"Mutual dependency" and maintenance after separating

iptba

I initially posted this to the cohabiting thread but thought it might be worth its own thread. Kind of an odd proposal of course.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/samesex-partnership-law-one-of-biggest-changes-in-90-years-2243238.html

"Cohabitation is now a common feature of Irish society. For some, it may be a precursor to marriage and of short duration, others may choose not to marry.
"And there are couples who are precluded from marriage, particularly same-sex couples, but regardless of their legal status, the reality is that people who live together tend to develop a mutual dependency which becomes more pronounced over time," he added.

If there is a "mutual dependency", shouldn't there be a two-way settlement after the break up!? So if a man throws himself into his job but is only able to do this because his partner does more of the housework, shopping, cooking, etc., one could say that if you expect a man to keep supporting the woman financially, you could expect the woman to keep supporting the man in the other ways e.g. do a lot of work around his place of residence, a lot of his cooking, etc (or arrange that somebody does it)!

What appears to happen is any settlement is one way (i.e. to take the example above, the man gives the woman part of his financial assets).
So in this example, the man helps to "maintain" the woman but there is no onus on the woman to "maintain" the man.

Take an example where there is no children to make it easier.

Of course, I'm no expert on family law.

CDfm

the word "dependency" makes it sound like a disease or an illness.

myself & my girlfriend met a wonderful couple the other evening - mid 60's who had gotten together when they were mid 50s. they met as he was refurbishing a cottage down the road

they have a zest about them & a lust for life -people get together and stay together because they want to.

nowadays a man can claim maintenance from a high earning spouse too. I know one woman who pays the mortgage on the former family home her ex occupies and another who hired her ex's company to take on a contract at her work as she knew he was good and would deliver a good price and job,

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

nowadays a man can claim maintenance from a high earning spouse too. I know one woman who pays the mortgage on the former family home her ex occupies and another who hired her ex's company to take on a contract at her work as she knew he was good and would deliver a good price and job,

I think you've missed iptba's point, which you can only claim on the financial part of this 'mutual dependency' in the event of the relationship ending.

To give an example, consider a gay relationship (under the new legislation and so as to avoid gender issues). John is a breadwinner, he's got a good career and earns a good living. David is a homemaker. So, John can work long hours and not have to worry that the rest of his life is not being taken care of - the home is clean, bills are paid on time, a healthy dinner is always waiting for him and he always has someone to look after him, when he's too busy with work to even notice he's sick.

John and David break up. David's financial dependency on John is catered to in the shape of maintenance. Financially, David may end up with a lesser standard of living than before, but ultimately John still has to maintain him. On the other hand, John's domestic dependency on David is not catered to. He can't even suggest to a judge that to replace David with hired help is a valid expense.

So all this 'mutual dependency' is great until you realize that when a relationship ends, it's only one way. In the case of heterosexual relationships, this essentially breaks down on gender lines because of the traditional gender roles and prejudices that persist in society.

As a result, marriage (or even long term cohabitation in Ireland) only protects the financially dependent party. The domestically dependent party receives no protection.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you've missed iptba's point, which you can only claim on the financial part of this 'mutual dependency' in the event of the relationship ending.

To give an example, consider a gay relationship (under the new legislation and so as to avoid gender issues). John is a breadwinner, he's got a good career and earns a good living. David is a homemaker. So, John can work long hours and not have to worry that the rest of his life is not being taken care of - the home is clean, bills are paid on time, a healthy dinner is always waiting for him and he always has someone to look after him, when he's too busy with work to even notice he's sick.

John and David break up. David's financial dependency on John is catered to in the shape of maintenance. Financially, David may end up with a lesser standard of living than before, but ultimately John still has to maintain him. On the other hand, John's domestic dependency on David is not catered to. He can't even suggest to a judge that to replace David with hired help is a valid expense.

So all this 'mutual dependency' is great until you realize that when a relationship ends, it's only one way. In the case of heterosexual relationships, this essentially breaks down on gender lines because of the traditional gender roles and prejudices that persist in society.

As a result, marriage (or even long term cohabitation in Ireland) only protects the financially dependent party. The domestically dependent party receives no protection.

Just wait till gay men start having kids.

Now that the government will have created financial safety nets and pragmatic equivelant to marriage as well as the symbolic step forward to "equal rights" its all ahead of us.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Just wait till gay men start having kids.

Actually they already can.

Now that the government will have created financial safety nets and pragmatic equivelant to marriage as well as the symbolic step forward to "equal rights" its all ahead of us.

The legislation that has been coming out in Ireland in recent years is hardly indicative of any step, symbolic or otherwise, to "equal rights" in heterosexual relationships.

The cohabitation bill, in the context of women making up almost all homemakers and child carers, clearly favours them, as it is based on marriage obligations that ignore domestic input in favour of financial input. Making this automatic effectively takes away another right from men who sought to avoid such an imbalanced system.

The proposed reform of guardianship will see it given out universally, yet in the same breath dilute it's actual impact, transferring rights to the custodial parent - who again is a woman, almost all the time. As a result any man already with guardianship of his children will effectively lose out as a result.

On top of this, absolutely no effort has been made to reform the myriad of laws that discriminate against men; from sexual abuse and rape laws that give one sentience to a man and a much smaller to a woman for the same crime, through to the Irish constitution that blatantly enshrines sexism in article 41.2.1.

So, if anything - at least in heterosexual relationships - the situation is becoming more unequal, not less.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

On top of this, absolutely no effort has been made to reform the myriad of laws that discriminate against men; from sexual abuse and rape laws that give one sentience to a man and a much smaller to a woman for the same crime, through to the Irish constitution that blatantly enshrines sexism in article 41.2.1.

So, if anything - at least in heterosexual relationships - the situation is becoming more unequal, not less.

Exactly, it gives men all the obligations of a marriage with none of the legal duties and protections.

Where the feck are the childcare prooposals -if there is the intentioin to look after womens and mens needs. It just is not there.

lazygal

I've said it before, male groups should make their number one priority the repeal of the women in the home provision in the constitution, as from this more equal law would have to flow.
BTW I work in the child care sector (I have a montessori school) and there are a myriad of vested interests in it-the last person looked after is the child. There are very low standards, poorly trained staff and a lack of continuity of care. A lot of the very large chains do not want cheaper state funded provision due to the large profits they make and there is certainly a concerted campaign to keep the status quo alive and well-so its not just the Government its also those who run and send their children to factory style child care provision that have a lot to answer for.

CDfm

+1 lazygal lots of people are asking for change and that is a definate area where change would benefit both men and women , especially women who want to return to work and have qualifications.

Any change has to be practical and workable and that is.

I started a thread on it here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055957283

lazygal

Yes, I could say the number one reason for high costs are large creches which are run as businesses first and child care services second. Time and again I have had parents come to my small service with tales from chains I won't name here that made my hair stand on end. Like everything else, the last person considered is the child. Its business first, HSE second, ridiculous inspections third, parents fourth and children last.
The only way to change this is for parents to challenge big business interests and tax breaks for factory style child care and be 100 times more choosey about whom they select to mind their children!

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

If there is a "mutual dependency", shouldn't there be a two-way settlement after the break up!? So if a man throws himself into his job but is only able to do this because his partner does more of the housework, shopping, cooking, etc., one could say that if you expect a man to keep supporting the woman financially, you could expect the woman to keep supporting the man in the other ways e.g. do a lot of work around his place of residence, a lot of his cooking, etc (or arrange that somebody does it)!

Hmm, interestingly (and it's becoming more prevalent in these financially tight times, if a seperated couple continue to live apart in the family home, the provision of domestic services by one member to the other, can be included as criteria in determining whether or not the couple are truly living apart! E.g. if X and Y have been married, then decide to seperate and continue to live in the same house, where X was the main breadwinner and Y was the homemaker, then if Y continues to be the homemaker, this would be a factor in determining whether or not the couple were truly "living apart" and could be considered that they were not.

The only link I can find online in relation to this is from DIY Divorce Ireland which quotes:

Other factors mentioned in case law which could demonstrate an Applicants intention that the marriage was over are as follows:

The Living Arrangements – whether they had separate bedrooms and how they used the facilities, like the bathroom, kitchen etc.

Services – what services they provided or did not provide for each other like cooking, cleaning, laundry, sexual etc.

And all else aside, tbh imo by the time a relationship breaks up, regardless of x paying maintence to y, in most cases couples simply want to move on, the maintenance payer probably wouldn't want the payee providing domestic services etc to them

Jeanious

To be as concise as possible: The new "Civil Partnership" means that a form of "marriage" is now open to all.

Following on from this, if people (of any sexuality) want the rights/responsibilities/legalities/burdens of marriage, they can now go for it, so why don't the goddamned government stay the hell away from people who choose to live together but not get married? Nonsensical in the extreme.

Stheno

coyle wrote: »

To be as concise as possible: The new "Civil Partnership" means that a form of "marriage" is now open to all.

Following on from this, if people (of any sexuality) want the rights/responsibilities/legalities/burdens of marriage, they can now go for it, so why don't the goddamned government stay the hell away from people who choose to live together but not get married? Nonsensical in the extreme.

Because the government have included an opt out clause for couples who do not wish to be constrained by the legislation they are introducing?????

Jeanious

nouggatti wrote: »

Because the government have included an opt out clause for couples who do not wish to be constrained by the legislation they are introducing?????

I don't get it...surely it should be:
Marriage = rights/responsibilities etc.
Cohabiting = none of the above.

Or is there somethin i'm missin? Im not overly familiar with the exact legislation.

Stheno

coyle wrote: »

I don't get it...surely it should be:
Marriage = rights/responsibilities etc.
Cohabiting = none of the above.

Or is there somethin i'm missin? Im not overly familiar with the exact legislation.

Yep it's something you're missing, there's another thread in the forum which discusses the bill here

Basically the bill confers a legal status on couples who have been cohabiting for 3 (might have been changed to 5) years, essentially that of a common law spouse, and makes provisions in the instance that the couple seperate, in terms of maintenance etc. That's very simplistic, you need to read up on it.

However if you want to live together but not be constrained by the legisalation then there is an opt out clause.

Jeanious

Apologies, last time i read about it there wasn't an opt-out. I heard somewhere (possibly on the news) yesterday that it was changed to 5 years alright.

Still i don't know why they can't just leave co-habiting couples alone, if they wanna get married they can get married. People co-habit for a reason and i dont think the government should interfere with that. The choice of marriage is there if they want it.

Stheno

coyle wrote: »

Apologies, last time i read about it there wasn't an opt-out. I heard somewhere (possibly on the news) yesterday that it was changed to 5 years alright.

Still i don't know why they can't just leave co-habiting couples alone, if they wanna get married they can get married. People co-habit for a reason and i dont think the government should interfere with that. The choice of marriage is there if they want it.

I'd hazard a guess that if they simply introduced this legislation for homosexual couples, then they would be in a position where it could be challenged by a heterosexual couple who didn't want all of the rights of marriage, but did want the rights conferred by this legislation, and under equality law they would lose the case?

They couldn't introduce straight gay marriage laws as that would probably be challenged under article 41 of the Constitution, so this legislation is a hodge podge of trying to avoid both those scenarios?

CDfm

coyle wrote: »

Apologies, last time i read about it there wasn't an opt-out. I heard somewhere (possibly on the news) yesterday that it was changed to 5 years alright.

Still i don't know why they can't just leave co-habiting couples alone, if they wanna get married they can get married. People co-habit for a reason and i dont think the government should interfere with that. The choice of marriage is there if they want it.

Imagine if you will a moonlit night - candles and a bottle of wine and an OPT OUT AGREEMENT.:eek:

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that if they simply introduced this legislation for homosexual couples, then they would be in a position where it could be challenged by a heterosexual couple who didn't want all of the rights of marriage, but did want the rights conferred by this legislation, and under equality law they would lose the case?

They couldn't introduce straight gay marriage laws as that would probably be challenged under article 41 of the Constitution, so this legislation is a hodge podge of trying to avoid both those scenarios?

But hasn't it gone further and rather than allow civil partnership to be a positve step so you need to opt out than opt in.

I mean they wouldnt do opt out legislation for organ donation.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

I mean they wouldnt do opt out legislation for organ donation.

Why not? It's been brought up in the past, and it is in place in other countries in Europe?

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

Why not? It's been brought up in the past, and it is in place in other countries in Europe?

Other countries have more progressive assisted/subsidised childcare facilities and back to work schemes for mothers.

Other countries do not have positive discrimination enshrined in their constitutions on the treatment of women.

So yes its a complex issue and if you Irish society is to change we need to change the basic parameters.

The way Europe works is that it sets minimum conditions for the market which includes the labour market and programmes for gender equality.

So yes lets be progressive and move in line with Europe but lets do it accross the board and remove the inequalities accross the board for a more equal and fairer society rather than cherrypick. If our legislation is in line with Europe then we can also maximize the european grant aid to achieve this.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

So yes its a complex issue and if you Irish society is to change we need to change the basic parameters.

The way Europe works is that it sets minimum conditions for the market which includes the labour market and programmes for gender equality.

So yes lets be progressive and move in line with Europe but lets do it accross the board and remove the inequalities accross the board for a more equal and fairer society rather than cherrypick. If our legislation is in line with Europe then we can also maximize the european grant aid to achieve this.

I don't mean to be a smartass but with the recent trend in Europe towards Human Rights and Equality, this legislation in that regard is trying to address that within the limits of our Constitution so in that regard can be regarded as a step in the right direction.

Ergo your argument is pointless as this legislation is bringing us inline with a lot of other EU countries

Post/argument is slightly off topic, apologies mods

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

I don't mean to be a smartass but with the recent trend in Europe towards Human Rights and Equality, this legislation in that regard is trying to address that within the limits of our Constitution so in that regard can be regarded as a step in the right direction.

Ergo your argument is pointless as this legislation is bringing us inline with a lot of other EU countries

Other countries constitutions do not attempt to do the same stuff ours does.

The "labour market" essentially works as a "labour market". Europe does not mind how you regulate your market but pays you to adopt programmes to do so.

But some changes like this one either need to be totally embrassed or not at all. You do not redress any inequality by introducing new ones. One step forward and two steps back.

This one seems to be cut the "welfare budget" driven.That is what is driving this one IMHO.

That is why I am saying bring introduce all the measures and it wont be a doomstay scenario.

I know its a bit off topic but the objective of the legislation seems to be to get women off welfare and how can you do that without correcting your childcare delivery. Thats my point & I have made it.

iptba

coyle wrote: »

Apologies, last time i read about it there wasn't an opt-out. I heard somewhere (possibly on the news) yesterday that it was changed to 5 years alright.

Still i don't know why they can't just leave co-habiting couples alone, if they wanna get married they can get married. People co-habit for a reason and i dont think the government should interfere with that. The choice of marriage is there if they want it.

And in practice I don't think a large percentage will opt-out. That means both parties getting independent legal advice and then signing up to whatever agreement they arrive at - and all has to be done in the first five years of living together - I don't see many men bringing it up anyway.

ETA: oops, missed there were posts 16-22.