Family lawyers reject 'forced marriage' framing of cohabitation reform

The body representing family law professionals has rejected the argument that reforming cohabitation law would impose marriage-like status on couples who never chose it.

Resolution, which has around 6,500 members, was responding to Baroness Deech, the crossbench peer and former Bar Standards Board chair, who has written to justice secretary Alex Norris opposing the reforms. Deech argues the government risks automatically applying marriage-style rights and obligations to cohabiting couples without their consent, points to research suggesting most couples have heard little or nothing about the proposals, and favours an opt-in scheme as a better way of preserving individual choice.

Jo Edwards, chair of Resolution's Family Law Reform Committee, set out a detailed rebuttal. She said there is a clear democratic mandate for reform because it formed part of a manifesto commitment, and that a poll showing 37% support cannot cancel that mandate when decades of evidence point to widespread misunderstanding of the current law.

The common-law marriage myth

Edwards cited the British Social Attitudes Survey, which found 46% of respondents wrongly believe common-law marriage exists — effectively unchanged from 47% in 2005. The strongest argument for reform, she said, is that millions of people reasonably expect protections the law simply does not give them.

Do cohabiting couples have rights in the UK? At present, largely not by virtue of the relationship itself. That gap is what the proposals are intended to address, and it is a recurring source of instruction for family and property teams when a long-term relationship ends.

Edwards also dismissed the suggestion that the plans smuggle in marriage or invent a third status, describing them instead as a safety net for relationships meeting clearly defined criteria, with rights falling well short of those attached to marriage. She noted that opposite-sex civil partnerships already provide an opt-in route but have barely been used in almost seven years, leaving unprotected couples exactly where they were. She warned that allowing one partner to remove the other's statutory protection unilaterally could let the economically stronger party impose an opt-out through pressure, and argued a mutual, informed opt-out strikes a better balance.

The caseload question

Senior family judge HHJ Edward Hess has suggested reform could add roughly 10,000 cases a year to the Financial Remedies Court. Resolution disputes that. Edwards pointed to Fair Shares research from three years ago showing only 3% of divorcing couples needed a judge to resolve their finances, with a further 2.5% settling after proceedings had begun, and noted how far mediation and other non-court dispute resolution are now embedded in practice. Other measures in the package — giving marital agreements greater prominence and simplifying the law on finances on divorce — should reduce pressure on the courts rather than increase it, she said.

Resolution's closing point was blunt: opposition to reform ignores the circumstances of 3.5 million couples, and the law needs to keep pace with how people actually live.

The government consultation on reforming financial remedies on divorce and strengthening protections for cohabitants closes on Friday. The Law Society has broadly supported the package in its own response while calling for additional legal aid investment to support children and survivors of domestic abuse.