What happens to my son if she dies unmarried

LegacyUser

Hey hey,

I'm an unmarried father, living with my partner. We have a 16 month old son, and are very happy.

If my partner dies, do I have any claim to my son, or would the guardianship revert to my parents-in-law?

Peggypeg

Hey, granted I'm not a parent or solicitor but parents have the ultimate right when it comes to children. Make sure you're on the birth cert and you'll be fine. You could get married to be completely sure but that's really not necessary.

banquo

You need either name in birth cert or to be married to have any legal entitlement to the child. Pretty much.

Is your wife ill?

Nevyn

Even with your name on the birth cert you need to have legal guardianship or else on her death it defaults to her legal guardin next of kin which is usually her parents and then you would have to go via the courts to claim your child.

You can be made legally her next of kin and you can be granted guardianship with out going to the courts by filling out the forums and getting a family solictor to process them. You both should have wills made out with your wishes re your family made out as well.

LegacyUser

Thanks for the replies

My son's mother is healthy and well, but someone asked me today about marriage and my rights as a father - I had to confess that I didn't know definitively one way or another Been too busy with the million-and-one minutae of the day-to-day to even have thought about it tbh.

My colleague is in a homosexual relationship and was basically deriding me, saying that I had the option open to me to ensure that the child couldn't be taken away from me, that if I or my partner were to die that the willed money wouldn't be guaranteed to go to the kid, that my son could end up the center of a long-winded legal battle etc etc. That the security of a marriage isn't open to him, and that he found it offensive that I shunned the institution.

My will is in order, but I probably should have a chat to my solicitor anyway

nesbitt

Your colleague sound like right pain in the rear. I would advise a quick visit to solicitor and half hour discussion should answer all your questions and most importantly of anything that you, or your ex need to do to foresee a good future for your child. Mind you being there and all the love stuff is vital too:)

squonk

Maybe stating the obvious OP but why wouldn't you just get married? You could have a civil ceremony, do it privately if you wanted. I'm not trying to push an agenda but it seems like you're dedicated enough to yoru son to ensure he's looked after and I presume seeing as you're living with your partner too that relations are good between you. I know there are more issues involve in the M thing but it might be a good catch all option really.

LegacyUser

Maybe stating the obvious OP but why wouldn't you just get married?

Suppose it deserves an explanation. I don't really have any strong feelings on marriage one way or the other, but my partner has issues with state involvement in what amounts to our commitment to one another, to love each other and to raise a family as a team until we die. She doesn't see it as something that the state has any right to be involved in, period.

She explains it with far more passion and eloquence than that, but essentially sees it as one more false concept that we could all do without. She's not mad on the idea of nations, either, that kind of thing. Communities, sure. People before pigeonholes.

She'd laugh if she read this, I'm sure I'm missing her subtler points massively I'm just glad to live life and get on with things, but will be gladder once I'm 100% sure that the legal system we operate in is setup the in my family's favour.

kjl

MarriageQs wrote: »

Hey hey,

I'm an unmarried father, living with my partner. We have a 16 month old son, and are very happy.

If my partner dies, do I have any claim to my son, or would the guardianship revert to my parents-in-law?

here dexter what are you planning, is the mother sick in anyway, why are you asking these questions.

shellyboo

kjl wrote: »

here dexter what are you planning, is the mother sick in anyway, why are you asking these questions.

He's already addressed this:

MarriageQs wrote: »

Thanks for the replies

My son's mother is healthy and well, but someone asked me today about marriage and my rights as a father - I had to confess that I didn't know definitively one way or another Been too busy with the million-and-one minutae of the day-to-day to even have thought about it tbh.

My colleague is in a homosexual relationship and was basically deriding me, saying that I had the option open to me to ensure that the child couldn't be taken away from me, that if I or my partner were to die that the willed money wouldn't be guaranteed to go to the kid, that my son could end up the center of a long-winded legal battle etc etc. That the security of a marriage isn't open to him, and that he found it offensive that I shunned the institution.

My will is in order, but I probably should have a chat to my solicitor anyway

The Recliner

kjl wrote: »

here dexter what are you planning, is the mother sick in anyway, why are you asking these questions.

Be careful with your phrasing there kjl

It sounds like you are accusing the Op of something

Re-read the Op's posts, he has given full and frank explanations of his situation and has nothing to hide

unhelpful posting is a ban-able offence in PI anymore like this and you will be put on the naughty step

Lockstep

An unamarried father without legal guardianship has less right to a child than to the mother's parents?

Sounds incredibly wrong to me.

mood

MarriageQs wrote: »

Suppose it deserves an explanation. I don't really have any strong feelings on marriage one way or the other, but my partner has issues with state involvement in what amounts to our commitment to one another, to love each other and to raise a family as a team until we die. She doesn't see it as something that the state has any right to be involved in, period.

She explains it with far more passion and eloquence than that, but essentially sees it as one more false concept that we could all do without. She's not mad on the idea of nations, either, that kind of thing. Communities, sure. People before pigeonholes.

She'd laugh if she read this, I'm sure I'm missing her subtler points massively I'm just glad to live life and get on with things, but will be gladder once I'm 100% sure that the legal system we operate in is setup the in my family's favour.

But the state are involved either way in the sense the law has a major effect on you situation should you/her break up or die. The state effect everyone, there are laws we all have to live by that effect us. That can't be avoided. Surely if you both love each other and plan to spend your life together and getting married would sort out all the legal issues regarding the child why not do it low key? Surely your wishes to have equal rights to the kids are more important than her issue with the state etc!

OS119

mood wrote: »

But the state are involved either way in the sense the law has a major effect on you situation should you/her break up or die. The state effect everyone, there are laws we all have to live by that effect us. That can't be avoided. Surely if you both love each other and plan to spend your life together and getting married would sort out all the legal issues regarding the child why not do it low key? Surely your wishes to have equal rights to the kids are more important than her issue with the state etc!

^^^this^^^

OP, i can understand your wife's feelings regarding the states' artificial construct of legal marriage - i'm a bit like it, i prefer to know that my wife is waking up with me because she wants to be there, not because she can't afford to divorce me!

OTOH, the state does exist, and without specific legal action by you both, should she fall under the No 9 bus, the state will remove your child from you as your tears of grief fall onto your sons face.

if its a serious issue for you - and your partner gives the slightest shit about your concerns - you have 3 options:

(i) you and your partner take a calculated risk.
(ii) you and your partner take whatever legal, state defined, action is neccessary to ensure the child stays with you - upto and including legal, state-sponsored marriage.
(iii) you move to a juristiction with different laws that would ensure that you, as the childs father, keep custody should the above No 9 bus come screeching around the corner.

only two of those are clever options. there's guy on here called 'Klingon Hamlet' who wasn't married to the mother of his child, he has Legal Guardianship and court awarded Joint Custody of the child, yet not one arm of the Irish state will lift a finger to implement those rights - tells you all you need to know about how seriously the Irish State and Legal system takes unmarried fathers.

iguana

Another thing to bear in mind is that if you are not married you are not each other's next of kin. So if one of you gets sick and is incapacitated all decisions will revert to your parents not each other. In fact it's possible that in the case of an accident/illness you could be denied access to the other - it's extreme but not at all unheard of. If, for example, you were in a car accident where you are driving and she is injured and unconscious her parents could blame you and have you kept away from her. You would not even have the right to find out how she is doing if they did not allow it. In the event of one of you dying rights on what to do with the body will go to her parents or siblings. They can even go against what has been written in her will, this includes issues like organ donation.

No offence to your partner but the argument that the state has no right to involvement in your relationship is nonsensical. As has been pointed out when you are born you have certain legal status, as next-of-kin to your parents. All you do when you get married is change that status from the family you are born with to the person you choose to be your family. That's pretty much the bulk of the legal involvement.

It's necessary to have some sort of legal/state process in order to give someone who was once a complete stranger rights over you whenever necessary. And that process is marriage and in some countries civil partnership. It's the process of having the state recognise your family as her legal family in a way that super-cedes her birth family.

mood

In some ways it is understandable when someone doesn't believe in marriage because they parents marriage broke up but your OH reasons are stupid IMO.

OS119

mood wrote: »

In some ways it is understandable when someone doesn't believe in marriage because they parents marriage broke up but your OH reasons are stupid IMO.

i don't think they're stupid, they just pale into insignificance compared to the catastrophes the state can inflict on a family in Ireland when there isn't a marriage certificate.

Overheal

MarriageQs wrote: »

Suppose it deserves an explanation. I don't really have any strong feelings on marriage one way or the other, but my partner has issues with state involvement in what amounts to our commitment to one another, to love each other and to raise a family as a team until we die. She doesn't see it as something that the state has any right to be involved in, period.

She explains it with far more passion and eloquence than that, but essentially sees it as one more false concept that we could all do without. She's not mad on the idea of nations, either, that kind of thing. Communities, sure. People before pigeonholes.

She'd laugh if she read this, I'm sure I'm missing her subtler points massively I'm just glad to live life and get on with things, but will be gladder once I'm 100% sure that the legal system we operate in is setup the in my family's favour.

Mmm. A true libertarian. Thats sexy :pac:

I would consult a Family Solicitor with all of your questions. Consultations are very affordable iirc. Its processing and litigation that is expensive. Costs very little to ask questions and price stuff out. Namely, finding out exactly wha papers you need to file and pay for based on what you want to accomplish. As Thaed was saying, Next of Kin papers. These would give you Medical and Guardianship rights afaik. If I placed my Mother as my NoK and not my father, she would get first say in what happened to me if I was ever incapacitated, for example.

mood

OS119 wrote: »

i don't think they're stupid, they just pale into insignificance compared to the catastrophes the state can inflict on a family in Ireland when there isn't a marriage certificate.

Better way of putting it I suppose!

The question is do you two really love each other and intend to stay together for go? If so marriage should not be out of the question.

JuliusCaesar

No need to go to a solicitor - all the information is available here http://www.treoir.ie/. Guardianship info here http://www.treoir.ie/pdfs/guardianship.pdf And then swear the guardianship affadavit in front of a solicitor and bob's your uncle.

Sleepy

I'm in a similar position to you OP. This is the form you need.

banie01

OP I stumbled across this thread just browsing and I will tell you my own experience,
My partner died suddenly @ 26yrs of age leaving me to be a single dad to our Son, and I've encountered ALL the obstacles and vagaries the Irish system throws up in regards to this situation.
Contrary to some of the earlier advice given on this thread i.e name on the birth cert and you'll be fine.....Which is complete BOLLOX Advice like this and the all to often quoted'common law' status which doesn't exist in Ireland lead too often to misunderstandings and problems down the road!
You need to have your Partner and yourself fill out a Statutory declaration of Gaurdianship and have it witnessed by a commisioner for oaths/solicitor. If this is not done, in the unfortunate event of your partner passing away gaurdianship will revert to her legal next of kin.
And if this occurs you need to go to Family court to get a grant of guardianship(which is easily done, but is a horrible experince to face...Esp after already losing your partner).
Which can lead to issues if you and your in-laws have any problems getting along.

As an aside to your original question....You should also be aware of inheritance issues between yourself and your partner should one of ye die.
For instance currently ye would be strangers in law in the eyes of the Revenue(regardless of time together or children) and would be therefore liable to a tax bill of 25% on any property(including property in common,I.E family home) passing between ye on death subject to an@ 27000euro(2009) exemption, Whereas if ye married ye would be exempted.

The_Conductor

kickoutthejams wrote: »

An unamarried father without legal guardianship has less right to a child than to the mother's parents?

Sounds incredibly wrong to me.

It is incredible, and very very wrong.
We really need to seriously revisit the issue of parental rights in this country- we are stuck in the Victorian ages.......

LegacyUser

here dexter what are you planning, is the mother sick in anyway, why are you asking these questions.

I'm only back now, been in the hospital all day where my mother is recovering from a number of illnesses - turns out she's terminal with cancer of the everything, so to answer your question it was my own mother's probable death that got me thinking about my son's status in the eyes of the law, should my partner pop clogs etc etc... Still, I can see why you went where you went. Don't worry, if I were going to kill my lover I don't think I'd be asking such questions on a public board!

My solicitor is going to get back to me re: various tax issues surrounding the event of one of our deaths, re: inheritance. It turns out the guardianship issues are easily resolved; thanks to whomever mentioned this below, which my solicitor has confirmed.

i don't think they're stupid, they just pale into insignificance compared to the catastrophes the state can inflict on a family in Ireland when there isn't a marriage certificate

I don't think it's so bad - once guardianship has been sorted, once people ensure the legal status of the child, well there's still the tax issue whatever that may turn out to be, but at least the main bits and bobs can be nailed down, ie: who'll be the guardian.

At the end of the day, we live within a legal framework which validates/invalidates our circumstances and actions. If I steal some milk to feed my child, I'm still breaking the law, I'm still bound by that contract inherently - I don't have a problem with a further contract applying to secure the future of our child. But she does, so I'd best button it down behind the scenes. Thanks for all the contributions, I thought this would die a death (so to speak)

miss no stars

MarriageQs wrote: »

I don't have a problem with a further contract applying to secure the future of our child. But she does

Might want to sort that one out. It's all very well having high and mighty morals, but it's downright selfish where your family's well being is at stake. I know it's your life and all that, but that sort of stuff just wouldn't fly with me. In the eyes of the law (and I'm sorry if she doesn't realise it but she is living in a country with law) you're not equal to her and she WANTS it that way?

banie01

miss no stars wrote: »

Might want to sort that one out. It's all very well having high and mighty morals, but it's downright selfish where your family's well being is at stake. I know it's your life and all that, but that sort of stuff just wouldn't fly with me. In the eyes of the law (and I'm sorry if she doesn't realise it but she is living in a country with law) you're not equal to her and she WANTS it that way?

Miss no stars is right!
Apart from wanting to have a legal advantage in any future break up....
There is absolutely no logical reason not to sign the guardianship papers(assuming ye are in a loving and stable relationship).
Any other reason boils down to one upmanship!
Sod state interference as an excuse!
It can be done via an affidavit and a commisioner for oaths! Zero state involvement!

As for the tax issue....Aside from marriage(unless the civil partnership bill address's the issue....Which considering your OH's aversion to state involvement in your relationship you're not likely to take up)There is no 100% legal way to transfer assets between ye on death that would not amount to outright tax evasion(which is a crime) rather than avoidance.

pookie82

kickoutthejams wrote: »

An unamarried father without legal guardianship has less right to a child than to the mother's parents?

Sounds incredibly wrong to me.

Welcome to Ireland, home of the you-have-to-pay-maintenance-but-are-not-allowed-to-see-your-child laws, and other outlandish and outdated idiosyncracies which place the biological mother and anyone who happens to share her bloodtype/kinship miles ahead of the person who actually fathered the child.

mood

pookie82 wrote: »

Welcome to Ireland, home of the you-have-to-pay-maintenance-but-are-not-allowed-to-see-your-child laws, and other outlandish and outdated idiosyncracies which place the biological mother and anyone who happens to share her bloodtype/kinship miles ahead of the person who actually fathered the child.

I would like to point out that fathers are not made pay maintenance. They can be told to in court etc then get away with not paying, ever. This is not right either.

OS119

MarriageQs wrote: »

I don't have a problem with a further contract applying to secure the future of our child. But she does, so I'd best button it down behind the scenes.

sorry mate, but i think (as something of a closet anarchist myself) that this subject falls well within the parameters of 'un-fcuking-lucky' for your GF: your rights over your child, and your ability to carry out your responsibilities should she go under a bus are far, far more important than her issues with the interference in, and attempted definintion, by, the state in individual relationships.

big fat foot down - hard.

i didn't intend to 'go there', and i have some intellectual sympathy with her position, but if i were you, at this stage, i'd have to ask her outright which she held most dear: her views on this issue, or your role as a father given the juristiction she's chosen (assuming she's an EU citizen she could live in a dozen countries with more enlightened attitudes to fatherhood and state paperwork) to live in - and her answer would indicate quite how she feels about the value she places on you, fatherhood and your relationship.

if this was my kid, the term 'deal-breaker' would be hurtling towards this conversation...

Kipperhell

While I think it is important to have personal beliefs I don't think that means you can ignore reality.

Your GF may well have her views but there are real world consequences. Inheritance is some what covered with regard to property and so is cash after 2 years of living together. Guardianship seems to be easily covered but are you on the birth cert? To leave you out I would consider to be something to be wary of. It could be political paranoia but I think that it could be easily more.

Many woman are told to keep "mad money" in case they need to leave suddenly. Which is completely understandable but some are also told to keep the rights of a father low if possible for the same "just in case" logic.

You are doing more than protecting your personal rights but that of your family.

It is shocking the stories I have encountered because people don't sort out such legal issues. Many companies will not give insurance payouts to GF. You may not think your relationship will sour but are you really sure others couldn't? It is not uncommon for "in-laws" to blame a GF/BF for a death and then make things difficult.

metrovelvet

You could argue with her that the lack of automatic rights is active state interference in your natural rights and that by signing it she is undoing a wrong done by the state.

She may not swollow it but its worth a shot.

Just remind her how much state control over her child there would be should she die, as in social workers.

banie01

@ Kipperhell.....
Your totally wrong in your points below!

Kipperhell;''Inheritance is some what covered with regard to property and so is cash after 2 years of living together.''

Only in regards to the progeny of the relationship!
With regards to the surviving Partner...No! It is not! You seem to be labouring under the assumption that such relationships are recognised under 'Common law'....THEY ARE NOT!
There is no allowance in Irish law for inheritence between unmarried couples! The inheritor regardless of length of relationship is treated as a 'stranger in law' for revenue purposes.
Which means any and all inheritence over @27100 that the balance is assessed for CAT at 25% and in the event of their being no will in place all assets are dealt with under the succession act where there is NO provision made for unmarried partners!!!!
Take it from someone who has been through this situation and is also legally qualified!

Kipperhell;''Guardianship seems to be easily covered but are you on the birth cert?''
Guardianship is easily dealt with now, and only with the mothers consent!
Dealing with it post mortem is a convuluted and soul destroying process! Particularly if there are ANY strained relations with the inlaws.
Luckily I didn't have a problem with my inlaws, But I still had to attend family court after the death of my Partner and go through this process

I've Pointed a few glaring mistaken assumptions in your post, I don't mean to be rude but please! Be sure of what you're advising or say nothing at all!

cch

Kipperhell wrote: »

Inheritance is some what covered with regard to property and so is cash after 2 years of living together.

Do you think there's some sort of "common law" rule that comes into play after two years? Because there definitely isn't in this country! They could live together for 50 years and still be considered strangers in the eyes of the law!

Edit: what banie01 said!

Kipperhell

cch wrote: »

Do you think there's some sort of "common law" rule that comes into play after two years? Because there definitely isn't in this country! They could live together for 50 years and still be considered strangers in the eyes of the law!

Edit: what banie01 said!

No I don't believe the common law marriage assumptions. I believe the inheritance law was changed some years ago with regard to a few things. It in fact gave many rights with regard to inheritance which made the gay community happy as it did not distinguish the relationship as a heterosexual one or a romantic one either. So the pair of you are making the assumption to which law I am referring to. The laws were changed but you don't have to believe me as anybody with sense will check with a solicitor for their own situation. It still requires a will. People living together regardless of relationship have inheritance allowances above a stranger in this country for at least 5 years.

The pair of you should try not to be absolute and aggressive. I never said guardian ship is easily covered after death but can be sorted now. If she won't sign then there is something up and I would be concerned

cch

Apologies if you thought I was being "absolute and aggressive" but in relation to the OP's question he needs facts regarding the legal situation (in as much as us posters can give advice, I agree with your going to a solicitor comment), not vague info like "I believe the inheritance law was changed".

Can you find a link on citizensinformation.ie or elsewhere to back up the law you're referring to please?

Kipperhell

cch wrote: »

Apologies if you thought I was being "absolute and aggressive" but in relation to the OP's question he needs facts regarding the legal situation, not vague info like "I believe the inheritance law was changed".

Can you find a link on citizensinformation.ie or elsewhere to back up the law you're referring to please?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/unmarried-couples/inheritance_rights_and_unmarried_couples

Read the bit about dwelling in a house and inheritance. I knew it changed but was keeping it polite:P. No matter what is said here the OP needs to go to a solicitor to be sure. I will correct myself by saying it is 3 years not 2. I always said "somewhat" covered but it is far from the rights of a married couple. Nothing to do with common law marriage

banie01

Kipperhell wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/unmarried-couples/inheritance_rights_and_unmarried_couples

Read the bit about dwelling in a house and inheritance. I knew it changed but was keeping it polite:P. No matter what is said here the OP needs to go to a solicitor to be sure. I will correct myself by saying it is 3 years not 2. I always said "somewhat" covered but it is far from the rights of a married couple. Nothing to do with common law marriage

Kipperhell, First off did you read it? As if you did you have totally misunderstood what that link refers to!
What you refer to as Inheritence Rights in the link you posted are actually Revenue guidelines for a CAT tax exemption, and this exemption does not solely apply to cohabiting couples but also to live in caregivers of Elderly relatives. The existence of this exemption DOES NOT confer any legal right to a surviving partner to have any claim whatsoever over the home if they are not named in the will, it is a mechanism for the Revenue to recognise a pre existing relationship and allow forgiveness of the arising Tax liability in lieu of it.
By the content of your posts you have totally misunderstood what that section of legislation means and misintrepreted to somehow apply to the succession acts.

The dwelling house exemption is only applicable if the house is owned and lived in as a couple for 3 years before the disponers death.
Or has replaced an owned house that was lived in as the principal residence for 3 out of 4 years prior to the disponers death.
For further clarification refer to section 86 of the Capital acquisitions tax acts of 2003/2009.
Also and this is crucial this exemption only applies if the property is bequethed via a will, or held in Joint Tenancy with the right of survivorship!In the case of intestacy or of Tenency in Common the property will be dealt with via the succesion acts, a further complication whereby the surviving partner could find themselves left with only half a house, neccessitating a sale! Or fundraising to buyout the heir.
Indeed in the event of intestacy and both partners names not being on the deed in some form, the surviving partner could quite easily be left homeless!

While it is a great benefit to many people who find themselves in such a situation, it is not an absolute entitlement!

Just to give a quick example I know of a case where a couple had been together 8 years bought their 1st home and because one of them died suddenly 15mths later there was no exemption granted....Despite proof of leases and affidavits covering the previous 9+ years as a co- habiting couple the survivor was still liable for a CAT bill in excess of 25000euro.

Kipperhell wrote: »

. People living together regardless of relationship have inheritance allowances above a stranger in this country for at least 5 years.

If you believe that to be correct I'd advise you to take a look at paragraph 3 of the rules section of the link you posted.
I quote from the citizinsinformation site and your own link 'If you are in a non-marital relationship and you die without a will, your partner has no automatic right to any share of the estate no matter how long you have been together. Many people are not aware of this, so it is very important to know your rights in this situation.'
Regardless of the length of a relationship, without a marriage (or perhaps in the future civil partnership) The only allowance that applies for CAT is the category C.....Stranger in law.

Kipperhell wrote: »

Inheritance is some what covered with regard to property and so is cash after 2 years of living together.

That is a broad and sweeping statement that you justify with a very conditional Dwelling house exemption.

While you are right on the dwelling house exemption depending on circumstance....That is the only allowance applicable!
Otherwise all other property and assets including cash which you stated there was an allowance for!
Are subject to the succession acts. i.e an unmarried partner has absolutely no inheritance rights in the event of intestacy and even with a will in place is subject to the class C CAT treshhold of @ 27100(and regardless of length of relationship is classed as 'stranger in law') for 2009.

Kipperhell wrote: »

Guardianship seems to be easily covered but are you on the birth cert? To leave you out I would consider to be something to be wary of. It could be political paranoia but I think that it could be easily more.

Again a sweeping comment that implies its easily dealt with regardless of the situation.
All I said was that it is easily now with the Mothers consent, I pointed out the difficulty of obtaining post mortem guardianship as a counterpoint to your generalisation.

But as a sidenote to the guardianship issue, it would also be very easy for the OP's partner to name him as Guardian in her will, that would cover the issue of State involvement prior to her death and leave the OP as guardian.

I'm sorry if what I said seemed aggressive, It wasn't meant to be. I was just pointing to the generalisations and mistakes that you made in your posts.

Kipperhell

banie01 wrote: »

I'm sorry if what I said seemed aggressive, It wasn't meant to be. I was just pointing to the generalisations and mistakes that you made in your posts.

Banie01 You seriously need to learn to read what a posters says correctly and use a tempered response. This is a very aggressive response which suggests you aren't sorry about your last response either.
I have not made the claims you think I have so I suggest you look back at what I posted and see. I said a will is required. If you want to clarify something that can be easily done with out massive long winded responses using multi quoting or bold type. Your response requires no will.

No matter what the partner needs to be agreeable. I don't think the obvious need be stated but if she isn't there is something to be concerned about beyond political views. That is why I mentioned the "mad money" mentality.

banie01

Kipperhell wrote: »

Banie01 You seriously need to learn to read what a posters says correctly and use a tempered response. This is a very aggressive response which suggests you aren't sorry about your last response either.
I have not made the claims you think I have so I suggest you look back at what I posted and see. I said a will is required. If you want to clarify something that can be easily done with out massive long winded responses using multi quoting or bold type. Your response requires no will.

No matter what the partner needs to be agreeable. I don't think the obvious need be stated but if she isn't there is something to be concerned about beyond political views. That is why I mentioned the "mad money" mentality.

Kipperhell, If you think there is anything aggresive in my pointing out the mistakes your very much mistaken.
I multiquoted to point out the errors in Statements that you made and indeed with your totally wrong interpretation of 'inheritence rights' which you repeated and then justified with a piece of totally misunderstood (on your part) legalislation from the Tax code!
Its called criticism not aggression

With regards to your statement that 'a will is required' in fairness where's that in your First post?
It was a revisionary remark in your second!
And in fairness its honestly a catch all response that covers poor advice you stated as 'FACT' and indeed called myself and another poster on being aggressive and absolute when you were questioned on it!

As for saying 'My response requires no will' My 1st post to the OP informed him of the need for one. And indeed in the last paragraph of my previous post it is mentioned as a means to ensure Guardianship.

The reason a will is not mentioned in my rebuttal of your 'Facts' is because you explicitly stated Inhertitence rights exist between unmarried couples! And even misquoted legislation to back up that belief!
Which would mean that even in intestacy a portion of the deceased's estate is apportioned to a surviving partner, which it does not!

You were multiquoted to more easily correct your mistaken advice, again not to be aggresive on my part, but to impart a bit of knowledge and hopefully what you would it take as constructive experience or an opportunity to learn something.

Look I'm not going to apologise for you perceiving aggression on my part,when what was being done was correcting wrong and indeed possibly dangerous advice you gave the OP.
Indeed if you think there is any, or if any of my above statements are wrong....Feel free to refer the posts to mod.

Kipperhell

banie01
It is a completely riddiculous over exageration and ranting from you at this point. I made a statement and then further clarified and you want to go on about what I said with YOUR incorrect assumption. I don't need to go back and point out how you were wrong with what you said but you made incorrect statements by assuming a will would not be involved and the inheritence allowances for people who live together.

I have made and clarified points that can apply to a couple that are not married which is relevant. I do not misunderstand the inheritence rights because they can be applied. Again an assumption on your part you have misunderstood what I have said and missed the entire context of what I have said.

I have not stated anything that could never applied and also never stated it would certainly apply.

OP sorry for this riddiculious long drawn out clarification. All the best in getting as much security as you can without a marriage.

banie01

Kipperhell wrote: »

banie01
It is a completely riddiculous over exageration and ranting from you at this point. I made a statement and then further clarified and you want to go on about what I said with YOUR incorrect assumption. I don't need to go back and point out how you were wrong with what you said but you made incorrect statements by assuming a will would not be involved and the inheritence allowances for people who live together.

I have made and clarified points that can apply to a couple that are not married which is relevant. I do not misunderstand the inheritence rights because they can be applied. Again an assumption on your part you have misunderstood what I have said and missed the entire context of what I have said.

I have not stated anything that could never applied and also never stated it would certainly apply.

OP sorry for this riddiculious long drawn out clarification. All the best in getting as much security as you can without a marriage.

Look Kipperhell this seems to getting personalised, which is of no help to the OP.
Nowhere did I make an assumption of intestacy, In fact in my 1st post on this thread I advised the OP to seek advice in that regard.
What I did do was explicitly spell out the dangers of intestacy in susequent posts.

And from your above statement

Kipperhell wrote: »

I do not misunderstand the inheritence rights because they can be applied.

and

Kipperhell wrote: »

I don't need to go back and point out how you were wrong with what you said but you made incorrect statements by assuming a will would not be involved and the inheritance allowances for people who live together.

You do misunderstand, Apart from a capital acquisitions tax allowance to cover a bill outstanding on an inherited family home(The Section 86 Dwelling house exemption via bequest/Joint tenancy).
Which is NOT an inheritance right or allowance there are NO inheritance rights or automatic share of an estate anywhere in the succesion acts for unmarried partner or indeed a same sex partner. And in the event of a will all proceeds above @27100 are subject to CAT.
Those are the facts of situation which I have stated repeatedly!
If you want to persist in believing that such rights exist please just to show me I'm wrong....Refer me to the section of the succession act governing it.(Which is the ONLY legislation governing Inheritance rights and the apportionment/shares of an estate)
As those rights you so confidently espouse as existing will come as a quite sudden and traumatic shock to every practising Solicitor in the state.


Look I'm speaking here from personal and professional experience!
Which is the only reason I'm even bothering to reply to this thread anymore, and probably places me a little too close for objectivity.
But everything I stated and every example given is fact!
I went through the exact situation the OP is in fear of, and subsequently qualified as a Solicitor and specialise in tax and inheritance matters particularly in matters like this one.

Look this is my last contribution to this thread, but just so you know.
None of the advice offered by me in any of the posts on this thread was based on assumption, but on Precedent, Legislation and fact!

LegacyUser

Kipperhell wrote: »

No I don't believe the common law marriage assumptions. I believe the inheritance law was changed some years ago with regard to a few things. It in fact gave many rights with regard to inheritance which made the gay community happy as it did not distinguish the relationship as a heterosexual one or a romantic one either. So the pair of you are making the assumption to which law I am referring to. The laws were changed but you don't have to believe me as anybody with sense will check with a solicitor for their own situation. It still requires a will. People living together regardless of relationship have inheritance allowances above a stranger in this country for at least 5 years.

The pair of you should try not to be absolute and aggressive. I never said guardian ship is easily covered after death but can be sorted now. If she won't sign then there is something up and I would be concerned

After reading this thread and being in a similar boat as the OP.
I just want to ask is there any chance you could point out these changes to me?
My partner and I have 2 kids and some investments in our own names that we treat as community property. I don't want to suddenly find that 1. I have no automatic right of inheritence. and 2. That even if we have wills we get stuck for inheritance tax(Guardianship is already sorted) when for married couples there is no tax liability for inheritance from a spouse???? She has ruled out marriage as as long as we know where our commitments lie its noone else's business.
But after reading the exchange between Banie01 and Kipperhell I'm totally confused now! Which is it? Are there, or there not inheritence rights for unmarried partners?

banie01

which is it? wrote: »

After reading this thread and being in a similar boat as the OP.
I just want to ask is there any chance you could point out these changes to me?
My partner and I have 2 kids and some investments in our own names that we treat as community property. I don't want to suddenly find that 1. I have no automatic right of inheritence. and 2. That even if we have wills we get stuck for inheritance tax(Guardianship is already sorted) when for married couples there is no tax liability for inheritance from a spouse???? She has ruled out marriage as as long as we know where our commitments lie its noone else's business.
But after reading the exchange between Banie01 and Kipperhell I'm totally confused now! Which is it? Are there, or there not inheritence rights for unmarried partners?

Which is it: I said I wasn't posting on this thread again, but to hopefully answer your questions I'll jump back on.

1. You have as an unmarried partner or same sex partner no automatic right to any share of your partners estate. See here
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/unmarried-couples/inheritance_rights_and_unmarried_couples and here http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/same-sex-couples/inheritance_rights_and_same_sex_couples
Inheritence rights and estate division are governed by the Succession act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/act/pub/0027/index.html and there is no allowance made in this act for automatic rights for non familial or non marital beneficiaries.
So as an unmarried couple it is vital that you both make wills and consider some estate planning(Or marriage :-P)

2. As an unmarried couple you will be liable for Capital Acquisitions tax on any assets that are inherited(via will as no automatic share exists).
You can see the rates here and get more info http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/tax/capital-taxes/capital-acquisitions-tax
As an unmarried partner you will be limited to the category C allowance.
If the 2 of you own a family home the Dwelling house exemption http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/tax/capital-taxes/capital-acquisitions-tax?tab=more can be availed of to reduce your CAT Liability.
Kipperhell has previously claimed this is an inheritance right (which is probably why our posts have you confused)
IT IS NOT.This is a Tax allowance and not a right of Inheritence. This allowance only applies if the house is left to the surviving partner via will or Survivorship of Joint tenancy. In cases of intestacy or tenancy in common the house will form part of the estate to be distributed according to the Succession acts.

I hope that has answered your questions. All things considered professional advice is a must.
The best advice I can give you is to see a Solicitor and also to avail of some estate planning for the both yourselves.(Or get married)