[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Journals
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Journals >> Family Redefinition under Part III of the Family Law Bill 1996 URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/1996/issue2/lind2.html Cite as: Family Redefinition under Part III of the Family Law Bill 1996

[New search] [Help]

Family Redefinition under Part III of the Family Law Bill 1996

Craig Lind

and

Anne Barlow

Copyright © 1996 Craig Lind and Anne Barlow.
First Published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues in association with Blackstone Press Ltd.

We aim to assess the potentially wide-ranging effects of Part III of the Family Law Bill 1996 on the legal position of unmarried couples in domestic violence law, and on the jurisprudential scope of family law itself. We begin by considering the social reality of family structuring, noting the erosion of the dominance of the traditional married family. Then we consider the equivocal and, consequently, incohesive legal response to this social diversification (particularly in the context of heterosexual cohabitation). In the analysis of Part III of the 1996 Bill which follows we examine the implications of the proposed reforms for all unmarried cohabitants, and examine the adequacy of the new remedies available to expanded categories of victims of family violence. We conclude by arguing that the Bill significantly improves current law, but that by creating three tiers of legal regulation to distinguish the remedies available to spouses, unmarried heterosexual cohabitants, and other home sharers (notably homosexual cohabitants), it unnecessarily and inappropriately complicates the resolution of comparable disputes. The ideological importance of the superiority of the married state has prevented pragmatic and coherent reform.

Introduction

Reconstructing the Family

Law and the Social Family

Unmarried cohabitants under the Family Law Bill 1996

i. Non-molestation orders

ii. Occupation Orders

a. Unmarried Entitled Applicants

b. Unmarried, Non-entitled Applicants

iii. Transfer of Tenancies

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

True to his word Lord Mackay's first Bill presented to the House of Lords in the 1995/6 parliamentary session was the Family Law Bill. Whilst originally intended only to radically overhaul the law of divorce, in Part III the Bill has been used as the vehicle to reintroduce (with minor alterations) the amendments he intended for the law on family homes and domestic violence. Thus not only does the proposed legislation remove fault almost entirely from formal divorce, in the field of domestic violence law, it also extends the categories of 'family' for jurisdictional purposes. While both reforms are primarily aimed at giving effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission (Law Com No 192 and 207) their ambit is guaranteed to provoke controversy especially amongst conservative thinkers whose fears have long been that the traditional family is under legal attack.

In this article we intend to examine Part III of the Bill focusing on its effect on the rights of both homosexual and unmarried heterosexual cohabitants. While the proposed reform of law in respect of the latter has been responsible for much of the controversy that has surrounded this piece of legislation, the creation of family law remedies for the former may, in the end, be the more ideologically significant reform. In broadening the application of remedies for domestic violence and the resolution of family homes disputes to unmarried heterosexual couples family law is clearly expanding. But in extending some of those remedies to lesbian and gay couples, and others sharing a household, the jurisprudential scope of family law is beginning to be radically revised. And yet the Bill is not uncompromising in its progressive trend. It still harbours a tendency to cling to a tradition of family law that is exclusively marriage centred and heterosexual, and insists upon cohabitation as the central focus of family relationships. This ideological allegiance, it is submitted, prevents it from offering a rational and cohesive set of solutions to the domestic violence and property disputes of all 'romantic' and cohabiting relationships (whether or not sexual).

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Reconstructing the Family

Thus, while some married couples do have children and do sometimes live together until one of them dies, it is not uncommon for the marriage to end in divorce. Nor is it unusual for couples never to marry, or never to have children. There are also those who have children without involving themselves in a long term, monogamous, relationship. And those whose relationships are with members of their own sex. Some relationships are asexual. And some households consist of more than two adults, who may or may not share sexual intimacy. The variety is almost infinite. The most that can be said with any certainty, in an attempt to define the family, is that it usually involves significant emotional and material relationships between people (whether adults or children) born of a genetic, social, legal or sexual connection. While there may be some definitions which are more widely used than others, and while particular conceptions are applicable in particular contexts, it is clear that 'family' means many things to many people, and that the social expectations of families cannot be regarded as anything like as uniform as some would have us believe.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Law and the Social Family

That this broader ethic should be (and has, to some extent, been) adopted does not necessarily mean that society should stop privileging the marriage state.(1) But it does dictate that the law should acknowledge the existence and at least some of the needs of other families in various important spheres of their lives. This has occurred in a number of piecemeal legal developments in the last few decades.

In property disputes between cohabitants the courts acknowledged the real parallels between unmarried heterosexual cohabitation and marriage. Indeed, Lord Denning in Bernard v Josephs [1982] 3 All ER 162 at 163 said:

"In my opinion in ascertaining the respective shares, the court should normally apply the same considerations to couples living together (as if married) as they do to couples who are truly married."

However, after the Denning era the courts retreated from this liberal position despite the increasing numbers of unmarried cohabitants (Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, Thomas v Fuller-Brown [1988] FLR 237 CA, Rossett v Lloyds Bank PLC [1990] 2 WLR 867, cf. Midland Bank v Cook [1995] 4 All ER 562). Whereas they had been prepared to imply resulting and constructive trusts to achieve fairer settlements of disputes, they began to adhere to a stricter application of property law. They would only use their equitable jurisdiction to allow cohabitants to assert rights in the property of their partners where a common intention could be inferred that each party should have an interest in the property. This inconsistency led to the Law Commission's current review of the property rights of cohabitants (Harpum 1995).

There have also been a number of legislative developments which have seen unmarried cohabitants emerge as a recognised, although inferior, form of family in law. In the case of social security law, it did not escaped the notice of the legislature that to ignore the existence of unmarried cohabiting couples would be to disadvantage married couples dependent on means-tested state benefits. The latter's entitlement (as a couple) is less than that of two unconnected individuals. Thus very early (Supplementary Benefits Act 1966) the introduction of the much hated ‘cohabitation rule’ ensured that no such advantage was gained by unmarried cohabitants (Social Security and Contributions to Benefits Act 1990 (SSCBA 1990) ss 136(1) and 137(1)). Conversely, where non-means tested contributory benefits are concerned, unmarried cohabitants are usually denied an adult dependent’s allowance for their partners where married claimants would receive one, however good their national insurance contribution record (see, for example, SSCBA 1990 ss 82-4). Furthermore, the married couples’ allowance providing greater personal relief against income tax does not extend to those living together as husband and wife however stable and long- standing their relationship (ICTA 1988 s 257A, see Rignell (Inspector of Taxes) v Andrews [1990] STC 410). Yet there was no hesitation in making heterosexual cohabitants liable for their partners' council tax (Local Government Finance Act 1992, s 9). It is noteworthy that lesbian and gay cohabiting couples are not covered by the 'cohabitation rule' or the rule making cohabitants liable for their partners' council tax. Thus, they enjoy a rare advantage in law because it ignores their shared existence and treats them as unconnected individuals merely sharing accommodation.

Another notable recognition of the family status of unmarried cohabitants came in the guise of the extension to them of the right to succeed to public and private sector tenancies on the death of their partners (Housing Act 1985, s 87 with s 113(1) & (2) ; Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), s 17(4); Rent Act 1977, sch 1 as amended by HA 1988 sch 4, part I). This time the courts excluded lesbian and gay cohabitants from the ambit of this rule (Harrogate Borough Council v Simpson [1986] 2 FLR 91).

Two further statutes have focused on the length of relationship to confer marriage-like benefits on unmarried heterosexual cohabitants. Section 1(3) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 extended to them the right to bring a dependent's action where they had cohabited for at least two years and the applicant had been financially dependent upon the deceased. Most recently cohabitants of two years standing have been given improved succession rights under section 2 of the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995. These people are now recognised as a separate category of eligible applicants under sections 1A and 2A of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 entitled to make a claim for financial provision against a deceased’s estate.(2)

Finally, the need for legal protection from domestic violence for unmarried cohabitants was acknowledged by legislation passed in 1976. Rushed through Parliament in the wake of revelations in Erin Pizzey's Scream Quietly or the Neighbours will Hear about the shocking effects of violence in the home, the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 (DVMPA 1976) gave cohabitants protection from their violent partners (s 1(2)). Perhaps the hurry to pass this Act was responsible both for the incomplete protection it offered victims of domestic violence, and for the inconsistency of the remedies available in different courts. Its shortcomings were the subject of judicial comment (see, for example, Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264, per Lord Kilbrandon at p 338) and, as long ago as 1992, the Law Commission described the existing remedies as "complex, confusing and lack[ing] integration" (Law Com No 207, para 1.2) and called for their reform.

That reform was finally introduce in the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill 1995 which sought to codify domestic violence law in a more consistent and cohesive statutory framework. Thus protection against molestation was made almost universal and the courts discretion to settle occupation of the family home was extended and rationalised. Moreover, the courts were given jurisdiction to make transfer of tenancy orders between unmarried heterosexual cohabitants on relationship breakdown where previously there had been no remedy. In addition it sought to extend to these couples the procedures available to spouses and engaged couples under section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 (MWPA 1882) for resolving property disputes. Whilst most of these reforms have survived largely intact, in the redraft the latter purely procedural remedy has, inexplicably, disappeared. As John Eekelaar has written (Eekelaar 1996, at p 48.):

"It is hard to see how maintaining procedures which benefit only lawyers, even those of the Chancery Bar, help the institution of marriage, but political compromise seldom produces rational results."

Ironically, despite the fact that the bill extended protection against domestic violence to lesbian and gay cohabitants, and gave the courts a measure of discretion to order occupation of their family homes, this did not feature in the moral controversy which led to its demise. Consequently these reforms have remained intact in the new Bill.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Unmarried cohabitants under the Family Law Bill 1996

The Bill will repeal and replace the whole of the DVMPA 1976 together with the relevant sections (ss 16-18, s 28(2) and para 53 of Sch 2) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978. It will introduce two types of order: (i) non- molestation orders (clause 37), and (ii) occupation orders (clause 34), available to newly defined classes of applicants (clauses 28, and 30 - 33).

Top | Contents | Bibliography

i. Non-molestation orders

The criteria for granting non-molestation orders also follow the Law Commission's recommendation that they be broad rather than specific. Consequently, clause 37(5) provides that in deciding whether to exercise its powers under the clause and, if so, in what manner, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including "the need to secure the health, safety and well-being" of the applicant and any relevant child. The term 'well-being', it is submitted, is sufficiently wide to ensure that courts do not feel restricted to making orders only in cases where violence or a threat of violence can be proven.

The range of potential applicants under the Bill is far wider than those encompassed within the 1976 Act. This is perhaps the most radical of the Bill's reforms. Those entitled to apply for non-molestation orders must be "associated" with the respondent. "Associated" persons are defined by clause 56(3) to include a wide variety of different people. Most obviously it covers spouses and former spouses, and heterosexual cohabitants and former cohabitants (clause 56(1)(a)). Perhaps most radically, it includes those living or having lived in the same household otherwise than merely by reason of one of them being the other's employee, tenant, lodger or boarder. Significantly, this includes lesbian and gay cohabitants.(4) It should be noted, however, that the Bill prescribes no minimum period of cohabitation or of 'living together in the same household' before a cohabitant or associated person becomes an eligible applicant under clause 37.

Whilst this definition includes a far wider range of applicant than under the current law, one important vulnerable group have been denied protection. The Law Commission recommended (Law Com No 207 para 3.24) that persons in a 'romantic' relationship (such as boyfriend/girlfriend) who had had a sexual relationship (whether or not involving sexual intercourse), should have a remedy against molestation. However, these people do not fall within the definition of "associated" persons in the Bill and will not, therefore, be able to avail themselves of the protection it provides. This leaves those who have had a relationship but who have never cohabited, agreed to marry, or had a child together (including a couple who are expecting a child) without a domestic violence remedy in family law.

From the perspective of lesbian and gay couples the proposed legislation represents a significant step forward. Although the Law Commission did not feel able to include them within the definition of "cohabitants" and, indeed, specifically excluded them, they do fall within the more general category of those who have lived together in the same household other than on a commercial basis (clause 56(3)(c)). The Law Commission foresaw (Law Com No 207 para 3.21) that the test for determining whether people are "living together in the same household" would be that developed in the matrimonial law context to establish the degree of community of life between them (see, for example, Fuller v Fuller [1972] 2 All ER 650 and Mouncer v Mouncer [1972] 1 WLR 321). Although there may be difficulties in interpretation of the definition of the 'same household' with regard to persons who have not had a sexual relationship (such as friends who are also flatsharers), it is submitted that these problems would not present themselves in the case of lesbian and gay cohabitants. Whilst all the authorities relate to married or heterosexual cohabiting couples, the existence of an intimate relationship together with shared meals and domestic arrangements should bring them within the definition. Indeed, the Law Commission report specifically refers to homosexual couples as falling within this broad family relationship (para. 3.19).

In addition several significant improvements are in evidence in clause 37. Former cohabitants and former spouses are included in the Bill where they were previously largely unprotected. Moreover, former 'associated persons' will also be eligible to apply for non-molestation orders. It will not be necessary for those who seek non- molestation remedies to remain in the violent home.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

ii. Occupation Orders

The fact that cohabitants with no right as a matter of property law to occupy the family home would be able to obtain occupation orders excluding their partners in whom the legal right to occupy vested, provoked the controversy which resulted in the ultimate withdrawal of the 1995 Bill. That this was already a possibility in the same exceptional (domestic violence) context under section 1(1)(c) DVMPA 1976 as confirmed some fifteen years earlier in the leading case of Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264 did nothing to prevent those opposing the Bill from claiming that this amounted to a new and unacceptable assault on marriage and property rights.

Notwithstanding this, Part III of the 1996 Bill has retained the majority of these reforms completely intact, whilst attempting to satisfy its conservative critics by focusing the court's attention when deciding whether to make an occupation order on the fact that the parties have not made the same commitment as married couples (Clause 36). While the bill treats heterosexual cohabitants on an almost equal footing with spouses, it distinguishes them from homosexual cohabitants who are only able to apply for an occupation order if they can show their own legal entitlement to occupy the property (Clause 28).

Top | Contents | Bibliography

a. Unmarried Entitled Applicants

The clause 28 order is an improvement upon the protection currently available to cohabitants and will entitle an applicant to secure her/his occupation of their home (and even its precincts) against intrusion by the respondent for a specified period, or even indefinitely (clause 28(10)). It will give all family courts greater flexibility in terms of the type of orders that can be made and will extend to all entitled applicants remedies that are currently only available to spouses under the MHA 1983. In particular the bill will enable courts to attach conditions relating to matters such as maintenance of the property, taking care of furniture and the payment of rent, mortgage or other outgoings to any clause 28 order (clause 35). Thus unmarried entitled cohabitants, whether or not heterosexual, will make significant advances in terms of the protection available.

A major distinction between occupation orders and ouster injunctions under the DVMPA 1976 is that a violent situation will not be a necessary prerequisite to the making of the order. In deciding whether or not to make an order, and if so what order to make, the courts will have to consider all the circumstances, including the parties' financial resources, their housing needs and resources, and the effects of any order on their (or any relevant child's) health, safety, or well-being (clause 28(6)). Furthermore the court will be compelled to make an order if one party or any child is likely to suffer significant harm if no order is made. This can only be avoided in a situation where it can be shown that as great or greater harm is likely to be suffered by the respondent or child if the order in favour of the applicant is made (the 'balance of harm' test) (clause 28(7)). However, in deciding whether or not to exercise its powers under clause 28 in respect of heterosexual cohabitants the court will have to have regard to the fact that the parties have not "given each other the commitment involved in marriage" (clause 36). However, even then, where at least one of the parties (or their children) is likely to suffer significant harm the balance of harm test will prevail.

Because the Bill defines cohabitants heterosexually, and because clause 36 applies to cohabitants only, the courts will not be required to make the same assumption about commitment when they are dealing with lesbian and gay cohabitants. Ironically, this seems to make the criteria applicable to these couples, who are legally unable to marry (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 11), more closely analogous to spouses than to unmarried heterosexual cohabitants.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

b. Unmarried, Non-entitled Applicants

The nature of this occupation order is the same as the order granted under clause 28 except that its maximum duration is one year (clause 31(10)). But the criteria governing the discretion of the courts in deciding whether or not to make the order have been weakened in the 1996 version of the reforms. While all the circumstances remain relevant, and while the courts must consider the parties' financial resources, their housing needs and resources, and the effects of any order on their (or any relevant child's) health, safety, or well-being they will also be obliged to consider the nature of the parties' relationship, the length of cohabitation, and whether or not there are children (clause 28(6)). Furthermore while the court must consider the balance of harm, in contrast to the position under clause 28, it will not be obliged to make an order in favour of an applicant suffering greater harm (clause 31(7) & (8)). The courts must also have regard to the fact that the parties have not 'given each other the commitment involved in marriage' (clause 36).

As in orders under clause 28 the court may, in making an order under clause 31, attach conditions relating to matters such as maintenance of the property, taking care of furniture and the payment of rent, mortgage or other outgoings (clause 35). Whereas the House of Lords had decided in Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264 that cohabitants who had no estate or interest in the family home were able to obtain ouster orders against their partners under the DVMPA 1976, their legal position as against third parties remained precarious. Difficulties arose as a result of the court's inability under that statute to make orders, for example, with respect to payment of outgoings in respect of the property or removal of furniture. Thus the 1996 Bill considerably enhances their position. Indeed, given that a violent situation will not be a prerequisite for the making of an occupation order under clause 31(6), it may be a useful tool for deserted non-entitled former cohabitants to secure a legal status with third parties such as a mortgagee or landlord.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

iii. Transfer of Tenancies

Schedule 7 of the 1996 Bill (to be enacted by clause 48) provides the recommended remedy. It will empower the courts to exercise a discretion to reallocate tenancies. In re-enacting schedule 1 of the MHA 1983 it provides for the transfer of tenancies between spouses and then goes on to create a mechanism for the transfer of the tenancies of unmarried heterosexual family homes when the couple cease living together as husband and wife. The criteria for the exercise of the discretion in respect of joint tenants are the same as those applicable to 'entitled' applicants seeking an occupation order under clause 28 (clause 28(6)(a) - (c)). And in the case of a sole tenancy vesting in the respondent the criteria are the same as those applicable to non- entitled occupation order applicants under clause 31 (clause 31(5)(d) - (g)). When making an order under the schedule the court may direct the party to whom the tenancy is transferred to make a compensatory payment to the other party, having had regard to the financial loss of the transferor and the financial needs, resources and obligations of both of the parties (Part III of Sch 7).

What is disconcerting about the schedule is that it is inapplicable to homosexual cohabitants. This leaves them without the remedy the Law Commission regarded as essential for unmarried cohabitants in their position. Lesbian and gay couples whose relationships end will continue to have no recourse to the courts to resolve their joint tenancy disputes. And non-tenant lesbian or gay partners will go on having no legal protection at all. Where the relationship is being brought to an end by the violence of a legal tenant that violence is likely to decide the future occupation of the family home, leaving the most vulnerable party least protected. Where the violent partner is a sole- tenants the law bolsters her/his physical power by enforcing it with a property right. It is anathema that anyone should be capable of being evicted from her/his habitual home, without recourse to the courts, by the brutality of anyone else, least of all an unmarried partner. This permits those in close personal relationships to do something which the criminal law prevents landlords from doing.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Conclusion

The Bill goes on to establish its third tier of family regulation by distinguishing between unmarried cohabitation and a variety of other domestic relationships classified under the heading of 'associated persons'. These include almost all those who live together in domestic (rather than commercial) relationships.

Most significantly the Bill will, if enacted, represent the first legal acknowledgment of the family status of lesbian and gay couples. But instead of grouping together like relationships, the Bill severs homosexual cohabiting relationships from heterosexual cohabiting relationships. This separation must be artificial when one considers the similarity of the practical and legal problems to which they are likely to give rise. Where two women or two men who have a 'romantic' relationship share a household they do so in exactly the same circumstances as cohabiting, or even marrying, heterosexual couples. They will generally be mutually dependent and will often make joint contributions to their mutual home. In their social context their interdependence is observable. They socialise together, and will generally be treated as a couple by their friends and families. They rely on one another when they are ill. They may even raise their own children. Clearly their emotional ties and their domestic lives are no different from the emotional ties and domestic lives of heterosexual cohabitants. In the context of domestic violence, neither its incidence nor the problems it creates for its victims are different (Taylor and Chandler 1995). For that reason its legal control ought to be no different. And yet it is. Once again the government has sacrificed legal coherence in the resolution of parallel disputes for the sake of maintaining the symbolic and moral superiority of heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships.

While the more comprehensive extension of remedies for domestic violence to unmarried cohabitants, and to homosexual families and other associated persons in this Bill will be a remarkable step for family definition in itself, the tiered protection available under the Bill is difficult to rationalise when its protective context is considered. Although the application of the property provisions are not explicitly linked to domestic violence their proposed enactment in that part of a Bill which sets out to resolve the anomalies of domestic violence legislation indicates that they are perceived to be relevant in that context. Thus, occupation orders, while not reserved to the victims of molestation, are likely to be sought to bolster non-molestation orders. That harm (and the balance of harm test) are important criteria when courts decide whether or not to make occupation orders must, it is submitted, indicate the deep concern of the Bill to protect from violence those who share domestic premises. In these circumstances it seems perverse that a tiered approach has been adopted to provide different levels of personal security to victims while protecting the property interests of some (lower tier) violent partners in domestic relationships. In order to maintain the distinctions between married and unmarried cohabitation, and between heterosexual and homosexual (and merely friendly) cohabitation the personal security of those involved the 'lesser' relationships has been sacrificed in this Bill. Moreover, this tiered approach is not all encompassing. There are significant omissions. Thus those involved in uncohabiting 'romantic' relationships, for example, remain unprotected. None of the remedies provided for in the Bill (contrary to the Law Commission's recommendations (para 3.26)) are available to them. This denies the reality of the parallel problems to which all 'romantic' relationships are susceptible.

In contemporary Britain (as in many other, particularly western, jurisdictions) the parameters of the legal family are being reconsidered. Where a national society demonstrates the kind of social and cultural diversity that is evidenced in the United Kingdom the imposition of a limited but universally applicable family definition on a diffuse population cannot continue to satisfy the expectations and aspirations of all the citizens of this nation. Already British law has begun to distance itself from particular moral and social traditions in both its definitions of family relationships and in its expectations of them. What seems most necessary in the realms of legal discourse on the family is the recognition that the need for effective legal remedies is more important than the moral status of particular relationships. In no context is this more obvious or more urgent than in the context of family violence.

Top | Contents

Bibliography

Bainham, A (1995) 'Family Law in a Pluralistic Society' 22 Journal of Law and Society 234.

Church, J (ed) (1995) Social Trends 25 (London: HMSO).

Coote, P, Harman, H, Hewitt, H (1994) 'Changing Family Structures and Family Behaviour' in Eekelaar, J and Maclean, M (eds) A Reader on Family Law (Oxford: OUP).

Eekelaar, J (1996) 'The Family Law Bill - The Politics of Family Law' [1996] Family Law 45.

Esseks, J D (1990) 'Redefining the Family' 25 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 183.

Ettelbrick, P (1993) 'Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?' in Rubenstein, W B Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law (New York: The New Press).

Foster, K, Jackson, B, Thomas, M, Hunter, P and Bennett, N (1995) 1993 General Household Survey (London: HMSO).

Harpum, C (1995) 'Cohabitation Consultation' Family Law 657.

Herman, D (1990) 'Are We Family?: Lesbian Rights and Women's Liberation' 28 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 789.

Law Commission No 192 (1990) The Ground for Divorce (London: HMSO).

Law Commission No 207 (1992) Domestic Violence and Occupation of the Family Home (London: HMSO).

O'Donovan, K (1993) Family Law Matters (London: Pluto Press).

Pizzey, E (1974) Scream Quietly or the Neighbours will Hear (London: Penguin Books).

Rubin, G S (1993) 'Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality' in Abelove, H, Barale, M A, Halperin, D M, The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (New York: Routledge).

Taylor, J and Chandler, T (1995) Lesbians Talk Violent Relationships (London: Scarlet Press).

Wadlington, W (1994) Cases and Materials on Domestic Relations (3rd ed) (Westbury, NY: Foundation Press).

Weeks, J (1991) Against Nature: Essays on History, Sexuality and Identity (London: Rivers Oram Press).

(1) Of course, there are many (particularly feminist) writers who question the privileges that are associated with marriage: see Herman 1990; Rubin 1993; and Ettelbrick 1993. Back to text

(2) Previously cohabitants could only claim if they could show dependancy and this is still the case for those who cannot show two years cohabitation: see Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 s1(1)(e). Back to text

(3) Thus authorities such as Vaughan v Vaughan [1973] 1 WLR 1159, Horner v Horner [1982] Fam 90 and Jones v Walton [1990]1 FLR 350 (all examples of non- violent behaviour amounting to molestation) will remain good law. Clause 37(6) also makes it clear that molestation of both a general and a specific nature may be prohibited by an order. Back to text

(4) The other associated persons are:

those falling within a defined group of close relatives;

those who have at any time agreed to marry each other, parents with a child of

the relationship or a child in respect of whom they both have or have had parental responsibility;

those who are both parties to the same family proceedings other than proceedings brought under Part III of the 1996 Bill: clause 56(3).

(5) In the rare circumstance where neither cohabitant has a right to occupy the home, clause 33 provides for an occupation order (on the same criteria as those enumerated in clause 31) regulating only the right to occupy the home inter se. The order cannot affect third party rights. Back to text

(6) Those who have 'natural' children of their relationship can apply for a transfer of property order (which includes transfers of tenancies: K v K [1992] 2 All ER 727) under Sch. 1 of the Children Act 1989 for the benefit of the children. Where the child is a child of only one of them the schedule cannot be used: J v J [1993] 2 FLR 56. Thus lesbian or gay couples are definitively excluded. Back to text