In many jurisdictions, common law relationships after a certain period of cohabitation are very similar to marriage when it comes to splitting up. I'm guessing you're not advocating not staying with someone for more than, say 2 years.

Common Law Marriage doesn't seem to be a thing in the UK since 1753. Is this just a US thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_Marriages_Act_1753

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-mar...

https://www.familylives.org.uk/advice/your-family/relationsh...

Edit: also a related term, parental responsibility...

https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1840/bma-parental-responsibilit...

Edit2: also you can assign each other as "Next of Kin".

https://www.royalfree.nhs.uk/patients-visitors/advice-and-su...

Edit3: also note, married couples don't automatically have "Lasting power of attorney" which grants partners a say in their medical care, and being "Next of Kin" is not an equivalent.

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/lega...

So... don't get married, sign your name on the birth certificate, and fill in that NHS card

Not just the USA. New Zealand calls it "de facto marriage" https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/separation-divorce/divide...

Isn’t it the same as a defector relationship? Australia also has a system where you don’t have to be married to be considered as a couple for some legal purposes.

You mean "de facto relationship"? From what I understand, no, it's the exact opposite.

https://www.gotocourt.com.au/family-law/de-facto-relationshi...

"The courts can make an order for the division of any property that you own together or separately. They may also order a split of any superannuation, or that one party pay spousal maintenance.

The net asset pool will include anything acquired before, during, or after separation. It does not matter whether the property was owned jointly or individually. When determining a property settlement, the court evaluates the types of contributions – financial and non-financial – made by either person, as well as their future needs."

Edit: this applies to AU "de facto relationship" vs UK "common law marriage" terms... it might be different when discussing different countries.

Indeed “defacto”. Damn auto correct.

>Is this just a US thing?

Canada too.

Yes in the provice of Ontario common-law spouses have the same rights to spousal support as married couples if they have been living together for at least three years, or if they have a child together and have been living together in a relationship of some permanence.

So you can’t be a room mate with the opposite sex without being considered common law married after that time period? I feel like any decent lawyer could blow that to pieces.

Maybe not, but I bet it's hard to claim the person you have a 10 year old child with is your room mate.

Usually part of the definition is holding yourself out to not married

No, see kuang_eleven and my comment to him above. Many factors are weighed.

same sex a applies as well in CA!

CA doesn't have common law marriage, so it is more accurate to say that it doesn't apply to same sex couples in the same way that it doesn't to oppozit5-sex couples.

Correct, but CA recognizes common law marriage where it was triggered in other jurisdictions.

> Correct, but CA recognizes common law marriage where it was triggered in other jurisdictions.

Every US state recognizes common law marriage from other jurisdictions, and (because of federal Cobstitutional rulings) does so without regard to the gender of participants.

My mistake, I heard that once before as a child and just parroted it. Very stupid of me

In the very few places where common law marriage is allowed, it still requires the couple to hold themselves out in public as married. It does not "trick" people into getting married if they don't treat themselves as married.

There can be complications if one party claims to be common-law married and the other does not, especially during divorces.

Those factors can be, amongst others: joint financial accounts, mortgage, title to assets, children, vehicle insurance policies, reciprocal wills, reciprocal beneficiaries of life insurance, health coverage, intimacy, etc. What I’m getting at is that it’s not that hard to hold yourself out as married when you’ve got so much “entanglement.”

That’s not always the case. Here in Ontario there was a case of a relationship being declared common law by a court despite not cohabitating. That is quite unusual, but simply living together for 3 years (or 1 year with a child) is the normal yardstick courts use.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7327501/couple-no-home-no-kids-sp...

It might be worth swapping jurisdictions. Some places seem just bad for having any prolonged relationship.

or depending on your gender swap jurisdiction when you see it's going pear shaped. France sees quite a bit of divorce tourism from UK and other European countries because they're "less progressive". So if you have a lot of money to lose move the whole family to France and after 2 or 3 years get divorced there.

> common law relationships after a certain period of cohabitation are very similar to marriage

These laws are awful and need to be changed.

Cold comfort if she gets pregnant and now you have no say.

You don't have to be married to the mother of your kids in many countries.

Don't make her pregnant.

Unfortunately, that requires exercising your say ahead of time, through contraception, vasectomy, or the radical step of making sure that your long-term goals are aligned with those of your partner.

Huh?