ILNews

Formalizing relationships between unmarried couples

Jenny Montgomery
August 17, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

United States Census figures show that between 2000 and 2010, the number of unmarried couples living together – both opposite-sex and same-sex – increased about 41 percent. With more than 7 million unmarried couples now sharing household responsibilities as if they were married, some have begun to think about how to plan together for worst-case scenarios.

snyder-natalie-mug Snyder

Natalie Snyder, a certified family law specialist for Cross Woolsey & Glazier in Carmel, said she has begun to see an increase in unmarried couples seeking cohabitation agreements, particularly among older couples.

“That probably follows, because if you’re going to have a cohabitation agreement – much like a premarital agreement – you’d need to have something to protect,” she said.

Many unmarried couples who Snyder sees are primarily interested in protecting their homes or businesses. She advises anyone in a long-term relationship – whether opposite- or same-sex – who is cohabitating to have this type of agreement on their radar.

“The risk is, if you don’t have an agreement in place, some court may separate all of your assets and debts in a way that you don’t want them divided,” she said.

sullivan-stephen-mug Sullivan

Stephen Sullivan, an attorney with Ball Fletcher Sullivan in Hobart, knows first-hand how helpful a cohabitation agreement can be when a relationship ends. He had one in place about 10 years ago, when he and his girlfriend bought a house.

“It was very encompassing – it had all sorts of things in there about how much each of us was going to contribute to the household,” he said. “She was making a lot less money than I was, so I couldn’t expect her to pay 50/50.”

When the couple parted ways, Sullivan kept the house and paid out equity to his ex-girlfriend through a formula that was included in the cohabitation agreement.

“One of the best parts about this is, the best time to be fair with each other is when you love each other,” Sullivan said. “When you’re breaking up, you have hurt feelings … and all those things are already decided and the hurt feelings don’t come into it.”

Families and the courts

In Indiana, unmarried couples who live together don’t have all of the rights that married people have. If, for example, one member of a domestic partnership were to suffer an incapacitating illness, his or her partner would not be able to make end-of-life decisions, because state law dictates that the closest next-of-kin makes those decisions. But creating a healthcare power of attorney and an appointment of healthcare representative would give a partner the legal right to make important decisions on behalf of his or her partner.

fletcher-wendy-mug Fletcher

Attorney Wendy Fletcher, who works with Sullivan, wrote about this issue in her paper, “No Marriage Equality Yet for the Hoosier State: But Some Protection Possible.” She cited In re Guardianship Atkins, 868 N.E.2d 878 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007), which originated from a dispute between a gay man and his partner’s estranged parents. The man’s partner – with whom he had been in a committed relationship for more than 20 years – was hospitalized in a coma, but the parents kept the comatose man’s partner from visiting him. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the parents could not bar the man from hospital visitation, but only the parents were entitled to make healthcare and medical decisions for their son, per Indiana law.

Fletcher said that these issues are not unique to gay couples.

“One thing that I’ve always found interesting – particularly within the LGBT community – we see it as very discriminatory that we’re unable to get married (and enjoy the same rights as married people) without paying a lawyer to do it,” she told Indiana Lawyer. “But the same thing happens to unmarried heterosexual couples.”

Indiana courts have recognized the right of same-sex and opposite-sex couples to adopt children, but other matters associated with unmarried partners adopting children are decided on a case-by-case basis, Fletcher said. Cohabitation agreements can define guidelines for couples who adopt children and set ground rules for what would happen if the couple splits. Without such plans in place, those discussions may end up in courtrooms.

In Mariga v. Flint, No. 79A02-0407-CV-612, the Indiana Court of Appeals settled a long dispute between two women who were formerly partners. One partner had adopted the biological children of the other, and when the two separated, the adoptive parent attempted to vacate the adoption and appealed Tippecanoe County Superior Court’s determination that she should pay child support to her former partner. The appeals court upheld the previous rulings, finding that the adoption and child support order were valid.

In issuing the opinion in Mariga, Judge John G. Baker wrote: “This case requires us to examine the nature of parenthood. Whether a parent is a man or a woman, homosexual or heterosexual, or adoptive or biological, in assuming that role, a person also assumes certain responsibilities, obligations, and duties. That person may not simply choose to shed the parental mantle because it becomes inconvenient, seems ill-advised in retrospect, or becomes burdensome because of a deterioration in the relationship with the children’s other parent. To the contrary, of key importance is the relationship between parent and children, not between parent and parent.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT