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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT