aasplogo.jpg (7152 bytes)      

 

Back to Recent News

U.S. News Archive

Go to International
News Archive

 

 

 

 

Home Page What's New About AASP Contact AASP
Members Join AASP Guestbook Site Map
 

Archive3.gif (2046 bytes)

 

U.S. News Archive
November 21 - November 27, 2000

 

 

 
 

 

This page contains news for the period November 21, 2000 through November 27, 2000.

 

<<   November 2000  >>

S M T W Th F S
      01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

 

 

Thursday, November 23, 2000

Unmarried cohabitation can have legal and economic consequences

In a column published today in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, court referee Patricia G. Miller explains some of the legal consequences of unmarried cohabitation.  Miller is the permanent equitable distribution master for the Family Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

"Cohabitation" is not a commonly-used word, but it is one that is frequently important to divorce lawyers. It has to do with people's living arrangements, and how a living arrangement is defined can mean hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to divorce lawyers and their clients.

Webster's Dictionary defines cohabitation as "to live together as husband and wife" or "to share the same place." Ah, there's the rub. There is a huge difference between those two definitions.

Miller looks at the two ways the question comes up, both of which can cost people lots of money.

The first relates to alimony. Divorce law in Pennsylvania prohibits paying alimony to a former spouse
who is cohabiting -- but not with just anyone. It has to be with an unrelated member of the opposite sex.

Miller gives two examples.

Suppose Ann and Beth are living together. Ann is divorced and is receiving alimony for 24 months. Ann and Beth happen to be lesbians who share an intimate relationship that they consider the functional equivalent of marriage.

Might Ann lose her alimony? Only if the court went by Webster's definitions. She wouldn't under Pennsylvania's divorce law, which specifies cohabiting as being with an unrelated member of the opposite sex. Ann would be home free while her alimony-paying ex-spouse fumes.

Now suppose that Mary Jones is living with Charles Smith. Like Ann, Mary is receiving alimony. She and Charles are roommates who share expenses such as rent and utilities but not a bed. They have absolutely no romantic relationship. In fact, each is engaged to someone else. Has Mary lost her right to alimony? Maybe.

Miller explains that if Mary's ex-husband feels like testing the law, he has a good chance of winning. Mary's living arrangement meets the state law's specification of cohabitation as living with an unrelated member of the opposite sex, as well as Webster's second definition: "to share the same living space."

Miller then shifts her focus to Nancy, an Erie County resident, who learned this the hard way.

Nancy, who had a right to receive alimony for 36 months, took a sick friend into her home. While being motivated by a philanthropic desire to aid a friend in need, she made two serious mistakes: Her housemate was a member of the opposite sex, and they shared a bed.

When her ex-husband took her to court to terminate her right to alimony, she vigorously denied that there was any sexual relationship. It didn't matter. Even though her former husband couldn't prove any sexual or financial interdependence, the shared living arrangement, coupled with the shared bed, did her in.

But it is not merely dependent ex-spouses receiving alimony who need to worry about what cohabitation means. So do divorcing couples who have to divide their property. The only property that can be divided by a divorce court is that which was acquired before separation. Anything acquired later belongs only to the person who acquired it. A problem arises when couples disagree on when they separated.

Pennsylvania's divorce law says that separation is the ending of all cohabitation. It's not the most helpful definition. Suppose that a husband won $50,000 in the lottery. His wife says it was before separation, so the money is marital and she gets a share. The husband says it was after separation, so it isn't marital.

How can that be, Miller rhetorically asks, because people are either living together or they aren't?  Life isn't always that clear cut she says.

It is not at all uncommon to see an unhappily married couple with a two- or three-year difference of opinion about when they separated. Typically, the earliest date is when one of them decided that the marriage was over and filed for divorce or started sleeping on the couch. The end date is when one of them actually moves out. What went on in the interval was the gradual deterioration of their marriage.

Miller concludes by pointing out that, no matter whether you are an ex-spouse paying or receiving alimony, or married and wondering about that lottery ticket, there is no clear-cut cohabitation test in Pennsylvania. She suggests that people may want to consult your divorce lawyer before you move to the couch, win the lottery or invite a friend to share your living quarters.

 

Tuesday, November 21, 2000

New study explores myths and facts of unwed motherhood

A story published today in the Washington Post reports that a new study has been released which discusses the myths and facts of unwed motherhood.

More than 1 million babies are born to unmarried women in the United States every year. Although attitudes attitudes on this subject have changed since the Puritans held sway in the 1600s, the myths about unwed mothers still persist.

Now a major government report on the subject goes a long way to dispel the myths. Entitled "Nonmarital Childbearing in the UnitedStates," the report analyzes trends in out-of-wedlock births over the past 50 years and explores the changes in marriage patterns that have led to the increase.

The first myth is that unwed motherhood is only a phenomenon in the African American community. In fact, the birth rate among unmarried black women has recently declined, while it has steadily increased among unmarried white women. To be sure, out-of-wedlock births have been historically high among black women--peaking in 1970 when the rate was nearly seven times the rate for white women. By 1998 the gap had narrowed, with blacks having about double therate.

The second myth is that nonmarital births are a problem only among teenagers. It's true that nearly 80 percent of teenagers who have a child are not married. But the birth rate for teenagers dropped substantially in the 1990s.  Most unwed mothers are not teenagers. Today two-thirds of out-of-wedlock births occur in women older than 20.

The third myth is that unwed motherhood is an American phenomenon. In fact, the United States is not even the leader. In 1998, two-thirds of the births in Iceland and half or more of the births in Norway and Sweden were to unmarried women, compared with one-third in the United States. France, Great Britain, Denmark and Finland all have higher nonmarital birth rates than the United States. "We're not such an anomaly," notes demographer Stephanie Ventura of the National Center for Health   Statistics and a co-author of the report.

The fourth myth is that unwed childbearing is out of control and will continue to rise until virtually all births are to unwed mothers. Actually, births to unmarried women leveled off in the past 10 years. They rose dramatically between 1940 and 1990. Since then, they have remained stable at about 33 percent of all births--with declining rates among teenagers and blacks.

The fifth myth is that children born to unmarried mothers are raised in a single-parent household. That's not necessarily true: An increasing number are born to men and women who live together as a couple. "Two out of five recent nonmarital births are occurring to cohabiting couples," points out the report's co-author, Christine Bachrach of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

This reflects the shifting patterns of marriage. Men and women are marrying at older ages. They are also more likely to cohabit, as a prelude or alternative to marriage. As Bachrach says, "The really critical thing that has changed is marriage."

The story says that much more research needs to be done on the long-term effects of cohabitation as a form of family. Early studies show that these unions are not as stable as marriages. But at the very least, cohabitation suggests that the child is born into a two-parent household and can expect to have the love and attention of a mother and a father.

California ACLU encourages all affiliates to work with AASP

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, sent the following memo to each state affiliate of the ACLU.   Ripston is an honorary member of the American Association for Single People.

"The Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California recently endorsed the 'Human Rights Agenda' (attached) of the American Association for Single People (AASP) and has agreed to work more closely with that organization as we work to end marital status discrimination.   I urge other ACLU affiliates to consider working with the AASP whenever issues involving this insidious form of discrimination present themselves in your region.

"Our Board of Directors has also endorsed the AASP's 'Singles-Friendly Workplace Campaign and "Stop the Stigma Campaign."  The purpose of the 'Singles-Friendly Workplace Campaign," among other thins, is to ensure that single workers are treated fairly and to advocate for domestic partnership benefits for unmarried couples, gay and straight.  The purpose of the "Stop the Stigma Campaign" is to call to the attention of judges the harmful effects of stigmatizing language (e.g., 'illegitimate') sometimes used in their written opinions and orally from the bench when they refer to a child born to unmarried parents.  I am enclosing summaries describing these important efforts.

"For more information about the American Association for Single People, you may want to visit the organization's website: www.unmariedAmerica.com."

 

 

Home Page What's New About AASP Contact AASP
Members Join AASP Guestbook Site Map