Civil Partnership Bill, cohabitees and the political parties -do they have a mandate?

iptba · 20-04-2010 4:06am #1

As some people will know, the Civil Partnership Bill will land some cohabitees with financial responsibilities to their partners when the relationship ends, even if they have no children together.

This, to me, seems important legislation and might be worthy of a referendum. Of course, we can't have a referendum for everything. Do people know which, if any, political parties said anything about this in their 2007 Manifestos? If they did and in particular, if FF or the Greens did, perhaps they can be said to have a mandate to legislate. If they didn't, it seems to me the case that it should be put to a referendum or, at least further public consultation in some way, is a lot stronger.

Sleepy · 20-04-2010 12:26pm

I don't care whether they had it in their manifestos or not. I'm against a 'default' applying of a married state to a co-habiting couple and would be even if the benefits of that institution were being provided instead of just the liabilities. Creating a Civil Partnership status for consenting adults to choose to commit to and ammending inheritance legislation for those dying intestate who have children with a person they're not married to would get the benefits of the legislation without imposing on other's rights and freedoms.

Even if you disagree with me on this (and I'd be interested to know why), I'd ask you to think about the fact they'll be applying legislation retrospectively.

If those who drove Ireland's economy onto the rocks still have to be paid their pensions (ministerial and otherwise) or provided with golden parachutes because we can't legally change their contracts retrospectively why on earth do this government think it's acceptable to impose legislation retrospectively that punishes people for no other reason that having a higher earning potential than someone they've shared a bed with for a few years?

iptba · 21-04-2010 12:00am

Thanks for your reply.

As no replies so far about the political parties and the positions they put to us at the last election, I thought I'd post the following to keep the thread going:

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

Liam Byrne · 21-04-2010 12:14am

iptba wrote: »

As some people will know, the Civil Partnership Bill will land some cohabitees with financial responsibilities to their partners when the relationship ends, even if they have no children together.

This, to me, seems important legislation and might be worthy of a referendum. Of course, we can't have a referendum for everything. Do people know which, if any, political parties said anything about this in their 2007 Manifestos? If they did and in particular, if FF or the Greens did, perhaps they can be said to have a mandate to legislate. If they didn't, it seems to me the case that it should be put to a referendum or, at least further public consultation in some way, is a lot stronger.

This government doing something no-one wants and for which they don't have a mandate ?

I'd like to say that it's shocking, but it's not.

iptba · 21-04-2010 12:20am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This government doing something no-one wants and for which they don't have a mandate ?

I'd like to say that it's shocking, but it's not.

Ok, but I'd like to first check my facts to see if they have no mandate. Also there is talk of all-party agreement - it might not emanate from the government parties but others e.g. Ivana Bacik of Labour who is on the Justice committee??

Also, the government doing something with regard to running the country on a day-to-day basis and with regard to economic matters is possibly a bit different from social policy. One is unlikely to have a referendum on lots of economic issues but one often gets the opportunity on "personal" issues like this.

Annasopra · 21-04-2010 12:25am

iptba wrote: »

Ok, but I'd like to first check my facts to see if they have no mandate. Also there is talk of all-party agreement - it might not emanate from the government parties but others e.g. Ivana Bacik of Labour who is on the Justice committee??

The committee that is currently examining the bill has no senators on it

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/S-JusticeEDWR/Homepage.htm

also check the 2007 manifestos here

http://www.manifestos.ie/

iptba · 21-04-2010 12:29am

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The committee that is currently examining the bill has no senators on it

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/S-JusticeEDWR/Homepage.htm

Ok, thanks.
Where does the joint committee:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/J-JusticeEDWR/Homepage.htm fit in (it has senators)?
(Sorry if this is a rather basic question but when I was in school, we only did Civics as a once-a-week class in first year) - don't expect a full answer

Annasopra · 21-04-2010 12:35am

iptba wrote: »

Ok, thanks.
Where does the joint committee:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/J-JusticeEDWR/Homepage.htm fit in (it has senators)?
(Sorry if this is a rather basic question but when I was in school, we
only did Civics as a once-a-week class in first year)

In what sense? -

some Bills get referred to the select committee and some get referred to the joint committee - I don't know the entire ins and outs of this process myself

iptba · 21-04-2010 12:39am

Johnnymcg wrote: »

In what sense? -

some Bills get referred to the select committee and some get referred to the joint committee - I don't know the entire ins and outs of this process myself

I'm wondering if it could start at the joint committee and then for its second reading go to (Dail) committee.

Johnnymcg wrote:

check the 2007 manifestos here
http://www.manifestos.ie/

Thanks but unfortunately, it says:

This list only goes until 1997. A comprehensive list will be uploaded soon.

Liam Byrne · 21-04-2010 12:46am

iptba wrote: »

Ok, but I'd like to first check my facts to see if they have no mandate. Also there is talk of all-party agreement - it might not emanate from the government parties but others e.g. Ivana Bacik of Labour who is on the Justice committee??

Ivana Bacik ? The one who wants quotas and other such rubbish instead of being elected / chosen on merit ? :rolleyes:

iptba wrote: »

Also, the government doing something with regard to running the country on a day-to-day basis and with regard to economic matters is possibly a bit different from social policy. One is unlikely to have a referendum on lots of economic issues but one often gets the opportunity on "personal" issues like this.

NAMA and the bank guarantees definitely aren't "day to day running of the country".

This government does its own thing, and has no authority in my book.

As for the wider picture, I can't even see any merit to the proposal, and it stinks of a mechanism for gold-diggers and leeches.

If it were based on a child being involved/created, then I'd see some merit in it.

But the days of someone giving up their job and being a home-maker are - generally - long gone, so this is just imposing the need for a pre-nup without the nup.

Couples earn their own money, do their own thing, and pool common resources.

Annasopra · 21-04-2010 4:11pm

Firstly all of the 2007 Manifestos are available at http://www.manifestos.ie/ if you look properly

Secondly just to explain - The CP Bill is currently being debated before the select committee

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/S-JusticeEDWR/Membership/document1.htm

You can see the debates that were held on 24th March

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUS20100324.xml&Node=H2#H2

The amendments number 30 to 45 will be debated by the committee sometime next week and these amendments cover the specific parts of the bill on cohabitation

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d-dcn.pdf

Just to state as well that Dermot Ahern has stated he wants this Bill passed into law before the Summer recess and also to Sleepy - Civil Partnership is completely separate to the redress scheme for cohabitants

iptba · 21-04-2010 4:22pm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Firstly all of the 2007 Manifestos are available at http://www.manifestos.ie/ if you look properly

Ok, thanks.

When I went to it it said:

This list only goes until 1997. A comprehensive list will be uploaded soon.

Which almost made me give up.

Then when I went to the political parties pages, no links were working in the browser I was using so just thought they weren’t up.

However down the bottom, it has:

If your browser has difficulty with this page, just click here for a simple directory of the files.

and they're there if anyone wants them.

Thanks again for that and the other info.

My interest in this is to do with the part of the legislation that affects heterosexual couples.

Thanks for the link for the ammendments but skimming down them, don't find much of "major" substance.

Permabear · 21-04-2010 4:42pm

This post has been deleted.

iptba · 21-04-2010 5:14pm

There is nothing in FF 2007 election manifesto on co-habitants.

There is on civil partnerships for same sex couples:
http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/ff/Fianna Fail GE 2007.pdf

Civil Partnerships

Based on our republican ethos and building on the agenda for equality to which we are committed, we will address the need to provide a legal framework that supports the rights of same sex couples, including by extending State recognition to civil partnerships between such persons so that they can live in a supportive and secure legal environment.

IrishTonyO · 21-04-2010 5:17pm

iptba wrote: »

There is nothing in FF 2007 election manifesto on co-habitants.

There is on civil partnerships for same sex couples:
http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/ff/Fianna Fail GE 2007.pdf

The government is elected to rule and legislate on our behalf, not everything has to be in their manifesto, it is just a general guide to their policies. If that was the case the government could not do anything in the day to day running of the country. Any unexpected things during the life of the government would take a new election or referendum, which would make government unworkable.

iptba · 21-04-2010 5:19pm

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/green/Green%20Party%20GE%202007.pdf

Marriage and Partnership Rights

The Green Party fully recognises the vital role marriage plays in our society. We agree that the special position of marriage should be maintained within our Constitution.

We also believe that giving recognition to other forms of family life which provide support to society does not in any way lessen the importance of marriage.

The Green Party will:

• establish ‘Family Centres’ to assist in pre-marriage courses, marriage counselling, mediation and arbitration;

• seek legislation that would remove all gender specific terms from current legislation and regulations governing the granting of marriages to allow same-sex couples enjoy the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage;

• recommend the creation of a new category of ‘civil partnership’, an institution that could be created and dissolved with more ease than marriage. This would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples;

• increase protections for unregistered cohabiting couples.

I might have a look to see if there's anything in the programme for government (or whatever it's called) if I can find it.

iptba · 21-04-2010 5:23pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

The government is elected to rule and legislate on our behalf, not everything has to be in their manifesto, it is just a general guide to their policies. If that was the case the government could not do anything in the day to day running of the country. Any unexpected things during the life of the government would take a new election or referendum, which would make government unworkable.

I agree that having referendums for unexpected things would be unworkable - I alluded to this in the discussion.

However, this would not come under "unexpected things" I think.

iptba · 21-04-2010 5:38pm

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_Archive/Publications_2007/An_Agreed_Programme_for_Government_-_June_2007.html

An Agreed Programme for Government - June 2007
A Blueprint for Ireland’s Future 2007-2012

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_Archive/Publications_2007/Eng_Prog_for_Gov.pdf

Civil Partnerships

This Government is committed to full equality for all in our society. Taking account of the options paper prepared by the Colley Group and the pending Supreme Court case, we will legislate for Civil Partnerships at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government.

iptba · 21-04-2010 5:43pm

As was pointed out in the Gentleman's Club, men only seem to move on some issues if they think it will affect them.

These days, lots of men will end up divorced/separated/widowed and can end up living with another woman.

In the US, people can end up supporting more than one person from what I understand.

iptba · 21-04-2010 9:15pm

This is more like an opt-in rather than opt-out model it appears to me i.e. you have to register.

I'm quoting these manifestos when writing to my TDs.

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202007.pdf

CIVIL PARTNERSHIP

Civil Partnership Register

• We will create a Civil Partnership Register to allow for two people of the same or opposite sex to formally register their partnership with the State. Officers appointed by the Registrar-General will conduct Civil Partnership ceremonies in registry offices throughout the country.

Public Commitment

• We will require that individuals publicly declare in the presence of witnesses that they fully understand the agreement they are entering into, the rights and responsibilities that come with this agreement and that they are entering a lifelong commitment to their prospective partner.

Rights and Responsibilities

• Fine Gael will institute the following rights and responsibilities for persons entering into Civil Partnership.

• The surviving partner will be entitled to the estate when their partner dies intestate. If the deceased partner has children, entitlement is reduced to two thirds. Should a partner die, leaving a will, the surviving partner will be entitled to at least one half of that estate regardless of what that will states.

No inheritance tax will be payable.

• Civil Partnership will bestow next of kin status upon a registered partner.

• The surviving partner will be entitled to benefit from the pension provisions that have been made.

• Both partners will have the right to share a last name should they wish.

• The right to residency in Ireland will automatically be conferred on a foreign registered partner of an Irish citizen.

• The equivalent of the married tax-free allowance and married mortgage allowance will be conferred on registered couples.

• Registered couples will be considered adult dependents and will be assessed according to their joint income.

• Registered partners will be entitled to compassionate leave from employers in the event of serious illness or the death of their partner, along the lines granted to married couples.

• The Family Home Protection Act will be widened to include registered couples in order to avoid any chance of a ‘secret sale’ of the home of a registered couple that may be in the name of only one member
of that couple.

• Fine Gael proposes to extend to two brothers, or two sisters, or a brother and sister living together a similar type of domestic partnership opportunity so as to ensure that they are not discriminated against

• We will ensure equal tax treatment for couples in civil unions

Annasopra · 21-04-2010 9:34pm

Can people stop confusing Civil Partnership and the redress scheme for cohabitants - They are completely different - The Civil Partnership Bill has two entirely distinct and separate sections - Civil Partnership is an opt in scheme similar to marriage for same sex couples only - It is completely different to the proposed redress scheme for cohabitants same sex and opposite sex -

If you read the explanatory memorandum it explains the difference

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d-memo.pdf

The purpose of the Bill is to establish a statutory civil partnership registration scheme for same-sex couples together with a range of rights, obligations and protections consequent on registration, and to set out the manner in which civil partnerships may be dissolved and with what conditions.

The Bill also establishes a redress scheme for opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting couples who are not married or registered in a civil partnership as the case may be. The redress scheme may be activated at the end of a relationship, whether by break-up or death, and allows a financially dependent cohabitant to apply to court for certain remedies, including maintenance, property or pension adjustment orders, or provision from the estate of a deceased cohabitant. The Bill also makes express provision for the recognition
of cohabitant agreements which regulate the shared financial affairs of cohabiting couples and enable couples to opt out of the application to them of the redress scheme.

iptba · 21-04-2010 9:45pm

Just to add, that those quotes from the manifestos are the wording/headings they used.
In the Green and FG manifestos, the term "civil partnership" wasn't restricted to same-sex couples.

But it is good to be reminded about terminology from people who knows the bill.

Another informal term for the so-called "redress scheme" for unmarried couples is palimony.

Annasopra · 22-04-2010 10:24am

being discussed on Pat Kenny on radio now

iptba · 22-04-2010 5:01pm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

being discussed on Pat Kenny on radio now

Thanks

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 (a woman who becomes a "lady of leisure" can look for more money when the relationship ends).

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

iptba · 25-04-2010 1:55am

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 · 25-04-2010 1:58am

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

goose2005 · 25-04-2010 3:42am

This sounds completely insane, and a goldmine for lawyers. Who is to define what constitutes a relationship? What if you take in a lodger, and she claims that she was your girlfriend? The whole reason that marriage was made a legal contract (requiring witnesses and signatures, etc.) was to avoid such minefields, but now the idiots in charge have seen to reverse this.

Annasopra · 25-04-2010 2:47pm

goose2005 wrote: »

Who is to define what constitutes a relationship?

The courts based on the law

170.—(1) For the purposes of this Part, a cohabitant is one of 2 adults (whether of the same or the opposite sex) who live together as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship and who are not related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relationship or married to each other or civil partners of each other.

(2) In determining whether or not 2 adults are cohabitants, the court shall take into account all the circumstances of the relationship and in particular shall have regard to the following:
(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the basis on which the couple live together;
(c) the degree of financial dependence of either adult on the other and any agreements in respect of their finances;
(d) the degree and nature of any financial arrangements between the adults including any joint purchase of an estate or interest in land or joint acquisition of personal property;
(e) whether there are one or more dependent children;
(f) whether one of the adults cares for and supports the children of the other; and
(g) the degree to which the adults present themselves to others as a couple.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt a relationship does not cease to be an intimate relationship for the purpose of this section merely because it is no longer sexual in nature.

(4) For the purposes of this section, 2 adults are within a prohibited degree of relationship if—
(a) they would be prohibited from marrying each other in the State, or
(b) they are in a relationship referred to in the Third Schedule to the Civil Registration Act 2004 inserted by section 26 of this Act.

(5) For the purposes of this Part, a qualified cohabitant means an adult who was in a relationship of cohabitation with another adult and who, immediately before the time that that relationship ended, whether through death or otherwise, was living with the other adult as a couple for a period—
(a) of 2 years or more, in the case where they are the parents of one or more dependent children, and
(b) of 3 years or more, in any other case.

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), an adult who would otherwise be a qualified cohabitant is not a qualified cohabitant if—
(a) one or both of the adults is or was, at any time during the relationship concerned, an adult who was married to someone else, and
(b) at the time the relationship concerned ends, each adult who is or was married has not lived apart from his or her spouse for a period or periods of at least 4 years during the previous 5 years.

iptba · 25-04-2010 10:03pm

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

[URL="[URL]http://deirdremcgowansolicitor.blogspot.com/2010/04/ifa-notice-civil-partnership-bill.html"]IFA Notice Civil Partnership Bill[/URL]

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!

Annasopra · 25-04-2010 10:50pm

I'm don't really agree with what that blog is saying about the LRC reports or no policy statements from government - The LRC reports did discuss the options within a policy context

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/Report%20Cohabitants.pdf

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpCohabitants.pdf

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/qsearch - (do a search for cohabitant)

http://www.glen.ie/press/cohabiting_couples.html

http://www.glen.ie/press/LawReform.html

Quite a good discussion here as well

http://humanrightsinireland.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/cohabitation-default-protection-and-the-civil-partnership-bill-2009/

iptba · 30-04-2010 4:31am

Thanks for the links. Skimming through them a little. In this one it says:

Johnnymcg wrote: »

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpCohabitants.pdf

E Chapter 5 – Maintenance

11.17 The Commission does not recommend that legislation be
introduced to allow qualified cohabitees the right to claim
maintenance while the relationship subsists. (paragraph 5.21)

11.18 The Commission does not recommend that legislation be
introduced to allow qualified cohabitees a general right to
maintenance. (paragraph 5.24)

11.19 The Commission does not recommend that qualified
cohabitees should be entitled to claim rehabilitative maintenance.
(paragraph 5.29)

11.20 The Commission does not recommend that qualified
cohabitees should be entitled to claim custodial maintenance. Rather,
the Court should take into account the costs incurred by the custodial
parent when making an order under the Family Law (Maintenance of
Spouses and Children) Act 1976. (paragraph 5.33)

11.21 The Commission recommends the court should be given a
discretionary power to make an award of compensatory maintenance
in exceptional circumstances where it considers it just and equitable
to do so. The Commission recommends that a qualified cohabitee
seeking such an order must issue proceedings within one year of the
breakdown. (paragraph 5.36)

I don't know how that fares with the current legislation. There are certainly dozens of references to maintenance in the current bill.

Civil Partnership Bill, cohabitees and the political parties -do they have a mandate?

Comments