Today at a Labor Day weekend picnic, David and I talked with a counselor whose experience confirmed something that we’ve suspected: cohabiting couples who break up are often at the same place emotionally as recently divorced couples. It makes sense. Married couples who have lived together before marriage tell us that, emotionally, living together in a committed relationship is no different than living together as husband and wife. More and more cohabiting couples have children, and maybe even own homes before marriage, so oftentimes marriage changes the woman’s name and the bank account (maybe), but not much else.
So, it makes sense that ending a cohabiting relationship could have the same devastating effect as divorce.
David and I have termed this “the divorce that has no name.”
Categories: Children of Divorce, Love & Marriage in Middle America, Marriage
“Like.”
When it comes to child support, custody, and visitation issues, do the courts treat couples who were married (and are now divorcing) differently than couples who were not married (and are now breaking up)?
The only difference of which I am aware regards paternity. In the case of a marriage, any child born within that marriage is considered the child of the husband, and he would be liable for child support, even if he were to discover that he was not the biological father of that child. However, a man who was not married to the mother would no longer have to pay child support if he were able to prove that he was not the father of the child he had previously believed was his.
In theory, the answer is yes. the law treats cohabiting and married couples quite differently: marriage creates property claims on one another’s assets that living together does not.
For most cohabiting couples, this isn’t very relevant however, as young adults who have lived together for a few years (say five or less) typically do not have enough assets to bother a lawyer about.
Also cohabiting couples do not tend to create wealth the way married couples do.
In theory child-related right and obligations are now severed from marriage. Even a husband btw under the classic presumption of paternity doctrine could deny paternity if he could prove that the child is not his.
The difference is only in the legal presumption. An unmarried woman has the obligation to prove this man is the father of her child. A married man would have the obligation to prove he is not.
This mattered a great deal more in the days before DNA testing. maggie
In theory child-related right and obligations are now severed from marriage.
I think it’s more than “in theory.” I’m not aware that child-related rights and obligations are any different for the formerly married and the never married, outside of paternity disputes.
Even a husband btw under the classic presumption of paternity doctrine could deny paternity if he could prove that the child is not his.
This case from Florida contradicts that statement. Perhaps Florida law has since been changed, but the Florida Supreme Court decided unanimously that missing the one year post-divorce deadline mattered more than the DNA evidence.
An unmarried woman has the obligation to prove this man is the father of her child.
This article demonstrates that, in practice, it’s not as simple as that.
I agree- it’s more common today, especially with blended and step families. Some may not get married due to child support, custody, alimony or even college tuition issues. When the couple breaks up, the pain is just the same as a divorce, and both parents and children suffer from the change.
Shirley Cress Dudley, MA LPC NCC
Director of The Blended and Step Family Resource Center
http://www.BlendedFamilyAdvice.com