What exactly is cohabitation

I am really interested in this thread.

You are engaged, your bf/fiancé paid for the bulk of your new car and pays for holidays, you''ve voluntarily reduced your number of days from 3 to 2 days.

If I was your ex, I think I too would be looking to reduce or cease SM. However that''s the route I would be taking ''Change of circumstances'' rather than ''Co-habitation''

Please keep us informed.

WR

I think you will have problems with the engagement. An engagement is a promise to marry which is evidence that you are in a settled relationship and intend to marry.

I would like to qualify that my understanding of SM is that it is paid where there is a need and the payer can afford.

In cases where limits are set, it''s my assumption that the Court wishes one partner to support the other partner for a set time while the recipient of SM is able to use that breathing space to increase their working hours, re-train, find a job that pays more etc. It''s for the recipient to become financially stable in their own right.

You were given a 4 year SM order and state it ends Feb 2016, so you''ve had 3 years so far. If I were your ex I would be arguing that instead of decreasing your working days, you should be increasing them. That if you are financially able to reduce them, there is no requirement for that level of SM or even SM at all.

Your engagement shows an intention to wed, even though you state you have no plans in the foreseeable future.

I''m presuming your ex still pays CM for your 17 year old? Are there any other dependent children?

WR

Hi
My boyfriend has not proposed to me. He wanted to buy me a ring to show his commitment to our relationship. As I''ve said we have no plans to live together at the moment and certainly there has been no talk of marriage.
I can see that my ex might want to reduce the SM but I''m very concerned that if it stops I''m going to struggle as my boyfriend does not financially support me.
Do you think the judge will see the car and holidays as a financial commitment.

A commitment ring but not an engagement ring. Sounds a little like semantics.

I''ve personally experienced a lady telling a Judge she is definitely not cohabiting and has no plans to, shortly after the Consent Order was drawn up the partner sold his house and moved in with her. It happens all the time. Not that I''m accusing you of this, just to make you aware Judges have had plenty of experience in exactly this

It is hard to define co-habitation and I can see why Judges are very cautious.

With a new, non-established relationship a partner could move in, the ex would plead against SM, but the new relationship is still not established, it could end and with no SM the childrens home could be at risk. I can understand why Judges don''t like co-hab clauses in short relationships and ones where the children are young.

However, in your case your son is at the higher end of childhood, you had a 4 year limit put on SM, with 3 years already gone by, an established relationship where your bf spends regular time at yours, a commitment ring, new car and holidays, reducing your working days - I can see why your ex wants SM to stop (or at least a reduction)

Rather than relying on your ex or your boyfriend to financially support you, what would you need to do to support yourself?

It sounds like you already have a Plan to argue that you do not co-habit and you have no intention of doing so - it all depends on how the Judge sees it on the day - I don''t think its a clear cut case either way. I''d be very interested how it goes.

You said you''ve had the first hearing - did the Judge give anything away there?

If I were your Ex or a Judge I''d like to know the following:

There''s a 5 day working week and a weekend, could you split caring for your Mum, so you can increase your working days from 2?

Do you get a Carers allowance to look after your Mum?

WR

There was a case recently - AB v CB [2014] EWHC 2998 (Fam), where LJ Mostyn said that the wife''s non cohabitating relationship was "a fly in the ointment" and he could not ignore it, though the wife maintained that she was not going to live with him, Mostyn J found that "it is perfectly clear that the relationship is strong". Th relationship did make a difference in the settlement and the wife received less than she anticipated.

So, just because a relationship isn''t a full-time cohabitating one doesn''t necessarily mean that a Judge will discount it, or that it won''t have an impact on future proceedings, or variation applications.