A widow in Belfast is taking the government to the supreme court over bereavement payments, as ministers come under increasing pressure to readdress the law on cohabiting couples.

Siobhan McLaughlin, 46, had four children with her partner, John Adams, who she had lived with for more than 20 years. But when Adams died in 2014, McLaughlin was denied a £2,000 lump sum bereavement payment as well as a weekly widowed parent allowance, which could be up to £118 a week. At that point, their children were 19,17, 13 and 11.

The case comes as the government is urged to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. A private members bill, led by Conservative MP Tim Loughton, will get its second reading on Friday. In May the supreme court will hear the case of Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld who argue that “civil partnerships are a modern social institution conferring almost identical legal rights and responsibilities as marriage”.

Loughton, a former children’s minister, said he had tabled the bill because there was a basic inequality in the current system and that he wanted to help provide more avenues for family stability.

But while Loughton does not support more rights for those cohabiting but do not want to enter into a formal contract, legal experts are pushing the government to address a growing issue. The number of cohabiting households has more than doubled from 1.5 million in 1996 to 3.3 million in 2017, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Last year Jakki Smith, an NHS worker, won a landmark battle for greater legal recognition for bereaved unmarried couples at the court of appeal. However, many more are left with nothing, said Nigel Shepherd, who chairs the family law association Resolution.

“At the moment the system risks great injustice, and research shows that cohabiting couples don’t realise they are vulnerable. People still believe that if you live together for a significant amount of time you acquire rights as a common-law spouse, but that is simply not the case,” said Shepherd, who is also head of family law at the law firm Mills & Reeve.



The dearth of legal protections for cohabiting households is resulting in an increasing number of damaging and acrimonious legal battles, often pitting children against their parents, legal experts have told the Guardian. But extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples would not protect all, said Penelope Reed, a barrister at 5 Stone Buildings chamber in London.

“I’m not sure that is the answer. It seems to me that if someone chooses not to marry, and there is no requirement to have a religious element, I’m not sure why they would enter into a civil partnership. I don’t think it begins to solve the problem.”

Recent research from Resolution showed two-thirds of cohabitees were unaware that there was no such as thing as “common-law marriage”. Four-fifths thought the legal rights of cohabiting couples who separate were unclear.



Lady Hale, the president of the supreme court, recently added her voice to the debate, arguing that there should be “a remedy for unmarried couples in English law, along the same basis as in Scotland” on the ending of a relationship.

It is a common position in the judiciary and among professionals that reform in this area is essential Lord Marks

Lord Marks has a private members’ bill on its second reading in the House of Lords which will seek to provide limited protections for cohabiting couples. Overt support from the top echelons of the judiciary had the power to shift the argument, said the Liberal Democrat peer, pointing to a decade of evidence from Scotland.

“It is a common position in the judiciary and among professionals that reform in this area is essential,” he said. “We have a head of steam now, but it does need support from government to happen.”

McLaughlin had never worried about not being married to her partner Adams. He had been married before, and when his wife was dying of cancer she had asked him to promise not to marry again, said McLaughlin.

“It was never an issue. I naively thought that the longer you were together as a couple the more rights you had,” she continued. “Our four children had their dad’s name, to me it was just a ring and a bit of paper – the commitment was the same.”

With the help and support of MacMillan nurses, Citizens Advice and the law firm Francis Hanna & Co, McLaughlin decided to bring a case against the government – particularly as she and Adams had been treated as a de facto married couple by the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency during their relationship.

In 2015 at the high court, McLaughlin argued that the refusal to pay the widow’s allowance discriminated against her on the grounds of marital status and was a breach of her human rights. She won , but the decision was overturned on appeal in 2016. The case will be heard by the supreme court in April in Belfast, where the court will be sitting for the first time.

Laura Banks, a solicitor at Francis Hanna & Co, hopes the appeal can herald “much-needed” reform. “No child should be turned down for support when they need it most, on the basis of the marital circumstances of their parents,” she said. “Their loss is no different and they should not be forced into poverty at a time of bereavement.”

Having been a stay-at-home parent while Adams, a groundsman, was alive, McLaughlin now works three jobs– special needs support in a school in the morning, cleaning in the afternoon and hotel housekeeping at weekends.

She said she has no regrets fighting a legal battle for the past four years while grieving. “The way I looked at it was someone has to make a stand. Even if things don’t change after my case, it paves the way for someone else to come forward. At some point down the line the law has to change, surely. This is 2018.”