Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

"Plan to grant legal rights to cohabiting couples criticised"

1246

Comments

  • #92
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    This bill is ridiculous. If people want rights then let them get married,or sign a civil partnership law ( even on-line).

    As usual with rushed legislation it will be repealed when the first travesty of justice occurs, somebody sues their long time opposite sex house mate for his/her lottery win. DOes it matter how many people are in the house? Plenty of people share with couples. So how do we prove if any relationship is a couple, or not? I share with a girl who shares with me and a guy. There is only one relationship. Do we have to go to court to probve which one?

    Does this act assume that all relationships covered are hetrosexual. If not can we be sued by anybody who lives with us?

    Is it about sex?

    What about a housemate who gets together with his or her housemate on a once off ( or more if there is drink). Are they now in a relation ship - how can the law tell the difference between those two and a couple with a low sex drive?

    Stupid law. Let people who are together and want rights tell the State they are together by signing something.


  • #93
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    Pittens wrote: »
    Stupid law. Let people who are together and want rights tell the State they are together by signing something.
    Yes, that's the opt-in system that's in various European countries.

    However, here are opt-out systems in Australia and New Zealand. Am not confident it will be appealed.


  • #94
    rolly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    A resumed hearing on the Civil Partnership Bill before the Justice Committee is provisionally listed for May 27th
    according to the oireachtas website.

    Did the IFA get to meet with the minister does anyone know? From here
    IFA SEES OVER-REGULATION AND BAD LAW IN THE CREATION OF LEGAL LIABILITIES FOR COHABITANTS

    2010-04-21

    IFA has again highlighted the pitfalls of the cohabitant provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill for couples living together and called for this part of the Bill to be withdrawn or amended. The Bill leaves couples living together for as little as three years open to legal liabilities, including maintenance and property claims similar to those arising following a marriage break up.

    In a series of meetings with Government and opposition TDs, IFA President John Bryan has said, “it is unacceptable that Justice Minister Dermot Ahern is ploughing ahead with the imposition of legal liabilities on couples living together in the absence of any public demand for these changes and with no public debate and no scrutiny in the media. This amounts to over regulation and bad law, and IFA has sought a meeting with Minister Ahern to discuss the matter.”

    Mr Bryan said, “It is certainly not an example of good law making when legal liabilities are being imposed on people without their consent, and that is the way the farming community would see it.”

    The IFA President said reported changes by the Minister for Justice do not address the flaws in the Bill. He described suggestions to change the name of the Bill to include the word “cohabitants” and to extend the time couples must live together before liabilities arise from 3 to 5 years as “too little too late”.

    “These changes fail to address the fundamental flaws of the Bill, which are the imposition of legal liabilities without consent and the exposure to court claims and legal costs, which the Bill creates for cohabiting couples.”

    “The bill is a legal minefield with extensive scope for legal disputes over the definition of cohabitants and relationships, arguments over financial and other contributions and claims of financial dependency and the extent of court orders. Defendants may well feel pressurised into settling cases in order to avoid difficult adversarial and costly legal proceedings spurred on by opportunist lawyers on the other side.”

    John Bryan stressed there was no public demand for the state to intrude into the area of people living together. However, IFA has no difficulty with a redress scheme for cohabitants provided it is made optional. Provision could be made to allow couples living together, who wish to do so to opt-in to the cohabitant provisions by signing a standard form and this arrangement could be widely advertised to make couples aware of this possibility to regulate their affairs.


  • #95
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    Partnership Bill to include five-year cohabitation period for property rights
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0519/1224270654973.html


  • #96
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    it is a wonder why there has not been any mention of pre-nup agreements


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    I remember a segment about this on Prime Time a couple of months ago.

    Rights my arse, it doesn't grant rights, it forces insane obligations on people and strips them of their rights and options.
    People have the right to get married if they so choose to.

    I can't recall all the crazy **** it involved, but boy was it crazy.

    Who came up with it?
    What is the real motivation behind it, money/tax?
    Or just to give us something different to talk about to distract us from all the other nonsense going on politically.


  • #98
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,772 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    Who came up with it?
    No one person or even committee, is my guess. I think the bill probably originated with the gay marriage issue and was subsequently used by different groups to service different agendas.
    What is the real motivation behind it, money/tax?
    If by 'it', you mean the 'opt-out' (that can be overturned btw)? I would say the cost of Loan Parents Allowance and other related social welfare payments to the state - this bill allows for a significant deferral of financial responsibility away from the state.


  • #99
    rolly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If by 'it', you mean the 'opt-out' (that can be overturned btw)? I would say the cost of Loan Parents Allowance and other related social welfare payments to the state - this bill allows for a significant deferral of financial responsibility away from the state.

    Don't forget the really big beneficiaries & backers of all this: Solicitors! See this Irish Times article..


  • #100
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    This is also being discussed over at: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055877755 (it's not completely off-topic as the Civil Partnership Bill was being discussed). I tried to direct the discussion over to this thread here but didn't succeed.


  • #101
    rolly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    iptba wrote: »
    This is also being discussed over at: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055877755 (it's not completely off-topic as the Civil Partnership Bill was being discussed). I tried to direct the discussion over to this thread here but didn't succeed.

    Thats exactly how bad laws like this are passed; government just mash them in with very emotive topics and everything gets drowned out by the noise from same...these guys are masters at playing people and topics off one another, to end up with exactly the result they want.

    It was no accident that the cohabitation laws and civil partnership laws are coming out in the one bill..


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    rolly1 wrote: »
    Thats exactly how bad laws like this are passed; government just mash them in with very emotive topics and everything gets drowned out by the noise from same...these guys are masters at playing people and topics off one another, to end up with exactly the result they want.

    It was no accident that the cohabitation laws and civil partnership laws are coming out in the one bill..

    Yup I started that thread and I there is a bit of crossover but i wanted to give people the opportunity to offer support for Civil Partnership for Gay couples while acknowledging it was a bad law to incorporate the cohabitation sections within the same legislation.

    CDfm wrote: »
    There is on the thread on the proposed Civil Partnership legislation and its affects on heterosexual co-habiting couples.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65302166#post65302166

    The legislative proposals are a bit of a mess.

    I believe people have a right to a civil marriage,whatever their orientation. I dont support the co-habitation proposals as marriage or civil partnership should be a voluntary commitment between too people.

    We need simple legislation to address this issue and the current proposals are a real mess.


  • #103
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    Looks like a lot of the debate today was about how does one know if the couple were a couple for the period in question:
    http://www.scribblelive.com/Event/Civil_Partnership_Bill_-_Committee_Stage_Resumed?Page=0

    Of course, if it was an opt-in system, this would be all be clear cut - the couple would have put it in writing.

    Maybe the thing to do is to have an affair, then one could say one wasn't in a committed relationship. ;) Although you probably wouldn't get away with it in court.


  • #104
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    "Partnership Bill includes five-year cohabitation rule"
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0528/1224271297583.html


  • #105
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    There was talk that the bill would be changed to the Civil Partnership and Cohabitants Bill 2009, to make it clearer what was being covered, but I haven't seen that in the two newspaper articles:

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/law-to-compel-registrars-on-civil-partnerships-120958.html
    TDs yesterday also debated the matter of including the words "committed" and "intimate" in the legislation where civil partners may seek redress in the courts.

    Concerns were expressed that if a woman leaving an abusive relationship had an affair, she may not be considered "committed" and therefore may be rejected redress under the bill, such as maintenance from her partner.

    From my understanding, there is a mix up here.
    With civil partnership, the (gay) couple have already committed to each other in the registration.

    From what I understand, what is being talked about here in this quote is the cohabitants part of the legislation.

    I think this may show well the confusion going around on the issue.


  • #106
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    When doing a search for more info last night, I came across this piece from the Irish Times in January on a hypothetical young couple:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0127/1224263210224.html


  • #107
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,772 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    "Concerns were expressed that if a woman leaving an abusive relationship had an affair, she may not be considered "committed" and therefore may be rejected redress under the bill, such as maintenance from her partner."

    LOL. We could return to the sort of games involving private investigators one saw prior to the introduction of 'no fault' divorce.
    iptba wrote: »
    When doing a search for more info last night, I came across this piece from the Irish Times in January on a hypothetical young couple:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0127/1224263210224.html
    There appears to be a significant amount of criticism of this bill. Other than a combination of this criticism being disorganized and the government already having resigned itself to being voted out of office in the next election anyway, why are they paying little or no heed to it?


  • #108
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    This is from the Irish Examiner.
    Partners bill is bad news for cohabiting couples
    Monday, June 07, 2010
    THE first two-thirds of the Civil Partnership Bill would enable a same-sex couple to have their partnership registered with the state.
    The final one-third of the bill plans to set financial rules for two people living together for three years (five, if amended as recent news reports suggest). The bill proposes that if two people separate after those few years together, one could sue the other for regular maintenance money, a lump sum, rights to the house or part of the other person’s future pension.

    This would apply whether they have children or not. The only effect of children in the bill is to shorten the qualifying period to two years. You can get maintenance for your children under the law already.
    There is a substantial minority in Ireland (mostly younger adults) who think the rules of marriage take away from a person’s freedom to such a degree it is not worth it for the financial safety net provided. These young people choose to live together rather than get married because they value their independence and do not like the idea of being a dependent adult. Up to the middle of the last century, while this was always an option under the law, social norms put strong pressure on young people not to just live together, but rather always to marry.

    Irish society has improved in the past 30 years so that people can exercise a choice that was always legal. The earliest couples living together had to struggle for this social right. They risked their families cutting off contact with them.

    In more recent times couples living together have it easier because the early couples pushed society to change by making what was then a hard choice. The social freedom to live together and not marry has been hard won. If the bill is enacted, such people will have their hard-won option reduced. If the bill is enacted the state will be telling these people they may live together and not marry, but if they split after three years (five, if amended) they will be treated much as married persons separating or divorcing, with one person having a legal hold on the other.

    This would be a serious reduction in freedom to choose between the somewhat dependent form of couple relationship (marriage) and the form where both parties plan to be more independent and self-sufficient.

    The bill provides that people can opt out of its obligations, but this requires both parties’ agreement and a court can override such an agreement.

    It is people aged 25 to 35 who will be affected. They have little awareness of this bill and politicians may be about to take freedom away from many people who don’t even know it is happening.

    <name and address>

    This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Monday, June 07, 2010
    Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/partners-bill-is-bad-news-for-cohabiting-couples-121722.html#ixzz0q7sjxlTM


  • #109
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    Morning Ireland (RTE Radio One) presenter Cathal Mac Coille seems to think that the Civil Partnership Bill is only about same-sex couples e.g. he starts, "this legislation, which is essentially for same sex couples, etc."
    http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/index.html
    Look for link to:
    Bishops want free vote on civil partnership Christy Jones, Bishop of Elphin, says the proposed Civil Partnership Bill undermines the constitutional protection of the family
    on June 17 show (or follow link at end of: http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0617/marriage.html )


  • #110
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    iptba wrote: »
    Morning Ireland (RTE Radio One) presenter Cathal Mac Coille seems to think that the Civil Partnership Bill is only about same-sex couples e.g. he starts, "this legislation, which is essentially for same sex couples, etc."
    http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/index.html
    Look for link to:
    on June 17 show (or follow link at end of: http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0617/marriage.html )

    Well if it affected & targeted women we would here all about it :mad:


  • #111
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    Tuesday's Moncrieff Show (named after the presenter, Sean Moncrieff) on Newstalk 106-108 covered the bill. They had a gay man and a woman on from GLEN in studio and it was mostly about civil partnerships.

    Normally, Newstalk pieces are set up as debates but they didn't in this case - I can't remember the reason they gave but it seemed fair enough in some ways although it did lead to an unbalanced discussion. They did read out some texts - some people still seem to have very strong views on homosexuality! Anyway, I think issues relating to homosexuality and civil partnerships would be better discussed on the other thread and keep this thread for the cohabitees part of the bill.

    One person sent in an E-mail saying they had no problem with civil partnerships but the bill also dealt with cohabitees and gave a reason why they didn't like this part of the bill. One of the panelists said something to the effect that this person had it all wrong and all it was was about protecting vulnerable people. Sean Moncrieff said he had heard something about it - something about farmers complaining about land being split up but didn't think there was much of an issue.

    This seemed to me again another example of how little people are clued in about this legislation - presumably Sean Moncrieff follows current affairs more than most but it's barely registered with him and only as something that fringe groups would care about.

    The programme quickly went back to discussing gay partnerships. Not sure they read any more texts out about cohabitees - I know I sent in one and they didn't read it out.

    Not sure - maybe people can listen to it somewhere. It was around 3:35-4pm (and then a few texts after the news). Mostly about gay partnerships as I said.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    Comment on Civil Partnership Bill (not published, just a comment from a discussion on the Irish Times site - nearly all the other posts are on civil partnerships i.e. gay couples):
    The Civil Partnership Bill foists a financial commitment on a couple who may only have an emotional relationship/commitment. One person decides to become dependent on another and this bill gives the dependent person the right to sue the other in order to preserve this dependence after break-up. This encourages dependence on others, rather than taking responsibilty for oneself. All of this, without signing up to, or opting-in to any formal agreement.


  • #113
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    You know the proposal is quite nasty because I read somewhere that in 70% of cases divorces are issued by wives and in 90% of cases wifes get the house and kids.

    So the new proposal has this happening without marriage and clear legal opt out procedures.

    It does not even have clear rules about who is who -like say if two married people shack up together who has a right to what property in the scheme of 4 people in 3 different scenarios in the family courts.

    Maybe we should attempt to produce a list of questions that are not being answered and email them off to tds and senators and broadcasters etc.

    I would love to know what Bertie Ahern, Trevor Sargent,Jim McDaid, Ryan Tubridy & Eamonn Dunphy would all feel of being in the situation of being in a situation of moving out of their newly acquired homes and starting again.

    Loosing a family home for a guy is every bit as difficult as a couple getting their home repossessed.


  • #114
    Otis Driftwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,925 ✭✭✭Otis Driftwood


    CDfm wrote: »
    You know the proposal is quite nasty because I read somewhere that in 70% of cases divorces are issued by wives and in 90% of cases wifes get the house and kids.

    Do you have a link to that source CDfm?

    Im not doubting you but it does seem astoundingly high.


  • #115
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    nedtheshed wrote: »
    Do you have a link to that source CDfm?

    Im not doubting you but it does seem astoundingly high.

    I have seen it somewhere recently and its likely to be on boards or a boards link and really -it does not surprise me.

    It seems from your post that you think when guys post on these issues that they exaggeratte or are bitter misogynists -people post because it is how it is.


  • #116
    PopUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭PopUp


    nedtheshed wrote: »
    Do you have a link to that source CDfm?

    Im not doubting you but it does seem astoundingly high.


    In Ireland 58% of divorces are initiated by women.

    I don't know about '90% of cases wifes get the house and kids' but:

    90% of all divorces in Ireland are settled 'amicably' (says the report, I don't know about how suitable the word 'amicable' is in relation to a divorce - 'mutually', maybe!) between both parties without ever going to court.

    And as far as 'getting the house and the money' goes, divorced men are considerably financially better off than divorced women. (Unfortunately, I can't find an Irish source for this. I seem to remember sharing a similar link here in tGC a few months ago, but I can't search back my old posts here. Anyway, I don't know of any reason to assume Ireland is any different.)


  • #117
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭iptba


    PopUp wrote: »
    90% of all divorces in Ireland are settled 'amicably' (says the report, I don't know about how suitable the word 'amicable' is in relation to a divorce - 'mutually', maybe!) between both parties without ever going to court.
    I think "mutually" is a better word alright. It doesn't mean either party was necessarily happy but that they just wanted to avoid using up resources on lawyers' fees.

    And, in general, I imagine many people who are "maintaining" their ex-spouse are not too happy about it. Probably particularly if the other party initiated the break-up.

    But at least with marriage, there was a contract one signed (although it is a bit nebulous what one is signing up to*), one has to commit in front of other people, etc. so many people decide before the sign up they don't want to tie themselves to a certain individual. This doesn't happen with the cohabitee part of the Civil Partnership Bill.

    * And people do not necessarily stick to some parts of the contract e.g. if the vow is "in sickness and in health"


  • #118
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    CDfm wrote: »
    I have seen it somewhere recently and its likely to be on boards or a boards link and really -it does not surprise me.

    It seems from your post that you think when guys post on these issues that they exaggeratte or are bitter misogynists -people post because it is how it is.

    WHen you say they "get the house" do you mean residency or do you mean ownership and left with the mortgage to pay?


  • #119
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    PopUp wrote: »
    In Ireland 58% of divorces are initiated by women.

    I don't know about '90% of cases wifes get the house and kids' but:

    90% of all divorces in Ireland are settled 'amicably' (says the report, I don't know about how suitable the word 'amicable' is in relation to a divorce - 'mutually', maybe!) between both parties without ever going to court.

    And as far as 'getting the house and the money' goes, divorced men are considerably financially better off than divorced women. (Unfortunately, I can't find an Irish source for this. I seem to remember sharing a similar link here in tGC a few months ago, but I can't search back my old posts here. Anyway, I don't know of any reason to assume Ireland is any different.)


    The cynic in me says this is a political move to slash the "welfare budget" but at the same time not deliver on either constitutional or support systems for men or affordable childcare for women who want to work outside the home.All of which have been recomended by the OECD.

    I will answer your points and give my reasons.

    It is very difficult to get accurate statistics anywhere as we have "in-camera" practices in our courts.

    "Amicable" in this sence means that an agreement is reached without a hearing and may even be based on what a judge indicates they will accept and make a ruling on.

    I do not think a normal person would accept based on their own experiences that divorced men are better off than divorced women and here is why.

    If you take a single income family with a stay at home or part time worker, mortgage, car loan etc.

    Take the average family,put Mr Dad out of the house ( Mum stays their as she is legally & constitutionally entitled to and is not required to work). Irish law dies not have finality and assets such as the family home do not have to be sold and split. What percentage of married women do not work 40, 50 %.

    Meanwhile the income for the "family" as an economic unit is the same and the bills have to be paid.

    So the surplus income after expenses for the family is taken into account (mortgage, car loan, maintenance etc) the average Dad can go out and set up home and be better off. Well, actually, no he can't. If they can -show me how they do it. The maths do not work.

    In practice we know that there is no safety net for "seperated fathers" -there is but we call them "Hostels for the Homeless".

    Work it out for yourself.

    Now, what the government is doing is extending the net to include couples who are co-habiting.


    Now I know several women who faced with the prospect of putting hubby on the streets have gone against normal practice and have treated their ex's as equals. They share the house as that is all the "joint income" can cope with. They are the few. That is what "Amicable" is and defering the decision to move out until the other or them both can move and have an acceptable standard of living.

    This is how I arrive at my conclusion that : this is to slash the "welfare budget" but at the same time not deliver on either constitutional or support systems for men or affordable childcare for women who want to work outside the home.

    So if this passes expect massive social welfare changes. Lone parents allowance, unemployment assistence reductions or assessments under new rules will follow. This one is a real poisoned chalice.

    EDIT: I am really surprised that the double edged sword nature of this has not been discussed anywhere.


  • #120
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    WHen you say they "get the house" do you mean residency or do you mean ownership and left with the mortgage to pay?

    In Ireland, if the wife does not work, residency with the motgage paid by him and effective ownership and may even move a new partner in -if that is her wish.

    New partners incomes are not taken into account when arriving at maintenance.

    A man may be awarded a % of the house at some future date but in practice this is useless to him as his housing need is now and courts rarely if ever enforce orders for houses to be sold and split in this way.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    PopUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭PopUp


    I'm not making any points really. Ned asked for statistics, so I provided them.

    You say separated men are routinely made homeless but the statistics say that they are wealthier than their ex-wives. (Statistics also say they are less healthy and more depressed - I'm not trying to portray their lives as great).

    I just find the facts interesting. I was honestly shocked to see that 90% of divorces are settled outside of court.

    Incidentally another very interesting - fact-based, not anecdote-based - source for information on the Family Law Courts is Carol Coulter's 2007 report which can be found online here. Dr Coulter is the Legal Affairs Editor of the Irish Times. The report makes the particularly contentious assertion that
    [T]he project, including the reporting panel, has attended over 100 days in court, probably representing over 1,000 applications. Neither I nor the members of the reporting panel have seen evidence of systematic bias against fathers or anyone else in the courts
    Dr Coulter does believe that single-income families below the average industrial wage are at a disadvantage however, as the non-working partner qualifies for free legal aid but the working partner (usually male) earns just over the income threshold yet still not enough to afford a lawyer. The report recommends the income threshold be raised for this reason and greater welfare support for lone parents and separated parents. They have a great many other recommendations too.

    It's true there is a limited amount of statistics out there but there is enough to back up statements. It just rankles me to see figures like '70% of divorces are initiated by women' when it's simply inaccurate and the correct figure can be found in a few minutes' Googling.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement