Easier just to get narried.

My DF died young in an accident leaving my DM with 3 small children and despite their marriage she still found it hard to access insurance and pension so goodness knows what it would have been like without a legal contract ie marriage.
That was a long time ago but I wonder, after watching this case, if anything has changed.

I agree with Day 6 who sets out the reasons many chose not to marry. They do need though, to get legal advice, put a written agreement together, including wills, both sign it and make sure their relatives now its contents. They also need to identify who they would want to care for their children if the worst happened, and both of them died (in an accident perhaps).

They also need to identify who they would want to care for their children if the worst happened, and both of them died (in an accident perhaps).
I think that is sensible advice for anyone with children, married or not - the first time we went overseas without our DC we made our wills and appointed guardians for them in case of the worst scenario.

It is not automatic that the children would go to a relative.

Of course it’s a couple’s choice whether to marry or not but I think they then have to take responsibility for the implications of this decision. Marriage ( or a civil partnership which I agree should now be legislated for for heterosexual couples) defines the relationship - what would happen if a man lived with a woman, had two children, moved on and repeated that and then died - should both women’s children have the right to the benefit? If not, why not- the relationship of the man to the children is the same and the children’s needs for financial support is the same. But I think that would be a nonsense. Just get married ( and what rubbish to cite the wishes of a dead wife quite frankly - if that’s even true) and if you don’t want to marry then at least find out what that means and take out adequate life insurance - I think this decision is rubbish and would lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.

If it's about the children I don't see why marriage should matter. The children of course had no choice in the matter. The children of all couples need to be supported if one of the parents dies regardless of their marital state. Just because your parents didn't marry, either because of principle or some other reason doesn't mean you should be subjected to unnecessary financial hardship.

I agree with your post trisher

Widowed Parent’s Allowance (“WPA”) is a contributory non-means-tested, social security benefit payable to men and women with dependent children, who were widowed before March 2017. The widowed parent’s entitlement depends upon the contribution record of the deceased partner. Under the relevant law (“s39A”) the widowed parent can only claim the allowance if he or she was married to or the civil partner of the deceased

The issue before the court was whether this requirement was an unjustifiable discrimination against the survivor and/or the children on the basis of their marital or birth status, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention on Human Rights together with the right to respect for family life under Article 8, or the protection of property rights in Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR.

ukhumanrightsblog.com/2018/08/31/bereaved-mother-entitled-to-widow-allowance-supreme-court/

what would happen if a man lived with a woman, had two children, moved on and repeated that and then died - should both women’s children have the right to the benefit? If not, why not- the relationship of the man to the children is the same and the children’s needs for financial support is the same.
Interesting point - as a couple could divorce, the man then has children with a second wife, then dies. If the man was supporting the children from his first marriage what happens?

If a couple divorce, then the law as it stands is clear. The ex wife is not a widow is she? But anyway, how would the example I gave be dealt with? The cohabitee at death gets the allowance for her children? I suppose if being a cohabitee is treated the same as being married if there are children, then that would be the logical outcome. Wouldn’t it make more sense just to get rid of the concept of marriage in the benefit system completely?

Perhaps this is where a Civil Partnership is appropriate?

The ex wife is not a widow is she?
No, but if the deceased had children with her whom he was supporting what happens then?

Perhaps get rid of the 'widow's allowance' and have a 'dependent children's allowance' instead.

I must have missed the other thread sorry. interesting to hear views.

I’m with trisher and Jalima here. I don’t seemarriage as relevant, it’s the dependent children whose needs should be paramount.
A small number of men don’t take financial, or other parental responsibilities seriously. That’s a separate issue, other than the needs of the children which become the sole responsibility of their mothers and possibly the tax payers

On a slightly off piste note, I must admit that I'm puzzled ( to put it mildly) when I hear some people in long term, live-in relationships who have failed to realise that unless they are married they have no legal standing as a partner, no matter how long their relationship

I agree Blinko. I feel like a cracked record talking to some of the young women I know, who seem to believe if they've lived with their partner 5 years, they will be given what they call "common law wife" status. Some were shaken recently, when a young woman who'd lived with the father of her 5 year old child for 10 years found herself homeless and penniless after he dumped her for a newer model.

We should remember as well that the father may well have paid tax and contributions which should at least ensure that his chuldren are cared for.

Iam64 where do they get these ideas? Wishful thinking, imo.

Marriage is a contract. If a couple decide not to marry for whatever reason, they need some sort of contract to cover themselves and their children if they want - or expect - to get the same benefits. I have friends who have been in a 30 year live-in relationship but if he was in hospital, she would not be his next-of-kin to be kept informed. It's insane and irresponsible not to have something legally binding, especially when children are involved.

Blinko I don't know where they get these ideas. It certainly isn't wishful thinking, it's based on a belief that legally these issues have progressed untie the 21st century, along with general social beliefs.
I have friends who married in their 60's after living together, bringing up children over a 40 year period. Pensions can formalise thinking. I agree its irresponsible not have something legally binding, especially where children are concerned. It's easy to say this but I remember the several years we spent trying to persuade my parents to write a will. They were sensible, well informed folks but had this notion that writing a will would somehow acknowledge the fact they were heading for 80. I suspect many young people believe their love will sustain them and all will be well. That if they see solicitors it somehow suggests they don't trust each other.

Why don't "they" change it to "Bereaved Child Benefit", then all the semantics of being married, common-law etc., are irrelevant?

I'm with Sparklefizz on this. I wonder whether extending Civil Partnerships to all would help with this issue? It just seems crazy not to ensure that ones nearest and dearest are legally ones next of kin.