIABILITIES FOR COHABITANTS

2010-04-21

IFA has again highlighted the pitfalls of the cohabitant provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill for couples living together and called for this part of the Bill to be withdrawn or amended. The Bill leaves couples living together for as little as three years open to legal liabilities, including maintenance and property claims similar to those arising following a marriage break up.

In a series of meetings with Government and opposition TDs, IFA President John Bryan has said, “it is unacceptable that Justice Minister Dermot Ahern is ploughing ahead with the imposition of legal liabilities on couples living together in the absence of any public demand for these changes and with no public debate and no scrutiny in the media. This amounts to over regulation and bad law, and IFA has sought a meeting with Minister Ahern to discuss the matter.”

Mr Bryan said, “It is certainly not an example of good law making when legal liabilities are being imposed on people without their consent, and that is the way the farming community would see it.”

The IFA President said reported changes by the Minister for Justice do not address the flaws in the Bill. He described suggestions to change the name of the Bill to include the word “cohabitants” and to extend the time couples must live together before liabilities arise from 3 to 5 years as “too little too late”.

“These changes fail to address the fundamental flaws of the Bill, which are the imposition of legal liabilities without consent and the exposure to court claims and legal costs, which the Bill creates for cohabiting couples.”

“The bill is a legal minefield with extensive scope for legal disputes over the definition of cohabitants and relationships, arguments over financial and other contributions and claims of financial dependency and the extent of court orders. Defendants may well feel pressurised into settling cases in order to avoid difficult adversarial and costly legal proceedings spurred on by opportunist lawyers on the other side.”

John Bryan stressed there was no public demand for the state to intrude into the area of people living together. However, IFA has no difficulty with a redress scheme for cohabitants provided it is made optional. Provision could be made to allow couples living together, who wish to do so to opt-in to the cohabitant provisions by signing a standard form and this arrangement could be widely advertised to make couples aware of this possibility to regulate their affairs.

iptba

Partnership Bill to include five-year cohabitation period for property rights
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0519/1224270654973.html

CDfm

it is a wonder why there has not been any mention of pre-nup agreements

Jesus Wept

I remember a segment about this on Prime Time a couple of months ago.

Rights my arse, it doesn't grant rights, it forces insane obligations on people and strips them of their rights and options.
People have the right to get married if they so choose to.

I can't recall all the crazy **** it involved, but boy was it crazy.

Who came up with it?
What is the real motivation behind it, money/tax?
Or just to give us something different to talk about to distract us from all the other nonsense going on politically.

The Corinthian

The-Rigger wrote: »

Who came up with it?

No one person or even committee, is my guess. I think the bill probably originated with the gay marriage issue and was subsequently used by different groups to service different agendas.

What is the real motivation behind it, money/tax?

If by 'it', you mean the 'opt-out' (that can be overturned btw)? I would say the cost of Loan Parents Allowance and other related social welfare payments to the state - this bill allows for a significant deferral of financial responsibility away from the state.

rolly1

The Corinthian wrote: »

If by 'it', you mean the 'opt-out' (that can be overturned btw)? I would say the cost of Loan Parents Allowance and other related social welfare payments to the state - this bill allows for a significant deferral of financial responsibility away from the state.

Don't forget the really big beneficiaries & backers of all this: Solicitors! See this Irish Times article..

iptba

This is also being discussed over at: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055877755 (it's not completely off-topic as the Civil Partnership Bill was being discussed). I tried to direct the discussion over to this thread here but didn't succeed.

rolly1

iptba wrote: »

This is also being discussed over at: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055877755 (it's not completely off-topic as the Civil Partnership Bill was being discussed). I tried to direct the discussion over to this thread here but didn't succeed.

Thats exactly how bad laws like this are passed; government just mash them in with very emotive topics and everything gets drowned out by the noise from same...these guys are masters at playing people and topics off one another, to end up with exactly the result they want.

It was no accident that the cohabitation laws and civil partnership laws are coming out in the one bill..