Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Marriage law is outdated given the increase in second/third marriages

109 replies

Itsmyaccount · 28/07/2025 15:12

I'm really interested to get people's thoughts on this as a friend has recently been through a very difficult situation with her dad and his decision over his will and it's got me thinking.

Her dad remarried when he was in his early sixties after having been married to her mum for 3 decades. Work wise he's a very successful man and as with any high flyer quite a lot of sacrifice had to be made by her mum and by extension my friend to facilitate him being able to build that career. Things like moving abroad when work dictated, limits on the amount of time he was around when she was growing up when the hard graft had to go in, all for the long term intention that the hard sacrifice would pay off in the end for the family. Sadly the pressures from it contributed to the eventual divorce.

That then leads me onto the current situation. As said above he went onto re-marry shortly after the divorce. Her step-mum has kids of her own but all kids on either side were young adults when they married. They were in very different situations financially and at the time he had made sure my friend knew that his will would be such that his wife would be looked after if he pre-deceased her but that the lions share would be protected for her (his daughter).

Her dad has continued on with his financial success, a few years ago even came into a large sum of money when he sold a company he started when my friend was younger. That triggered him to re-visit his will and he has since decided that his current wife is entitled to 50% of everything due to the length of marriage (of which the law agrees), he briefly had it that his wife would inherit everything trusting that she would divide it equally between her kids and my friend when she then passed (assuming he predeceases her as he's older). This has caused a great deal of upset. My friend isn't close with her step-family and is finding the idea very hard that they are effectively profiting off of something they've not themselves made a sacrifice for as by the time they married kids were already grown up and the hard foundational work requiring the big sacrifice had long since passed.

This brings me onto the thread title. I've tried to put myself in her shoes and honestly I think I'd feel exactly the same way even though the sums in my case would be much smaller.
It feels to me that the laws on marriage and inheritance were written at a time when second, third (fourth even!) marriages were so uncommon it didn't need to account for how you can legally protect assets for your children (or whoever) without having to do a serious amount of mental gymnastics to achieve it. I do actually know of another friend whose dad thinks it's so important to protect his finances for his kids he refuses to even live with his long term partner, let alone marry her. That to me seems sad that actually should he want to marry her (which who knows maybe he doesn't want to), he is choosing to not as the complication it would cause for him and his kids inheritance is so great.

YABU - yes the law is fine as it is
YANBU - things have changed a lot and law needs modernising to better protect everyone given blended families are on the rise, not just your spouse

OP posts:
UpDo · 29/07/2025 12:27

The remarriage is a red herring here. Your friends DF could just as easily have remained unmarried but will his estate to an unmarried partner, friend or charity. Or spend it all before he dies.

The reason your friend is in this position is because people in England and Wales dont have to leave any of their estate to their children.

Original poster
Itsmyaccount · 29/07/2025 12:25

pourmeadrinkpls · 29/07/2025 12:21

OP what you're saying doesn't make sense. The default shouldn't be it goes to everyone then you need to go and exclude people. Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

Oh sorry that’s not what I meant! Just that it’s important to have the ability to exclude someone in general not that the starting point is everyone and cut down from there that would be odd

OP posts:
pourmeadrinkpls · 29/07/2025 12:21

OP what you're saying doesn't make sense. The default shouldn't be it goes to everyone then you need to go and exclude people. Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

JHound · 29/07/2025 11:59

The law is fine as it is. Your friend needs to get over her sense of entitlement to her father’s wealth. It’s not even like he is cutting her out.

GoldDuster · 29/07/2025 11:38

If someone is signing a legal contract once, never mind twice or three times without understanding what it means then that's not a lack of mental gymnastics, it's a lack of common sense.

There are really simple ways to protect your assets, but you need to want to do so.

Original poster
Itsmyaccount · 29/07/2025 11:35

@Mustbethat I agree there are circumstances where you should be able to exclude anyone you wish and the example you've given is spot on for that, I'm sorry you've experienced it it sounds awful.

I'd personally like to think that in the majority people don't find themselves in a position where they'd have to exclude people but maybe that's naive and more commonplace.

I realise now the original question in my thread was not quite hitting the nail on the head but the responses have been broad and great.

To step away from my friends example and to speak more generally I think some of the things that sit a little less comfortably with me personally in this thread are the prospect of 'greedy children' and that it's a point of judgement if someone anticipates being left remaining assets in a will assuming their parents don't want to give it to charity etc.
I'm very lucky that my parents are still together and happy, me and my sibling both have children of our own and have built our own lives and financial security, but are still very much involved in my parents life and vice versa. It's not been something we talk about often but it's not a secret that my parents intend to pass on their (modest) assets to us. Even if there is nothing in the end knowing that's their intention makes me feel good. I don't believe this is an unusual way to go about it, in fact I believe it's the norm! I don't personally feel grabby and entitled for that and am also not counting pennies on how much I'll get, it's just whatever is left.
At the end of the day if you choose to have children with someone that's a lifelong commitment not just one when it's convenient for you and I think it's a lovely thing to want to pass on something to them when you're no longer about and how you go about that does have a bearing on how they may feel, @Wheresthebuttons your point feels quite valid here.

To me, family isn't restricted to only being important when kids are dependant, that feels a very narrow view and I just wonder what the point of having kids is if you intend on distancing yourself from them when they've grown up and scrubbing your conscience of thinking about them when you're gone?

As posters have said people live a lot longer nowadays and a will may come at the end of those days but a whole life came before it, not just a last decade or so.

I've definitely broadened my view on the 'point' of marriage from posters thoughts for later in life ones post children and it's actually triggered a conversation between myself and DH on if we die too young whether we'd re-marry or not (both agreed it's a no!).

OP posts:
mamagogo1 · 29/07/2025 11:34

Oh and remember that biological mums can also effectively disinherit dc by spending all the money. My mil burnt her way through millions! Doesn’t matter her money and the house is worth a bit once all expenses paid from very complicated situation it’s not much considering. But her prerogative, nobody deserves an inheritance

Lacitlyana · 29/07/2025 11:34

It's not just wills, is it? It's family ties.

Dh's parents divorced 50 years ago when he was a small child.
His father remarried 20 years ago, when our eldest child was a toddler. His new wife is 15 years younger than him, and had children who were then teens who moved in.
His father has seen our kids about once a year for an afternoon ever since. We have never been invited to stay over. I once suggested we visit only to be told the house was not baby friendly.

In the meantime her children have grown up, married and had kids and her grandchildren visit all the time. So my FIL is way closer to his step grandchildren than his blood grandchildren, who he barely knows. So I guess if he leaves everything to his second wife and then it passes down to her children and grandchildren he won't care. It hurts a bit on our side though. He made such little effort.

mamagogo1 · 29/07/2025 11:22

So he now has it that his wife gets 50% and his dc from previous marriage 50% what is wrong with that? You do not deserve an inheritance and the dc’s mother will have received a settlement on divorce, if the business continued to thrive once he had remarried (as in case here) why wouldn’t his wife deserve money???

a very entitled child here op

Thepeopleversuswork · 29/07/2025 11:19

@Mustbethat

if you leave a marriage with little financially, and find someone to marry with property and assets, then it will most definitely benefit you.
it doesn’t matter whether it’s first, second, or 20th marriage. If you are the weaker party financially you will benefit from marriage.

That's true. Marriage is basically designed to benefit the weaker party in a marriage so if you've been left without much in your first marriage it could be worth it.

I guess I'm thinking that if you've got a decent divorce settlement from a first marriage, a second marriage is probably a bad idea, particularly if you have children.

Needtosoundoffandbreathe · 29/07/2025 11:18

He's chosen to treat his wife and his daughter equally. He's made provision for your friend when he needn't have done, but it was wise to do this as your friend has no right to inherit from her dad's second wife. I think no one should expect an inheritance. I'd rather my parents had a comfortable life doing what they wanted to. If they choose to spend all their money then that's fine.

Making it illegal to disinherit your children is not the panacea you may think it is. No doubt your friend had a comfortable upbringing with a wealthy father? She didn't contribute herself therefore why should she inherit more than 50% of her father's estate?

Mustbethat · 29/07/2025 11:09

Thepeopleversuswork · 29/07/2025 10:40

I kind of agree in practical terms: second, third, fourth marriages are daft, but anyone who expects to inherit money is an idiot. Inheritance is a privilege not a right.

I think anyone who gets married again after a divorce needs their head examined. There's no value whatsoever, it's all downside.

I disagree that getting married after divorce is always detrimental.

if you leave a marriage with little financially, and find someone to marry with property and assets, then it will most definitely benefit you.

it doesn’t matter whether it’s first, second, or 20th marriage. If you are the weaker party financially you will benefit from marriage.

Thepeopleversuswork · 29/07/2025 10:40

I kind of agree in practical terms: second, third, fourth marriages are daft, but anyone who expects to inherit money is an idiot. Inheritance is a privilege not a right.

I think anyone who gets married again after a divorce needs their head examined. There's no value whatsoever, it's all downside.

Twinkletoes127 · 29/07/2025 10:33

Twinkletoes127 · 29/07/2025 10:27

Exact same situation here

Please ignore this, I can't even remember which person I was quoting before my pad had a glitch itch!

Twinkletoes127 · 29/07/2025 10:27

Exact same situation here

Mustbethat · 29/07/2025 09:43

Enrichetta · 29/07/2025 05:02

This. I don’t know about Scotland, but in some countries, a certain percentage of the estate is due by law to the deceased’s children, although it is possible to grant the surviving spouse a life interest.

To me this seems both straightforward and fair.

Edited
Show quote history

I don’t agree. You should be able to exclude children if you wish.

what is one is a career criminal, or an abuser. A serial killer? Or financially abused their parents for years.

one of Dh’s children was complicit in the financial abuse of his parents. They were vile when dh got PoA and stopped it, and haven’t spoken to him since. He absolutely does not think they should get any more money. It would devastate him to think his money may be given to them against his will when they’ve already had thousands.

sometimes there is a valid reason for cutting children out of a will, and you should not be forced to leave them anything.

Enrichetta · 29/07/2025 05:02

MrsTerryPratchett · 28/07/2025 15:18

Other countries (including in the UK - Scotland) do have it so you can't disinherit children completely.

This. I don’t know about Scotland, but in some countries, a certain percentage of the estate is due by law to the deceased’s children, although it is possible to grant the surviving spouse a life interest.

To me this seems both straightforward and fair.

pourmeadrinkpls · 29/07/2025 05:00

SaladAndChipsForTea · 28/07/2025 15:21

I'd feel the same but marriage isn't the problem, the problem is that he has actively made that decision. Its not like he died and has created an accidental fallout.

Her mum got what she was legally entitled to at that time.

Dad is giving new wife what he thinks she should be legally entitled to after supporting him from what was essentially the reset point of the divorce.

He isn't married to daughter or owes her a legal claim. So marriage isn't the problem. Dad thinking his wife is equal to his daughter is the problem

I'm not even sure what her issue is given its still 50% if I've understood correctly and it sounds like a substantial amount of money. Of course the father is likely to change his mind the longer he's with his nee wife as the relevance develops. That's seems fairly obvious

pourmeadrinkpls · 29/07/2025 04:55

It's a difficult one. I think you should be able to do whatever you want with your money. I also think that you need to have these conversations with your partner about it, especially if you plan to have children. It's weird that we put more thought into basically every aspect of our lives except when it comes to being in a relationship with someone and having children with them

SouthernNights59 · 29/07/2025 04:52

YABU. It's up to individuals to protect their families interests, not the state.

HappilyUrbanTrimmer · 29/07/2025 04:51

Yabu

What is needed is better understanding and education of what marriage is and what it means. Equating marriage with being a way to declare love is what causes people to enter marriage contracts without fully understanding the consequences of the contract. Changing the contract is not the solution to that.

Didimum · 29/07/2025 04:39

Itsmyaccount · 28/07/2025 17:23

This is all so interesting to read, lots of things I'd not necessarily thought about and please do forgive me I don't know the intricacies of the laws across the UK so as many posters have suggested there may be things already protecting in places.

To the points where people say it's their money their choice. I agree. I personally believe everyone is entitled to do and act as they want in all facets of life (but not entitled to dictate how people react to it).

In terms of what I'm wondering my suggestion isn't necessarily to say remove protections for one. I'm saying review and improve things so that people aren't so restricted in how they write a will. Currently I believe the baseline prioritises a spouse in all cases and for me I feel like that's not nuanced enough for today's modern society. If the law protected people who wanted to weight their will to their children if their circumstances were like my friends it gives people more freedom to choose what to do. It's not to say they need to do it (or that many people would think it right to do), but having the option to do so is surely better than not? If that freedom does already exist it's seems to be it's made complicated with trusts legal avoidance tactics, or passing assets.

@theresapossuminthekitchen I couldn't agree more something similar happened to someone I knew it's so devastating.

@SprayWhiteDung I totally understand your point here, more people are benefitting. From what I understand from my friend it's not a case of her wanting lots of cash and them to go without. It's just she has no relationship with them and they're benefiting from something that largely led to the breakdown of her parents marriage so is just difficult to come to terms with seeing.

@Didimum I guess this is just personal perspective, she herself didn't facilitate it, that was her mum and I don't know the details of the divorce settlement so can't comment. I do think where kids might not be the facilitator of something for their parents it doesn't take away that they may have to sacrifice. In her case her dad was hardly there so he could pursue the career that largely led to the breakdown of her parents marriage so I can understand why it's an emotionally charged thing.

I guess this is just personal perspective, she herself didn't facilitate it, that was her mum and I don't know the details of the divorce settlement so can't comment. I do think where kids might not be the facilitator of something for their parents it doesn't take away that they may have to sacrifice. In her case her dad was hardly there so he could pursue the career that largely led to the breakdown of her parents marriage so I can understand why it's an emotionally charged thing.

She will have already received the compensation for that though, in having a wealthy upbringing. That’s the pay off. No one is entitled to a continued payoff in their adult life for having had an absent parent.

SplashAndTurn · 28/07/2025 19:59

It sounds like it got resolved in the end so it's now split 50/50.

So the new wife has 50% and the daughter has 50%.

I think it's perfectly fair that new wife has 50%, like you say they have been married a long time.

My DF had a new partner and after many years together they got married. There is a will where the house is in a trust between (partner, me, DB), so we (DCs) couldn't make the new partner homeless if DF passes first, not that we would think of doing that.

Can see how the partner wanted peace of mind (DF would have carried on unmarried I think as parents marriage was quite traumatic in the end!). Am happy as think it was worrying her and DF is happy too. I think a trust is the way forward with these things as takes out any uncertainty.

Treecup · 28/07/2025 18:37

I'm not finding the odea that your friend is entitled becuase of the sacrifices she suffered as a child particularly palatable and if DW has been in his life a long time isles right that she gets her share. Presumably, if OP's mum's support for his business was a reason for his successes, so is his current wife's.

I'm widowed and will never remarry to protect my assets for DC, but if I were to be married for a long period of time, I think I'd see making sure my partner was well looked after was more important than adult DC, who (hopefully) I've raised to earn their own money.

R0ckandHardPlace · 28/07/2025 18:11

By ‘today’s modern society’ do you mean one whereby adult children think they have the right to inherit everything their parents worked for?

DH and I are a second marriage for both of us. He came into the marriage with enough for his share of a deposit on our marital home, but he was otherwise skint. He’d given up 75% in his previous divorce for a clean break, and was paying school fees and CS for his DCs which left him very little left and he lived with his parents.

When we moved in together after a couple of years, I was paying all the bills, food everything, including holidays/trips out and Christmas/birthday presents for his DCs. That continued for years.

Eventually we set up a business together that made us a lot of money, and have been married almost 20 years - as long as his first marriage.

Yet people still assume that I brought nothing to the marriage, and I’m somehow less worthy because I’m a woman. I’m sure that his DCs would feel more entitled to our house than I am, if anything happened to DH.