"Plan to grant legal rights to cohabiting couples criticised"

iptba

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/partnership-bill-to-be-amended-48418.html

Partnership Bill to be amended

04 April 2010 By Niamh Connolly, Political Correspondent

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern is to amend the Civil Partnership Bill, to relax the obligations that cohabiting couples would face under the legislation.

The bill imposes significant legal liabilities on all couples living together for three years in respect of rights to property, maintenance payments, a share of pension entitlements or a claim on an estate. However, Ahern is expected to extend the three-year period to five years when the section of the bill dealing with cohabitation are discussed at committee stage in the Dáil.

etc

rolly1

Cdfm asked " is there a camaign against it ?"

Well in this thread somebody has produced a draft letter sent to TD's and Senators along with the justice committee outlining the undemocratic nature of the cohabitation provisions:

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29177

In depth legal discussion here:

http://www.politics.ie/justice/119347-civil-partnership-bill-2009-unconstititional-unfair.html

A discussion on it here also
http://www.rollercoaster.ie/boards/mc.asp?ID=325839&G=37&forumdb=1http://

And finally I have raised the issue on boards here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055682434&page=2


The draft legislation is here, section 15 deals with cohabitants:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d.pdf


The automatic nature of it is an affront to democracy and a major state interference into people's personal and private lives.


You can write to this guy Mr Alan Guidon at alan.guidon@oireachtas.ie (clerkof the justice committee on it) to express your views on it.

rolly1

Feature on the bill coming up now on Primetime

Boston

Bad idea tbh.

The Corinthian

Call me cynical, and even if this law covers childless couples, but the whole plan seems to me to be largely a means of shifting the cost of, in particular, lone parents allowance from the State to the father.

While child maintenance (up to €150 p.w. at district court level) is equal irrespective of marital status, it only covers the child or children, where a couple are unmarried, leaving the custodial parent (a woman in around 85% of occurrences) to either go out and work to support herself or claim LPA.

Where married, a custodial parent will also receive spousal support (up to €500 p.w. at district court level) and I suspect this would disqualify or, at the very least greatly reduce, LPA paid out by the State.

For the government to encourage single parents to work (by treating them more as job-seekers with children rather than full-time child carers) is difficult to do. Even were the unemployment levels lower, issues such as creche costs and regulation would be potentially expensive to address, and then there is the question that single parents often feel they should be stay-at-home parents - an entitlement that is even constitutionally supported.

So, someone's got to pay for them, and I suspect that a large part of this law is shifting that cost away from the government.

metrovelvet

^ Not really. It applies to childless cohabiting couples too.

CDfm

how the feck did the gay marriage legislation translate into this

i have no probs with homosexuals becoming hitched in whatever type of civil partnership they want and having all the rights and benefits of a married couple

but this legislation takes away freedoms

let gays marry and let that be the end of it

CDfm

rolly1 wrote: »

Cdfm asked " is there a camaign against it ?"

Well in this thread somebody has produced a draft letter sent to TD's and Senators along with the justice committee outlining the undemocratic nature of the cohabitation provisions:

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29177




You can write to this guy Mr Alan Guidon at alan.guidon@oireachtas.ie (clerkof the justice committee on it) to express your views on it.

i will send of some letters

thats practical and thanks for the link

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Not really. It applies to childless cohabiting couples too.

I know this and even pointed this out (and the legislation even applies to same-sex couples), however with one third of children being born outside of marriage in Ireland one cannot ignore that there are many long term relationships, with children, out there that end and when they do the custodial parent becomes dependent on LPA. So I believe that at least in large part, this is what this legislation is designed to target.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

I know this and even pointed this out (and the legislation even applies to same-sex couples), however with one third of children being born outside of marriage in Ireland one cannot ignore that there are many long term relationships, with children, out there that end and when they do the custodial parent becomes dependent on LPA. So I believe that at least in large part, this is what this legislation is designed to target.

(I haven't had a chance yet to follow the links so maybe some of what I'm saying is covered in the campaign).

It would be interesting to know the thought process. Was it designed to support parents? If so, why did couples who don’t have children together get dragged into it.

The relevance of this is that perhaps that bit could be dropped with a bit of a campaign.

Stheno

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where married, a custodial parent will also receive spousal support (up to €500 p.w. at district court level) and I suspect this would disqualify or, at the very least greatly reduce, LPA paid out by the State.

Actually spousal support/maintenance applies regardless of whether or not there are children.

See: Citizens Advice

Maintenance following Separation and Divorce
Under Irish law, there is no clean break from the obligation to support one's spouse and children. A clause in a Separation Agreement stating that a spouse will not seek maintenance in the future or seek increased maintenance is unenforceable. The spouse can apply for a maintenance order and a court will consider this application, particularly if the circumstances of the parties have changed or the spouse who executed the agreement did not have legal advice at the time.

A divorced spouse can also apply to a court for a maintenance order or a variation of a maintenance order after the Divorce Decree has been granted. The only bar to an application is the remarriage of the spouse applying for the order.

So in that regard this bill is following the current model of maintenance for both partner and children.

iptba

Supposal support I think is based on recognising sacrifices that a partner might have made.

However, this law is making a distinction between marriage and co-habitants:

An amendment that recognised the contribution either partner made to the rearing of children in the relationship could also give rise to such a challenge, he said.

so I’m not sure why a person should get money in such a circumstance. If somebody decides to be a "kept woman" when there is no children involved, I think it’s quite a nice position to be in. I don’t know why you should then be entitled to more money after the relationship has ended. Or if you do, it should rather small rather than the multimillion dollar divorce settlements that are sometimes arrived at. If people want those rules for marriage, that’s one thing but this isn’t marriage.

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

Supposal support I think is based on recognising sacrifices that a partner might have made.

It's not, it's there regardless. Spousal support is completely seperate from child maintenace.

However, this law is making a distinction between marriage and co-habitants:

so I’m not sure why a person should get money in such a circumstance. If somebody decides to be a "kept woman" when there is no children involved, I think it’s quite a nice position to be in. I don’t know why you should then be entitled to more money after the relationship has ended. Or if you do, it should rather small rather than the multimillion dollar divorce settlements that are sometimes arrived at. If people want those rules for marriage, that’s one thing but this isn’t marriage.[/

But this law appears to be mimicing the seperation/divorce laws in that the relevant partner can claim for maintenance on the basis of the relationship and their contribution.

So deciding to be a kept man or woman in a relationship outside of marriage, under this law will confer the same rights.

iptba

nouggatti wrote: »

But this law appears to be mimicing the seperation/divorce laws in that the relevant partner can claim for maintenance on the basis of the relationship and their contribution.

I don’t know/can't remember/don’t understand why the contribution to raising children can’t be counted but if that contribution can’t be counted, maybe neither should other sorts of contributions (for the same reason)?

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

I don’t know/can't remember/don’t understand why the contribution to raising children can’t be counted but if that contribution can’t be counted, maybe neither should other sorts of contributions (for the same reason)?

Well you'd have contributions to mortgages, supporting a partner, differences in income and the adverse affect that will have on the divorced spouse if they are the lower earner?

So if you have one spouse earning 100k and the other earning 20k, then once the marriage breaks up the lower earning spouse can claim maintenance on the grounds that were they still married their income/access to income would be different etc.

iptba

nouggatti wrote: »

Well you'd have contributions to mortgages, supporting a partner, differences in income and the adverse affect that will have on the divorced spouse if they are the lower earner?

So if you have one spouse earning 100k and the other earning 20k, then once the marriage breaks up the lower earning spouse can claim maintenance on the grounds that were they still married their income/access to income would be different etc.

Ok

But they are saying that if they counted the contribution to raising children, that would be open to legal challenge as it is making it too much like marriage. Why would that be able to be legally challenged but being paid for other types of non-financial contributions wouldn’t be? (Where a financial contribution is a financial payment)

ETA: Ok, I decided to stop being lazy and look back. The reason they are saying is section 41 of the CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN:

The Family
Article 41
1.
1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.


2.

1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


3.

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

nouggati wrote:

It's not, it's there regardless. Spousal support is completely seperate from child maintenace.

Just to be clear, I never said spousal support=a child maintenance payment.

CDfm

The legislative proposals are crap.

Its meant to be legislation about same sex legal partnerships and should have dealt with prenups and the like.

Instead we have a bit of social engineering going on here thats no help to anyone. A total mess.

I am pro gay civil partnership but against this legislation.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

It would be interesting to know the thought process. Was it designed to support parents? If so, why did couples who don’t have children together get dragged into it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. To begin with, it is only a cynical suspicion on my part that this was a motivation. Secondly, while I do suspect it was a motivation, I do not think it was the sole purpose of this legislation. My own opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that it originated from the need to create a legal alternative to marriage for same-sex couples, that would not run foul of a constitutional challenge (which could well be defeated in a referendum). It then was designed to cover cohabitation couples in general and finally the automatic nature of the legislation may well have been at least partially put in place as a means of reducing social welfare costs.

So while I do think that it was a motivation behind the legislation, I doubt if it was the only one (also because the legislation is almost certainly the product of numerous committees).

Either way, I would not appreciate my parents forcing me into an arranged marriage, let alone the government.

nouggatti wrote: »

Actually spousal support/maintenance applies regardless of whether or not there are children.

I know and did actually imply this.

metrovelvet

If this passes it's a much better deal than marriage; no four year separation clause.

Does it change the tax penalties if a partner dies and the other is left with the house?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Does it change the tax penalties if a partner dies and the other is left with the house?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0408/1224267894843.html

iptba

nouggatti wrote: »

So if you have one spouse earning 100k and the other earning 20k, then once the marriage breaks up the lower earning spouse can claim maintenance on the grounds that were they still married their income/access to income would be different etc.

Well, I have a problem with this principle being applied to non-married couples.
I imagine such a couple are not likely living the life of two people on 20k. They are leading a better quality of life. There is on average an indirect transfer of assets during this period from the person on 100K to the person on 20K. The person on 20K is benefitting during this period. I don't see why they should have any entitlement for this quality of life to continue and paid for by the person on 100K after they are no longer together.

If I bought a winning ticket, I could do lots of things. But I didn't, so I can't. This person could be living that life if they were still living together; but they're not living together anymore so why should there be any right to have the same lifestyle.

iptba

rolly1 wrote: »

A discussion on it here also
http://www.rollercoaster.ie/boards/mc.asp?ID=325839&G=37&forumdb=1http://

Thanks again.
Correct link:
http://www.rollercoaster.ie/boards/mc.asp?ID=325839&G=37&forumdb=1

iptba

nouggatti wrote: »

Well you'd have contributions to mortgages, supporting a partner, differences in income and the adverse affect that will have on the divorced spouse if they are the lower earner?

Contributions towards mortgage is already covered:

From here:
http://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/cohabiting_couples.pdf

"where your name as cohabitant is not on the
house deeds but you have made direct
contributions to the mortgage, purchase
price, deposit on or upkeep of the house,
then you may have a beneficial interest in the
property which you may need to go to court to enforce"

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Well, I have a problem with this principle being applied to non-married couples.
I imagine such a couple are not likely living the life of two people on 20k. They are leading a better quality of life. There is on average an indirect transfer of assets during this period from the person on 100K to the person on 20K. The person on 20K is benefitting during this period. I don't see why they should have any entitlement for this quality of life to continue and paid for by the person on 100K after they are no longer together.

Agreed.

TBH, I already have deep reservations to this with divorce - not only because of what you outline above but also because it only considers the financial contributions and ignores non-financial ones.

However, at least with marriage one can make the argument that both parties signed up to this commitment, consciously and actively and this legislation allows for a situation whereby you need not even have to be aware of this anymore to become entangled.

With the legislation coming closer to becoming law, I wonder how many couples, already cohabiting for years and who never envisaged this, are going to end up breaking up?

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

It would be interesting to know the thought process. Was it designed to support parents? If so, why did couples who don’t have children together get dragged into it.

According to one of legal experts interviewed in the Prime Time program on it the other evening, the legislation has appears to especially target couples with children, often to the detriment of the rights of those without. So this would lend credence to my earlier, cynical, suspicion that this legislation is largely designed to shift the cost of lone parents from the state to the non-custodial one.

metrovelvet

I saw that primetime program and I didnt pick up on that.

I heard three years without kids gets you rights, two years with kids gets your rights.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I saw that primetime program and I didnt pick up on that.

It's an opinion expressed early on (about six-and-a-half minutes into it) in the program by the professor from UCC. In it he comments:

The bill seems to be designed, particularly, to help someone who's been involved in child rearing, and who has become financially dependent as a result.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's an opinion expressed early on (about six-and-a-half minutes into it) in the program by the professor from UCC. In it he comments:

So will it be renamed The Male Homelessness ( Extension of Provisions)Bill ang give unmarried guys all the same disadvantages that married guys have:eek:

iptba

Article on this in Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7094399.ece
- people would need to act fairly quickly if they want to make representations on the issue.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Agreed.

TBH, I already have deep reservations to this with divorce - not only because of what you outline above but also because it only considers the financial contributions and ignores non-financial ones.

However, at least with marriage one can make the argument that both parties signed up to this commitment, consciously and actively and this legislation allows for a situation whereby you need not even have to be aware of this anymore to become entangled.

With the legislation coming closer to becoming law, I wonder how many couples, already cohabiting for years and who never envisaged this, are going to end up breaking up?

Interesting how things may change in the UK with regard to divorce settlements:

From The Sunday Times

April 11, 2010


Plan to end ‘gold digger’ divorces

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7094293.ece