Unmarried Mother in N.I wins right to Widows Payment

LirW

lazygal wrote: »

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.

See and this makes absolutely no sense. It's not about some inheritance issue, where rules are very clear, or access issue or whatever else that's out there. A child lost their father, this child happens to live in the UK that has some backwards law in place that it's only eligible for state support when mammy and daddy did the trip to the registry office. Same law is in place here. I get that there are certain things tied to marriage solely, getting state support for a child that lost their parent shouldn't be one of those.
If you are getting a divorce and your ex-partner dies, your children aren't eligible to support either even though you initially did everything right.

It simply is a backwards system that excludes unmarried children from support after losing a parent, while this exclusion doesn't happen in other EU countries and it works fine over there because well, you're having a hard time faking a death and a birth cert.

lazygal

LirW wrote: »

See and this makes absolutely no sense. It's not about some inheritance issue, where rules are very clear, or access issue or whatever else that's out there. A child lost their father, this child happens to live in the UK that has some backwards law in place that it's only eligible for state support when mammy and daddy did the trip to the registry office. Same law is in place here. I get that there are certain things tied to marriage solely, getting state support for a child that lost their parent shouldn't be one of those.
If you are getting a divorce and your ex-partner dies, your children aren't eligible to support either even though you initially did everything right.

It simply is a backwards system that excludes unmarried children from support after losing a parent, while this exclusion doesn't happen in other EU countries and it works fine over there because well, you're having a hard time faking a death and a birth cert.

This is the system we have here though. People need to lobby for change and the people in charge of the laws need to revise them. Until that happens, the current law around marriages and the attendant rights and responsibilities apply. Which is why everyone has a duty to educate themselves on the consequences of the choices they make. Marriage isn't all benefits or downsides, like every other legal contract it has good and bad sides for all parties involved.

Snugglebunnies

My daughters father died when she was a baby. We weren't cohabiting at the time, I never received anything other than lone parents allowance until I got back to college and then work.

LirW

lazygal wrote: »

This is the system we have here though. People need to lobby for change and the people in charge of the laws need to revise them. Until that happens, the current law around marriages and the attendant rights and responsibilities apply. Which is why everyone has a duty to educate themselves on the consequences of the choices they make. Marriage isn't all benefits or downsides, like every other legal contract it has good and bad sides for all parties involved.

I think exactly that's what people discuss there though, should there be a change for this particular circumstance or not? Yes, now in Ireland that's the way it is, now we're in the 21st century and not in the 1950's anymore where we sell unmarried children. Personally I do not think that this particular solution for children of deceased parents is up to date anymore, thinking of all the single parents Ireland has in 2018 due to a variety of circumstances.
This is not a tax or an inheritance matter, this is a welfare matter of a very particular circumstance which results in a lot of distress for everyone involved.
At the end of the day a child is unexpectedly left without a parent and their support and no court ruling or prayers are gonna bring that parent back.
A child of separated parents is no less affected by it than children of married parents in a mental and monetary way.
It should definitely be reformed that all children have access to support in these distressing times, not only the children of married parents.

Again, it springs to mind that a person's marital children would get the support that children from a previous relationship/marriage wouldn't get, but the circumstances are the same.

lazygal

There's always room for reform of laws.
Until that happens people are subject to the laws we have, and no amount of "it should be the case that" makes things which aren't the law legally relevant.
The big reason I'd never have had children outside marriage were the legal implications. You can argue the unfairness of that all you like but it won't change the legalities.

LirW

And I really hope for you that your marriage will last long and you'll have all the happiness in the world. Others are less fortunate and have to cut ties and leave their marriage that started out so well and for the right reasons. Nobody is immune to that. Children shouldn't be penalized for not having the perfect picturesque family surrounding (anymore) when everything goes belly up.

PlaneSpeeking

LirW wrote: »

And I really hope for you that your marriage will last long and you'll have all the happiness in the world. Others are less fortunate and have to cut ties and leave their marriage that started out so well and for the right reasons. Nobody is immune to that. Children shouldn't be penalized for not having the perfect picturesque family surrounding (anymore) when everything goes belly up.

And neither should the state be responsible because the parents thought a wedding meant a 20 grand day out and didn't bother.

swampgas

I got married because next-of-kin rights are a big deal, especially when far away from home. Also, because we had a house, if anything happened to me I didn't want my wife to have to sell up and move out. We don't even have kids, but the legal protections of marriage are far too important to be ignored and glossed over.

I've seen quite a few friends get royally screwed over when their (unmarried) partner died suddenly leaving them in serious financial trouble. It's a strange kind of love that says "I love you, and will cohabit and have kids with you, but if I die, you might lose the house, and I don't care because I won't be around to have to worry about it".

Nobody is forcing anyone else to get married, but if you're living like a married couple, and want the state to recognise that and provide legal protection, get over yourself and just get yourself down to the registry office.

PlaneSpeeking

swampgas wrote: »

I got married because next-of-kin rights are a big deal, especially when far away from home. Also, because we had a house, if anything happened to me I didn't want my wife to have to sell up and move out. We don't even have kids, but the legal protections of marriage are far too important to be ignored and glossed over.

I've seen quite a few friends get royally screwed over when their (unmarried) partner died suddenly leaving them in serious financial trouble. It's a strange kind of love that says "I love you, and will cohabit and have kids with you, but if I die, you might lose the house, and I don't care because I won't be around to have to worry about it".

Nobody is forcing anyone else to get married, but if you're living like a married couple, and want the state to recognise that and provide legal protection, get over yourself and just get yourself down to the registry office.

I will always remember a colleague from when I was starting out in work, he had been with his partner for nearly 30 years. He sadly passed away and the sister who had disowned him when he came out as gay got the lot - house, money, pensions - everything.

Marriage is more than a big day out in a white frock, it's legal status and recognition and legal protection for any children to come.

If you want that, get married - if not, don't. But this woman concerned who went to court should not have been given perks that others earned and paid for.

lazygal

LirW wrote: »

And I really hope for you that your marriage will last long and you'll have all the happiness in the world. Others are less fortunate and have to cut ties and leave their marriage that started out so well and for the right reasons. Nobody is immune to that. Children shouldn't be penalized for not having the perfect picturesque family surrounding (anymore) when everything goes belly up.

You think I didn't consider those possibilities before entering a legal contract?!

lazygal

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I will always remember a colleague from when I was starting out in work, he had been with his partner for nearly 30 years. He sadly passed away and the sister who had disowned him when he came out as gay got the lot - house, money, pensions - everything.

Marriage is more than a big day out in a white frock, it's legal status and recognition and legal protection for any children to come.

If you want that, get married - if not, don't. But this woman concerned who went to court should not have been given perks that others earned and paid for.

People who think marriage isn't a big deal must have missed all the lobbying the gay community engaged in to secure marriage rights.

LirW

lazygal wrote: »

You think I didn't consider those possibilities before entering a legal contract?!

Never said that.

I'm just surprised how many people defend a very old-fashioned "if you have kids you need to marry otherwise they're second class citizens in front of the law". Can't blame people because marriage still has a heavy weight in Ireland and these are the rules to play by while elsewhere things are a lot more accommodating for the average situation nowadays.

Honestly though, you can't do it right anyway. You enter marriage without a big party, it's not a real wedding. If you enter it early you're stupid and naive (even though you're aware of the legal implications). If you never do it, you're afraid of commitments.
Imho I think that this particular benefit is out of date and should involve all children regardless of their parents' marital status. I've seen it done elsewhere and it works just fine. I'm aware this is the rules to play by in this country but I'm still backing my opinion.

blanch152

LirW wrote: »

Never said that.

I'm just surprised how many people defend a very old-fashioned "if you have kids you need to marry otherwise they're second class citizens in front of the law". Can't blame people because marriage still has a heavy weight in Ireland and these are the rules to play by while elsewhere things are a lot more accommodating for the average situation nowadays.

Honestly though, you can't do it right anyway. You enter marriage without a big party, it's not a real wedding. If you enter it early you're stupid and naive (even though you're aware of the legal implications). If you never do it, you're afraid of commitments.
Imho I think that this particular benefit is out of date and should involve all children regardless of their parents' marital status. I've seen it done elsewhere and it works just fine. I'm aware this is the rules to play by in this country but I'm still backing my opinion.

The reason this is an issue in Ireland isn't because of marriage, but because of our generous social welfare payments.

Other countries don't have this problem because the state doesn't hand out money like confetti.

LirW

blanch152 wrote: »

The reason this is an issue in Ireland isn't because of marriage, but because of our generous social welfare payments.

Other countries don't have this problem because the state doesn't hand out money like confetti.

Plenty of people here treat it like a marriage issue though when it shouldn't be really. I also believe that this is a payment that is justified and spot-on - a child lost a parent due to unforeseen circumstances and now loses out on support.
The law treats it as a marriage issue when the situations can be a lot more complex nowadays. We're talking about children losing a parent after all.

swampgas

LirW wrote: »

Never said that.

I'm just surprised how many people defend a very old-fashioned "if you have kids you need to marry otherwise they're second class citizens in front of the law". Can't blame people because marriage still has a heavy weight in Ireland and these are the rules to play by while elsewhere things are a lot more accommodating for the average situation nowadays.

Honestly though, you can't do it right anyway. You enter marriage without a big party, it's not a real wedding. If you enter it early you're stupid and naive (even though you're aware of the legal implications). If you never do it, you're afraid of commitments.
Imho I think that this particular benefit is out of date and should involve all children regardless of their parents' marital status. I've seen it done elsewhere and it works just fine. I'm aware this is the rules to play by in this country but I'm still backing my opinion.

I agree that children should not be treated differently based on their parents status. However Irish people have a weird approach to getting married (IMO).

We need to separate being legally married (a simple registry office procedure) from all the cultural trappings of weddings, which is often what people don't want to go through.

If I put my grumpy hat on, I'd say that people who consider themselves mature enough to be able to share a household, have kids and (maybe) have a mortgage should also be able to get their heads round getting married.

There's something similar with wills. I've had a will since I was in my 30s. Some people are allergic - more of the same I don't have to worry about it because I'll be dead, hahaha attitude. And again, I'm old enough to know plenty of people who went through unnecessary hassle and trauma because their other half wasn't able to get his head round something as simple as making a will.

LirW

swampgas wrote: »

I agree that children should not be treated differently based on their parents status. However Irish people have a weird approach to getting married (IMO).

We need to separate being legally married (a simple registry office procedure) from all the cultural trappings of weddings, which is often what people don't want to go through.

If I put my grumpy hat on, I'd say that people who consider themselves mature enough to be able to share a household, have kids and (maybe) have a mortgage should also be able to get their heads round getting married.

The approach of marriage is indeed strange but comes with huge pressure in society and within families, how many times do we read about irreparable damage wedding-related issues can cause in families. Thinking along the lines of no church wedding, not having the parents around are all reasons why ties might be cut. Now a lot of people would agree that legalities are more important than hurt feelings and I generally agree, but the world isn't black and white.

Anyway, the current legislation handles it in that way that not all biological children of the deceased receive support but only the ones that came out of the relationship with your spouse. Now it's not uncommon that people have children from previous relationships and I'm case of the death of the parent these children get no support even though they share the dead biological parent, who is now not supporting either of them.
I get that a joint tax assessment is a marriage issue. That next-of-kin is a marriage issue. Inheritance is a marriage issue.
A child losing a parent is not a marriage issue because every parent has the legal obligation to at least financially care for their child. Yet only children born/raised in a marriage get a support that's called a widow's support but is mainly aimed at the support of children. Where there's no marriage there's no widow. But there are half-orphans, so if you wanna be correct about that, re-name the payment and make it accessible for all biological children that lost a parent.

Senature

I find some of the attitudes here totally heartless in relation to "get married if you want the legal protection for your kids." Reminds me of some of the debating regarding the previous referendum i.e. if you're prepared to have sex then be prepared to face the consequences regarding potential unwanted pregnancy etc, we're all adults after all...
In principle a payment that has it's roots in supporting a child that has lost a parent should be the entitlement of every child. I personally find it hard to believe anyone even feels justified arguing against that principle. The state is actually treating children whose parents are not married as 2nd class citizens, and plenty on this thread support that. Why?

Alrigghtythen

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.

We could treat all couples as if the are married/civil partnership even if they are only seeing some one a week. :rolleyes:

lazygal

Senature wrote: »

I find some of the attitudes here totally heartless in relation to "get married if you want the legal protection for your kids." Reminds me of some of the debating regarding the previous referendum i.e. if you're prepared to have sex then be prepared to face the consequences regarding potential unwanted pregnancy etc, we're all adults after all...
In principle a payment that has it's roots in supporting a child that has lost a parent should be the entitlement of every child. I personally find it hard to believe anyone even feels justified arguing against that principle. The state is actually treating children whose parents are not married as 2nd class citizens, and plenty on this thread support that. Why?

Parents should be fully aware of the legal consequences when they decide to have children outside marriage. The state has decided to regulate couples who decide to enter into a contract and leave those who don't to their own devices. There's very, very few impediments to getting married. As to why, there's myriad reasons including our history, social welfare and tax code, not imposing legal obligations on people who chose not to enter legal contracts and so on.

Senature

lazygal wrote: »

Parents should be fully aware of the legal consequences when they decide to have children outside marriage. The state has decided to regulate couples who decide to enter into a contract and leave those who don't to their own devices. There's very, very few impediments to getting married. As to why, there's myriad reasons including our history, social welfare and tax code, not imposing legal obligations on people who chose not to enter legal contracts and so on.

I don't think the state actively decided this the way you state it. Traditionally, a man and woman got married and often had children. This was what families were. Laws, social welfare supports etc were put in place to support and protect them. Now in our society we have all kinds of different types of families as well as traditional families, and it's reasonable to suggest that the laws of the country should be updated to reflect that. Every unmarried parent hasn't made a conscious decision to have a child outside of marriage, if life has always been that black and white for you you should consider yourself very fortunate. When it comes to the rights of a child I don't even understand how the setup of their parentage should be relevant.

lazygal

Senature wrote: »

I don't think the state actively decided this the way you state it. Traditionally, a man and woman got married and often had children. This was what families were. Laws, social welfare supports etc were put in place to support and protect them. Now in our society we have all kinds of different types of families as well as traditional families, and it's reasonable to suggest that the laws of the country should be updated to reflect that. Every unmarried parent hasn't made a conscious decision to have a child outside of marriage, if life has always been that black and white for you you should consider yourself very fortunate. When it comes to the rights of a child I don't even understand how the setup of their parentage should be relevant.

How should the state recognise family relationships?

Senature

This thread is about a woman winning the right to a widows payment despite not being married. One possibility could be that if a child has two legal guardians, on the death of one of the guardians, the "widows" payment could be made to the other guardian. Not that complicated really is it?

lazygal

How do you define guardian?

Senature

Edited to add that guardianship is the legal status that automatically applies to people who have children within a marriage.

Senature

Sorry, editing issues on my previous post, here is a link to the courts service information re current guardianship / family law in Ireland

www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/Library3.nsf/0/208FE8290DDDD0A080257FB500413B16?opendocument&l=en

LirW

Turn it into a surviving child - payment for every biological child of the deceased that the parent claims on the kid's behalf? That includes children from the current marriage or partnership as well as children from previous relationships.

Senature

LirW wrote: »

Turn it into a surviving child - payment for every biological child of the deceased that the parent claims on the kid's behalf? That includes children from the current marriage or partnership as well as children from previous relationships.

It's not all about biology though. Some kids are adopted, or are step-children, or are raised by grandparents etc etc. And whether or not the child's parents are married doesn't have to be a deciding factor at all. A legal guardian has legal rights and responsibilities to the child. They are, or should be, the ones responsible for providing for them. Therefore, the child has been significantly disadvantaged if their legal guardian dies, so that would be the principle behind the payment. There is already provision for legal guardianship in law so it wouldn't be that big a leap to take.

LirW

Senature wrote: »

It's not all about biology though. Some kids are adopted, or are step-children, or are raised by grandparents etc etc. And whether or not the child's parents are married doesn't have to be a deciding factor at all. A legal guardian has legal rights and responsibilities to the child. They are, or should be, the ones responsible for providing for them. Therefore, the child has been significantly disadvantaged if their legal guardian dies, so that would be the principle behind the payment. There is already provision for legal guardianship in law so it wouldn't be that big a leap to take.

Sounds very reasonable, I'm aware that there are many complex family situations, not only children from married and unmarried relationships. I find a bit complex because it's not only the guardian but for many the parents aren't in a relationship but one of the parents has maintenance and care commitments.
If the father of my first would die, there would be a lot of monetary support gone nevermind the hole he'd leave in the child's life.
I think in the end it's easy enough to establish who cared for their child and how the setup was and if the deceased person had any parental commitments.

Senature

I agree, that's why I don't think the payment should be dependent on marriage, cohabitation or current relationship status. In many cases like you mention above with your first child, the father is likely to be the child's legal guardian despite the parents not being in a relationship.

LirW

Senature wrote: »

I agree, that's why I don't think the payment should be dependent on marriage, cohabitation or current relationship status. In many cases like you mention above with your first child, the father is likely to be the child's legal guardian despite the parents not being in a relationship.

Not in our particular case but for many, including myself when I was little, that was the case.

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

Parents should be fully aware of the legal consequences when they decide to have children outside marriage. The state has decided to regulate couples who decide to enter into a contract and leave those who don't to their own devices. There's very, very few impediments to getting married. As to why, there's myriad reasons including our history, social welfare and tax code, not imposing legal obligations on people who chose not to enter legal contracts and so on.

Notification of intent to marry in Ireland is €200. This is way too expensive. In the UK it's £40. France it's €95. It should be €50 at the most.

Required documentation:

• long birth certificate, €20 each
• passport as identification, €80 each.

That's for two Irish born people, who have never been married or widowed. For anyone else that has a slightly different set of circumstances:
apostille stamp, €40 each
final divorce or dissolution decrees €?

• death certificate of spouse, €?
• copies of immigration or visa status. €?
• Church fee - anything from €50 -€300
• Priest fee - not sure but think it would be hundreds.

When you are both on a tiny wage, paying childcare fees and for the roof over your head, and still not making ends meet, paying for all that takes priority over getting married. It's easy to put it on the long finger of stuff that we will try to pay for after the car tax, nct, creche bill, dentist etc.

And for some people, getting married IS a big deal. I'm co-habiting for well over a decade with my child's dad. Getting married IS a big deal for us and for our families and we would like them to share in that celebration, even if it's a tiny one, which ours will be.

lazygal

I don't think there's a significant financial impediment to getting married. Organising other legal contracts has cost us much more. If you're choosing not to get married because you want to spend more than the actual cost of marriage in Ireland that's hardly the fault of the state.

LirW

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think there's a significant financial impediment to getting married. Organising other legal contracts has cost us much more. If you're choosing not to get married because you want to spend more than the actual cost of marriage in Ireland that's hardly the fault of the state.

If you're not Irish it's pretty expensive. Every run to the embassy costs you a ton of money, sorting legalities out is a pain and takes a really long time depending on where you used to live. To give you an example: my daughter born last year in March is eligible for the my country's citizenship. I applied pretty much right after her birth at the embassy because I needed a passport. She is 19 months old now and I still don't have her paperwork because the Central bureau back home is so busy.

When I enquired about the cost of the paperwork required to get married here I got a heart attack because it's unbelievably steep. And I'm an EU-citizen, for non-EU people that's even worse.

lazygal

The state isn't responsible for people not getting married because they want a wedding though.
For the vast majority of those getting married the costs are not extortionate and are less than most other legal contracts are to arrange.

.......

Neyite wrote: »

Notification of intent to marry in Ireland is €200.

I agree that 200 is a bit onerous. But other legal contracts can cost more.

The other costs you have mentioned, birth certs and passports - most people wont need to order them especially to get married.

The church/priest costs are not relevant - they are optional - we are simply discussing the cost to get married - not to have a wedding.

PlaneSpeeking

I just don't get people who have kids together and buy a house together and when asked why they're not married say "I'm not ready".

It's mental - lot easier to leave a marriage than kids and a joint mortgage!

Neyite

....... wrote: »

I agree that 200 is a bit onerous. But other legal contracts can cost more.

The other costs you have mentioned, birth certs and passports - most people wont need to order them especially to get married.

The church/priest costs are not relevant - they are optional - we are simply discussing the cost to get married - not to have a wedding.

You need your long form birth certificate and a passport at a minimum to marry.

You may have had legal contracts that cost more to you than your wedding but what about minimum wage couples or people on benefits who want to marry? €200 (for starters) is a BIG fee for them. Also if they are low income or perhaps young they are unlikely to have a passport each so that's another €160.

So €360.00 That's a lot for some couples to stump up when their outgoings exceed their income. In some cases that could be the best part of a weeks take home pay for one half of the couple who are already not able to make ends meet.

PlaneSpeeking

Neyite wrote: »

You need your long form birth certificate and a passport at a minimum to marry.

You may have had legal contracts that cost more to you than your wedding but what about minimum wage couples or people on benefits who want to marry? €200 (for starters) is a BIG fee for them. Also if they are low income or perhaps young they are unlikely to have a passport each so that's another €160.

So €360.00 That's a lot for some couples to stump up when their outgoings exceed their income. In some cases that could be the best part of a weeks take home pay for one half of the couple who are already not able to make ends meet.

Couples on benefits rarely want to marry - there goes the single parent benefits.

lazygal

Neyite wrote: »

You need your long form birth certificate and a passport at a minimum to marry.

You may have had legal contracts that cost more to you than your wedding but what about minimum wage couples or people on benefits who want to marry? €200 (for starters) is a BIG fee for them. Also if they are low income or perhaps young they are unlikely to have a passport each so that's another €160.

So €360.00 That's a lot for some couples to stump up when their outgoings exceed their income. In some cases that could be the best part of a weeks take home pay for one half of the couple who are already not able to make ends meet.

€360 to provide your partner and existing or potential children with the level of benefits afforded by marriage sounds like a bargain.

.......

Neyite wrote: »

You need your long form birth certificate and a passport at a minimum to marry.

You missed my point.

Most people wont need to order the long form of their birth cert or passport especially to marry because they will already have them. You need the long form of the birth cert to GET a passport in the first place so unless you have never needed a passport (which is quite unlikely these days) you will probably have both lying around somewhere.

You can also use a different identity document such as refugee card / asylum card issued by Department of Justice and Equality or national identity card from an EU country accepting them as a travel document.

lazygal

I know a lot more couples who put off getting married to save for a wedding than those who can't afford the state fees involved.

.......

lazygal wrote: »

I know a lot more couples who put off getting married to save for a wedding than those who can't afford the state fees involved.

I would be interested to see what would happen if someone went to social welfare and explained that they wanted to marry but couldnt afford it.

I am sure that a payment would be made. It is, after all, the desire of the state that people marry and have children.

lazygal

....... wrote: »

I would be interested to see what would happen if someone went to social welfare and explained that they wanted to marry but couldnt afford it.

I am sure that a payment would be made. It is, after all, the desire of the state that people marry and have children.

Absolutely. I doubt a couple who really wanted to marry but couldn't solely due to the fees involved couldn't be assisted in some way, either by the social welfare system or HSE which is on charge of marriage. An exceptional needs payment would be one option surely.

.......

lazygal wrote: »

Absolutely. I doubt a couple who really wanted to marry but couldn't solely due to the fees involved couldn't be assisted in some way, either by the social welfare system or HSE which is on charge of marriage. An exceptional needs payment would be one option surely.

I certainly think that if such a couple were not offered an exceptional needs payment (or some other solution) they would have a rock solid court case against the state on being discriminated against due to financial status.

lazygal

It's just the kind of situation the payment should cover.
That said I don't know a single couple who didn't get married because they couldn't afford the marriage fee and cost of buying relevant paperwork. Any financial reasons for putting off getting married have always involved saving for a wedding of some sort.