Unmarried Mother in N.I wins right to Widows Payment

banie01

....... wrote: »

Life happens - but for 11 years?

Frankly if you are having kids with someone that you want to stay in a relationship with you should be registering your intent to marry when you are pregnant - simply to protect yourself and your child legally.

It takes a couple of minutes to make the appointment. It takes a couple of hours to go to it. And it takes a couple of hours to actually go and get married.

I appreciate people not getting round to things, we all have long fingers, but for me anyway - this was a priority to safeguard myself and himself legally.

I just dont know why people wouldnt.

As I said in the earlier post, marriage was planned.
For not long after she died actually.
Like I said life happens.

And yes 11 years.
Taken up by school, college, travelling and working together before coming back to Ireland to set up home and falling unexpectedly pregnant.
When you are young, you tend to think of doing things in the future, of making plans and particularly with a wedding of involving people.

I should perhaps be a little madder at her for being so inconsiderate as to die before we tied the knot?
Or at the Government for not recognising our existing civil partnership?

Whatever stance one takes, it still doesn't alter the view of the government that a child born outside of wedlock or a sanctioned civil partnership, is worth less than a child born within it

Turnipman

What we have to appreciate that for some shallow people, being married isn't "cool". Whereas having a partner is. And for some, having a "cool" image is far more attractive than acting like a pair of grown ups and formalising the relationship and protecting one another's succession rights not to mention the kids.

Plus, if either member of the partnership happens to meet a younger model then it's far easier to walk away from the partner and the sprogs than it is if one "bothered" to get married.

up for anything

Turnipman wrote: »

What we have to appreciate that for some shallow people, being married isn't "cool". Whereas having a partner is. And for some, having a "cool" image is far more attractive than acting like a pair of grown ups and formalising the relationship and protecting one another's succession rights not to mention the kids.

Hahahaha, you sound like my mother or the nuns in school a hundred years ago trying to be down and groovy with us. Being married isn't "cool"? Were you at the World Meeting of only heterosexual families? :D:D

Riskymove

banie01 wrote: »

Whatever stance one takes, it still doesn't alter the view of the government that a child born outside of wedlock or a sanctioned civil partnership, is worth less than a child born within it

not quite...here a surviving parent would qualify for Lone Parent Payment regardless of the marital status at the time

Turnipman

up for anything wrote: »

Hahahaha, you sound like my mother or the nuns in school a hundred years ago trying to be down and groovy with us. Being married isn't "cool"? Were you at the World Meeting of only heterosexual families? :D:D

Would I be right to assume that your moniker reflects your attitude to marriage of any sort?

Riskymove

up for anything wrote: »

Conversely, why should there be legal benefits to being married?

well that is the question really? why should the state care about marital status at all...shouldn't cohabitation suffice

banie01

Riskymove wrote: »

not quite...here a surviving parent would qualify for Lone Parent Payment regardless of the marital status at the time

Yes quite, as there is the matter of the €6000 Surviving parents grant.
Unless in a formalised relationship i.e marriage or civil partnership this is not payed to a surviving co-habiting parent.
Lone parents is the appropriate payment for a single parent of either sex regardless of the status of the other parent, be they dead, missing or abandoned.

up for anything

Turnipman wrote: »

Would I be right to assume that your moniker reflects your attitude to marriage of any sort?

Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.

What does my username have to do with anything? That's like me assuming you are completely stupid or a country bumpkin because of your username.

James Brown

Turnipman wrote: »

What we have to appreciate that for some shallow people, being married isn't "cool". Whereas having a partner is. And for some, having a "cool" image is far more attractive than acting like a pair of grown ups and formalising the relationship and protecting one another's succession rights not to mention the kids.

Plus, if either member of the partnership happens to meet a younger model then it's far easier to walk away from the partner and the sprogs than it is if one "bothered" to get married.

What nonsense. I don't need a man in a dress who believes in another man in the clouds or a civil servant for that matter to ratify any relationship. Cop on. Go off and tell on me to the Legion of Mary.

Marriage is related to that whole embarrassing religious fad. No law should pay any attention to anything related to it. If people have a number of kids together and lived together for 20 odd years, obviously they should.

Nermal

Courts in decision to disburse yet more taxpayer's money, imagine my shock.

Abolish the payment - if you want widow's dole, buy life insurance.

Turnipman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What nonsense. I don't need a man in a dress who believes in another man in the clouds or a civil servant for that matter to ratify any relationship. Cop on. Go off and tell on me to the Legion of Mary.

Marriage is related to that whole embarrassing religious fad. No law should pay any attention to anything related to it. If people have a number of kids together and lived together for 20 odd years, obviously they should.

Absolutely. Their call, 100%!

However, the State is playing the music and if they're too stubborn, stupid or "free-spirited" to dance to the tune, then they have only themselves to blame when the music stops.

.......

banie01 wrote: »

Whatever stance one takes, it still doesn't alter the view of the government that a child born outside of wedlock or a sanctioned civil partnership, is worth less than a child born within it

Thats why if you want the legal protection you have to play the game.

Mrs OBumble

....... wrote: »

Thats why if you want the legal protection you have to play the game.

The rules of the game need to change so.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, misappropriated by the state to apply patriarchical control over women. Should have nothing to do with the state.

irelandrover

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The rules of the game need to change so.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, misappropriated by the state to apply patriarchical control over women. Should have nothing to do with the state.

Thats just wrong. Marriage is a legal process of formalizing your relationship.

lazygal

We got married for the tax, inheritance and next of kin rights. There's no way I'd have had children outside marriage given the legal protections involved. Ten minutes in the registry office, job done.

PlaneSpeeking

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The rules of the game need to change so.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, misappropriated by the state to apply patriarchical control over women. Should have nothing to do with the state.

That is absolute 100% horse manure.

Dravokivich

Graces7 wrote: »

I have to admit that this was my initial reaction. Knowing the law/rules, surely they should have formalised their relationship enough to protect their children?

Just common sense?

I've never wanted to be married. Why should I be, to have kids?

lazygal

Dravokivich wrote: »

I've never wanted to be married. Why should I be, to have kids?

No one has to be. If you're looking to have the legal rights and responsibility that comes with marriage you have to get married though.

.......

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The rules of the game need to change so.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, misappropriated by the state to apply patriarchical control over women. Should have nothing to do with the state.

The bolded is simply incorrect.

If you are not happy with the laws of the land then you are free to lobby your local TDs etc to change them.

Run a campaign, generate interest, strive to make change.

But while the laws are in place - you need to play by the rules if you want to enjoy the benefits of those rules.

Incidentally, I cannot imagine marriage every becoming a non event in terms of treatment by the state, as there would be far too much of a push back by those who WANT to enjoy the obligations and responsibilities that it endows.

As things stand, those who do not wish to marry are not forced to do so - but those who want to can. However, you cannot and should not enjoy the same benefits as a married person if you choose not to do it yourself.

Its a bit of a no brainer really, if you are going to have children and/or buy property with someone then youd be silly not to get married to avail of the benefits of marriage. Cutting off your nose to spite your face I believe is the term for it.

lazygal

Nor would I want the legal restrictions around marriage imposed on me simply by virtue of a relationship I was in. We actively decided to get married. If we didn't want to be viewed by the state as being in a legal contract we wouldn't have gotten married.

dotsman

Lucy8080 wrote: »

IMO yes.

"You cant expect to have the benefits of marriage if you refuse to actually get married."

That's easily resolved. The Government should pay for all marriages, if they insist on making a demand of those couples who refuse to get married.

All would get married then!

The two longest relationships I know of,are unmarried ( from my age group) .

I know one person on a fourth marriage ,two on their third ,and one on their second.

Everyone in my group know that the two unmarried one's put in a shift in life that didn't have space for wasting money on getting married.

Check out a marriage thread here, and discover the amount of obligation a guest feels on their purse/wallet.

How much more does it cost the couple who go for the big church/hotel show?

There is a huge difference between getting married and having a wedding.

Getting married is simply signing a form that declares that, legally, you want to be treated as a family going forward (and accept all the pros and cons associated with it).


Having a wedding is optional social/religious event and involves stupid amounts of money being spent on stupid things nobody cares about.

banie01

The crux of this case and the award made, Is that the State(UK) discriminated against the bereaved children by denying their surviving parent a support payment that is/was available to the children of parents in "Formal" relationship.

Look at it from the point of view of it being an insurable benefit covered via NI/PRSI that accrues to the surviving children of a deceased parent.
Take 2 examples one a married family with 2 children and both parents working, the other an unmarried co-habiting family with both parents working.
Both families pay the same amount of tax and PRSI, both families have similar child rearing and house hold costs.
In the event of a parent suddenly dying, many of the base costs remain the same, in particular with regard child rearing costs.
Yet the children of the married family receive an additional stipend that is denied to the children of the co-habiting family.

The Irish example of the €6000 surviving parent grant is treated in the same fashion, it punishes illegitimacy.

banie01

As an aside, the amount of people who think that a marriage, is essentially a business transaction easily uncoupled from a "wedding" is quite an eyeopener.
Apart from the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage, it is an entwining of 2 people and their families.
Regardless of holding a "party" or not, many people don't chase the party, but do see the "wedding" as an important event to symbolise and showcase their union and which is often an opportunity to involve and introduce family members.

lazygal

All the more reason to look into the benefits afforded by marriage before having kids.

lazygal

banie01 wrote: »

As an aside, the amount of people who think that a marriage, is essentially a business transaction easily uncoupled from a "wedding" is quite an eyeopener.
Apart from the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage, it is an entwining of 2 people and their families.
Regardless of holding a "party" or not, many people don't chase the party, but do see the "wedding" as an important event to symbolise and showcase their union and which is often an opportunity to involve and introduce family members.

It isn't. I'm married to my husband and him to me. We get on great with the extended family but they have zero involvement in our marriage from a legal standpoint. The marriage contract is about the two people getting married. No one else.

dotsman

up for anything wrote: »

Conversely, why should there be legal benefits to being married? Why are a couple who get married better than a couple who choose not to do so? My sister and her partner are together 41 years this year and yet the couple next door to me who were married one year were already calling it quits.

If I hook up with a girl tonight and she has a big accident tomorrow, should I have power of attorney over her? If she dies tomorrow, should I inherit all her stuff? If she lives, but can't work due to the accident, can I have all her tax credits?

Of course not - it would be absolutely ridiculous. But, what about after dating her for 3 months, 6 months, a year, 5 years, 20 years? At what stage should we be considered a family? You can't put a time on it? It will be different for different people. That is why we have marriage. The very simple, black and white concept of declaring that you are a family.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Marriage is a religious ceremony, misappropriated by the state to apply patriarchical control over women. Should have nothing to do with the state.

That could be one of the worst posts I have ever read on boards. And worse, I think you actually believe what you wrote. Here let me try to make even a few corrections to it.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Marriage is a religious ceremony legal process, misappropriated intended by the state to allow people be recognised as a family unit, but unfortunately, due to feminists, also used to apply patriarchical matriarchal control over women men, thus discouraging many men from the process as they have a lot to lose and are too easily abused by the process. Should have nothing to do with the state evil, sexist groups/journalists/political movements.

banie01

lazygal wrote: »

It isn't. I'm married to my husband and him to me. We get on great with the extended family but they have zero involvement in our marriage from a legal standpoint. The marriage contract is about the two people getting married. No one else.

So in the event of an in law being sick, or a niece or nephew suddenly needing help, its basically a tough titties and you're on your own?
Or do you support your husband when he has to deal with issues arise in his family?
Does he support you when issues arise in yours?

lazygal

banie01 wrote: »

So in the event of an in law being sick, or a niece or nephew suddenly needing help, its basically a tough titties and you're on your own?
Or do you support your husband when he has to deal with issues arise in his family?
Does he support you when issues arise in yours?

Nothing to do with marriage. Doesn't form any part of the rights and responsibilities that come with getting married.
Marriage is about the two people getting married. That's it.

banie01

lazygal wrote: »

Nothing to do with marriage. Doesn't form any part of the rights and responsibilities that come with getting married.
Marriage is about the two people getting married. That's it.

But it has everything to do with family doesn't it?

lazygal

banie01 wrote: »

But it has everything to do family doesn't it?

No. Our marriage is a legal agreement between me and my husband.
Our extended family outside that is irrelevant to the legal contract we choose to enter into.
Helping family has nothing to do with being married.

ohnonotgmail

banie01 wrote: »

But it has everything to do family doesn't it?

there is no legal requirement to take on your partners family. Marriage is just a contract you agree to in front of the state. It affords you certain protections. Anything outside that is entirely up to the 2 people involved.

.......

banie01 wrote: »

But it has everything to do with family doesn't it?

How does it?

I cannot be taken to court and have it enforced that I must help one of MY own sick relatives let alone his.

Marriage has nothing to do with family of origin - although it does have something to do with children within the marriage.

Alrigghtythen

If people want the benefits of marriage, they should get married.

dr.fuzzenstein

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

If people want the benefits of marriage, they should get married.

Hi, did you just arrive here from the 1950's?
So much has changed, let me bring you up to speed...

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

So in the event of an in law being sick, or a niece or nephew suddenly needing help, its basically a tough titties and you're on your own?
Or do you support your husband when he has to deal with issues arise in his family?
Does he support you when issues arise in yours?

lazygal wrote: »

Nothing to do with marriage. Doesn't form any part of the rights and responsibilities that come with getting married.
Marriage is about the two people getting married. That's it.

banie01 wrote: »

But it has everything to do with family doesn't it?

lazygal wrote: »

No. Our marriage is a legal agreement between me and my husband.
Our extended family outside that is irrelevant to the legal contract we choose to enter into.
Helping family has nothing to do with being married.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no legal requirement to take on your partners family. Marriage is just a contract you agree to in front of the state. It affords you certain protections. Anything outside that is entirely up to the 2 people involved.

....... wrote: »

How does it?

I cannot be taken to court and have it enforced that I must help one of MY own sick relatives let alone his.

Marriage has nothing to do with family of origin - although it does have something to do with children within the marriage.

Nowhere in my posts did I say I believe marriage enforced responsibility for a partners extended family.
The thrust of my point may be a little lost.

It boils down to what constitutes a family.
Family is supporting those that are close to us, it is helping them when we can and indeed being helped by them when we need it.
Family is not dependent upon the issuance of a wedding cert.

That support structure is not predicated upon a marriage certificate!
It is based on mutual care and support, financial and familial!
Maybe not always for our partners families but certainly for our partners.

I note a comment above, about marriage having nothing to do with the family of origin and I 100% agree.
I do not however agree with it having something to do with the children of the marriage....
Children bore outside of marriage should not be punished or reduced in circumstance because of the marital status of their parents.

lazygal

Marriage isn't what you think it is or should be. It's a legal contract people choose to enter into which confers rights and responsibilities. That's it.

Alrigghtythen

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Hi, did you just arrive here from the 1950's?
So much has changed, let me bring you up to speed...

So people don't want the benefits of marriage then?

lazygal

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

So people don't want the benefits of marriage then?

I think threads like this are a good example of why we should educate teenagers about relationships including marriage and the rights and responsibilities that come with your choices in life.

dr.fuzzenstein

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

So people don't want the benefits of marriage then?

They do and they don't even have to get married! At least the Supreme Court seems to agree, but what do they know...

lazygal

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

They do and they don't even have to get married! At least the Supreme Court seems to agree, but what do they know...

When did the SC rule that you can enjoy all the benefits of marriage without being married?

Alrigghtythen

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

They do and they don't even have to get married! At least the Supreme Court seems to agree, but what do they know...

They know some parents don't care how their decisions will effect their children.

dr.fuzzenstein

Marriage is an outdated concept. It should be possible to register for civil partnership.
The world should be dragged into the 20th (nevermind the 21st) century in that regards.

irelandrover

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Marriage is an outdated concept. It should be possible to register for civil partnership.
The world should be dragged into the 20th (nevermind the 21st) century in that regards.

What would be the difference between civil partnership and marriage? What changes would you make?

LirW

lazygal wrote: »

I think threads like this are a good example of why we should educate teenagers about relationships including marriage and the rights and responsibilities that come with your choices in life.

I think the approach altogether in the case of a deceased parent is a bit of a wrong one here. It ties it all the condition "child has married parents". Yes, in a perfect world this would be the case but unfortunately it's not all ponies and roses and people are in the position of rearing their children alone or can't enter a marriage at a particular time because certain circumstances like legalities are difficult to sort out or the relationship is in a bad place, whatever, take your pick.

This is a very specific case when a parent dies, it unfortunately happens and has nothing to do with legalities like taxes or inheritance between the spouses.
Other countries handle it differently and a lot more reasonable, they tie the condition to get a similar payment like the specific one to the biological child of the deceased. Let's say a man dies in on the way home from work in an accident and has 1 child from a previous relationship and 2 children with his now-wife. In this case the first child wouldn't be eligible for support while the other 2 are simply because the mother was never married to the father for whatever reason.
If the condition would be put on biological children though all 3 children are eligible for state support, which makes a lot more sense. It's an entirely separate matter from inheritance or tax credits, 3 children permanently lost the support of one parent.

My stepfather and his siblings were getting a monthly half-orphan payment after their father died in a work accident when he was very young. The mother claimed on behalf of their children and once old enough they claimed the money themselves (depending on your education path you're eligible for support until you're 25, not saying that this should be implemented here though).

When I say biological parent I'm talking about the 2 people that are named in the birth cert.

lazygal

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Marriage is an outdated concept. It should be possible to register for civil partnership.
The world should be dragged into the 20th (nevermind the 21st) century in that regards.

What's outdated about the concept of the state recognising the legal union of a couple?

lazygal

LirW wrote: »

I think the approach altogether in the case of a deceased parent is a bit of a wrong one here. It ties it all the condition "child has married parents". Yes, in a perfect world this would be the case but unfortunately it's not all ponies and roses and people are in the position of rearing their children alone or can't enter a marriage at a particular time because certain circumstances like legalities are difficult to sort out or the relationship is in a bad place, whatever, take your pick.

This is a very specific case when a parent dies, it unfortunately happens and has nothing to do with legalities like taxes or inheritance between the spouses.
Other countries handle it differently and a lot more reasonable, they tie the condition to get a similar payment like the specific one to the biological child of the deceased. Let's say a man dies in on the way home from work in an accident and has 1 child from a previous relationship and 2 children with his now-wife. In this case the first child wouldn't be eligible for support while the other 2 are simply because the mother was never married to the father for whatever reason.
If the condition would be put on biological children though all 3 children are eligible for state support, which makes a lot more sense. It's an entirely separate matter from inheritance or tax credits, 3 children permanently lost the support of one parent.

My stepfather and his siblings were getting a monthly half-orphan payment after their father died in a work accident when he was very young. The mother claimed on behalf of their children and once old enough they claimed the money themselves (depending on your education path you're eligible for support until you're 25, not saying that this should be implemented here though).

When I say biological parent I'm talking about the 2 people that are named in the birth cert.

Like I said, all the more reason for thinking about the consequences of your choices, be it having children outside marriage, or deciding not to get married. I know life isn't perfect. Children shouldn't suffer because their parents made certain choices. But adults must know that their choices will come with consequences good and bad.

dotsman

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

They do and they don't even have to get married! At least the Supreme Court seems to agree, but what do they know...

You do realise that:

• we are talking about a foreign country here, not our Supreme Court
• it is only in relation to this one benefit (and not all marital pros/cons), which relates directly to the children
• that the ruling is required because the parents didn't take the responsible choice for their children
• the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether the ruling is the right call

LirW

lazygal wrote: »

Like I said, all the more reason for thinking about the consequences of your choices, be it having children outside marriage, or deciding not to get married. I know life isn't perfect. Children shouldn't suffer because their parents made certain choices. But adults must know that their choices will come with consequences good and bad.

How does it take a marriage breakdown in consideration? Or single parents that had to get their children out of an abusive relationship? How can it be that other European countries that have a catholic majority too have a system for the same case in place that doesn't care about the marital status of the parents but care about who is your biological parent?

How about that mother over in PI that had to ditch her husband shortly after getting married when she was heavily pregnant because he turned out to be a liar and a cheater?

WildCardDoW

Obvious rule here is if a person claims single person payments in a recent period (6 - 12? months) leading up to the widowing then they can't claim it.

Otherwise if they have been means tested as a couple up to this point then this should apply to them.

lazygal

LirW wrote: »

How does it take a marriage breakdown in consideration? Or single parents that had to get their children out of an abusive relationship? How can it be that other European countries that have a catholic majority too have a system for the same case in place that doesn't care about the marital status of the parents but care about who is your biological parent?

How about that mother over in PI that had to ditch her husband shortly after getting married when she was heavily pregnant because he turned out to be a liar and a cheater?

All the reasons in the world to weigh up the consequences of getting married before you do it. It's a legal contract. Everyone should do their research before getting into it.