What happens to the house if you have children with someone but you're not married

[aaaaaaaaaaaah]

So a close friend is having a baby with her partner. My friend has no money at all whereas her partner owns a house worth over a million, comes from a family who has money and earns a lot of money. He has told her he won't marry her and the house isn't in her name, she said she wanted to be married to have the same name as the child and he said she can change her name by deed poll. I'm wondering why he's so against marriage and if it's to do with money. Surely if he's having children with her she will be entitled to stay in the house anyway and if anything was to happen to him she would be looked after being the mother of his children. I have a few friends who have children with their partners and want to marry them but the partners won't I'm wondering why this is

While the question of what would happen if he dies suddenly is important, it's rather less important than the question of what would happen if he dumps her, which he could do tomorrow, leaving her homeless, jobless, broke, and holding the baby.

(This is assuming there isn't a drip feed about how he's over 70 or has stage 4 cancer or something.)

Just coming in here to make the point that @squee123 has already made

If they are unmarried, even if her left her everything in his will, she would have to pay inheritance tax on everything above the threshold (currently £325k), so would be left with 'only' sixty percent of everything above £325k.

His family could get things set legally so that he has very little in his own name also. How do you know that he owns the house, could it be that it's his family that does?

All your friends are complete idiots, two for being unmarried mothers and one for saying his shy and doesn't want a big wedding.

Your friends are up shit creak and totally screwed.

@aaaaaaaaaaaah

I can't imagine that he'd want to change the will to leave his own children with nothing but who knows. Also people saying that he can change the will, surely even if someone is married though they can easily change the will and leave their spouse with nothing too?

Yes and no.

Yes they can do it. But no it's not the same as a spouse is in a legal relationship with the deceased and can claim in the estate

www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-jan-apr-2017/can-you-disinherit-your-spouse/

Spouses and civil partners also inherit under intestacy rules

"If he does and leaves no will, she wouldn’t be entitled to inherit but the kids would get everything."

I love the confident but rubbish advice and knowledge uttered by ransoms. The kids would NOT automatically get everything. Read about intestacy. However, with that amount of money it would be surprising if he hadn't considered it but if he left his kids money I would ring fence it in a trust fund so other people didn't get their mits on it

She’s in no a precarious position. If he decides to end things then he can throw her out right away. She has zero rights (I feel like this is you and you are hiding behind ‘my friend’). My husband has social anxiety and is painfully shy so we eloped but that was because he wanted to be married to me so that is literally a shit excuse. People say ‘oh a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper’ yes but it’s a bloody important piece of paper. If he loves ‘your friend’ why isn’t he protecting her?

Ha, this is actually not me I just have a couple of friends in this situation and know a few more people where they have children and the man doesn't want to get married and I'm genuinely curious as to why and what the law is around it. Also have a friend whose parents were married but the dad left all the money to a charity and the mother was left with nothing

People don't want to marry for a range of reasons OP.

Some might have had bad experiences of marriage and not want to do it again

Some don't want to be legally tied to another person

Some might have children from previous relationships and marrying a new partner means their children could very easily be disinherited

Some don't believe in marriage as an institution and have structured their affairs in a way that works for the couple

Some are happy cohabiting and remaining financially separate

Some might want to remain legally single until one partner has resolved some financial issues

Some might not have lots themselves, but are aware of their family assets and don't want them to be pooled

Some might be clued up on the legal and financial implications of marriage and don't want to sign up to them

Some might be concerned that if there is a large difference in income/assets and their partner has no interest in working or remaining financially independent that they'll lose a hefty chunk of their assets and pension in a divorce

Some are in relationships that they see as 'right now' relationships but if they end up single in future and meet someone they want to marry then they'll marry quite quickly

In a nutshell, all adults should get clued up about the legal status of marriage and make an informed decision regarding marriage and their financial situation.

Too many women don't get clued up, have babies with men without thinking about their situation, give up their financial independence and then later if it goes wrong complain that they should automatically have a claim on assets because they live together and have a child (aka because they they didn't make an informed choice, they think other women should lose the right to cohabit with a partner and remakn legally separate).

You're wondering why men would want to keep all their wealth including property, cash, & pensions while having a woman provide them with sex, cleaning, cooking, and children? And be able to leave at any time when they find a woman they prefer?

She must absolutely not give the child his surname and leave him for being such a financially controlling dick.

Unless he has left the house to her in a will (vanishingly unlikely given the information provided) she has zero rights. In this day and age it astonishes me that anyone still holds this belief. If he will not marry her she needs to leave him and start a life with half a chance of attaining some housing security for herself.

I think you should say something. Even just asking her what her pension plans are if he dies before her. As they're not married she wouldn't be entitled to any of his pension either.

She's setting herself up for a lifetime of dependency on a man who may or may not look after her.
We're no longer in the 1800s, she really should be looking into a contingency plan if something goes wrong.

@DismantledKing how do you figure?
Girl meets very rich man - girl decides to quit her career and have his money - girl then gets pregnant and assumes she is safe financially

Not how it works or should work! Why quit your career before a baby if you have no money??

Yeah I find it crazy that they haven't looked into this or aren't bothered by it (and that they both tend to like to brag about their houses and money). Me and my husband married a couple of years after we met and own our house jointly so it was never something I needed to look into

If they were married but the house was in his name, then (if she registered her spousal right at the land registry) she would have the legal right to occupy the house even though she doesn’t own it, and it couldn’t be sold without her being notified and her right to occupy it being sorted out.

If they were married then on divorce she would be entitled to financial support, including some of his assets.

If they were married then if he died she would inherit everything unless he writes a will saying she doesn’t.

If they were married she would become his next of kin and the person who decides what happens to him should he become medically incapable, and he the same for her.

Etc etc.

If they’re not married then she basically has no rights to live in his house or to any money if he dies/divorces, other than basic child maintenance.

I think it’s very sad when women choose to have babies without being married. There are so many legal protections set up to protect the women when she gives up her income to look after a baby, but marriage is how you get those protections. It isn’t just a piece of paper.

If a guy treated me like he’s treating her, I would leave him, pregnant or not. Telling her the baby gets his name but she has to change hers by deed poll??

I lost a friendship because I did say something about a friends partner.

All this it’s not my place to say, why not? To this day I am glad I said what I did. No she didn’t break up with him at the time and it was a long time ago but as someone who had done voluntary work for a domestic violence charity I had to speak out.

What she needs to do is get herself back on her own career path.
I always think present people with facts and the truth, they can then do what they want. There is no satisfaction when they don’t heed your warning. I think back to my sister who married an awful man, divorced after ten years. She said aren’t you going to say I told you so? I had warned her. I said of course not but I’m glad you are away from him now. There was no satisfaction in being right I was just sad my sister wasted years on him.

I think it’s very sad when women choose to have babies without being married. There are so many legal protections set up to protect the women when she gives up her income to look after a baby, but marriage is how you get those protections. It isn’t just a piece of paper
It's not sad for women to have babies without being married. For some women, especially those with careers, good pensions, their own home and assets, it might be sensible to have a family whilst being happily cohabiting.

What's sad is that more women don't wise up and make informed decisions.

I find it concerning how many threads there are with women arguing that other women should lose the right to cohabit and remain legally separate from a man because other women decided to have babies, give up their job, and become financially dependent on a man who quite clearly told and showed them that he had zero intention of providing any financial security

What's sad is that more women don't wise up and make informed decisions

I find it concerning how many threads there are with women arguing that other women should lose the right to cohabit and remain legally separate from a man because other women decided to have babies, give up their job, and become financially dependent on a man who quite clearly told and showed them that he had zero intention of providing any financial security

I agree very strongly with this

Schools have an SRE curriculum, this should be part of it

DP and I aren't married and have two DV together, it's not that bad because we tend so there's no massive asset one of us loses out on, we have a huge life insurance provision such that if one of us dies the other could buy a home pretty easily or if both died the kids are provided for schooling, uni, deposits etc (insurance taken out when young so pretty cheap), we both work so neither is fully dependent on the other and the DC have both our surnames.

I think atm my only issue is the next of kin and I suppose my tiny pension because of missed work for mat leave but I'll catch up.

meditrina
Much as I'd like to think putting it in SRE would help, I'm not sure it would.

The PSHE curriculum is so packed, and gets filled with whatever issue is decided must fall to schools, that at best it would be a 1 hour lesson quickly thrown in somewhere between mortgages and credit cards, how democracy works, consent, anti racism, anti bullying, esafety and more.

What would have the biggest impact in my opinion is women talking to other women in person or online, women talking about the importance of financial independence or appropriate legal protections.

A lesson as a teen won't make any difference if they go into the world where a substantial number of women see/hear discussions about the legal status of marriage and financial independence and get defensive saying things like:
"marriage is just a piece of paper, I've been a SAHM and aren't married and I've been with DP for 15 years, but most marriages I know have ended within 3 years. Marriage doesn't mean your relationship will last."
"ignore the smug marrieds OP. You know your man. If he is a good man then he will support you staying at home. You can stay in the house until you're children at 18 anyway. As a common law spouse you can claim X,Y,Z."
"DP and I aren't married and are very happy. There's nothing to say that you have to get married. We've lasted longer than many couples." (being said by someone in a relationship where both people have financial security, and both own their house to a woman who is living in her boyfriend's house and planning to give up work, so a totally different circumstance)

It's fine if people don't want to get married, but they should sit down and discuss what would happen in different scenarios life can throw at you like serious illness, break up, sudden death etc. Ideally before they have children.

If you give up your job to care for children you have with someone who is not your spouse, you leave yourself at the mercy of their goodwill or of their family if you break up or the earning partner dies etc. Basically, you shouldn't be financially dependent on someone who is not willing to make a binding commitment to support you. The vulnerability is all on one side.

Too often, the earning partner (typically a man) usually knows exactly what he's doing and the SAHM has a fuzzy idea that somehow everything will be ok. Then it goes pear-shaped and despite having done endless childcare and domestic work for decades, the SAHM is out with no earning capacity, no pension, and a pittance in CM.

Even if the only thing pupils learn in a single session is that there are legal differences, that these can be very important when it comes to dealing with the aftermath of death, critical illness, disability or separation, or if moving overseas, and that is something that they should check before embarking on cohabitation or having a baby, then it would be worth it. Just knowing there are far-reaching issues to consider wouod be a gain

@Sunflowergirl1 if there was no will and no spouse actually the kids would get everything. Read up on intestacy

@LolaSmiles totally agree. I had dds unmarried. I have a career, pension, home etc and was the higher earner in the relationship. It was better for me not to be married in terms of financial security and I’m glad I didn’t.

Women don’t need men to «look after them» financially or otherwise. They do need them to pay a fair proportion of the costs of the children they’ve created but that’s another story.

Too often, the earning partner (typically a man) usually knows exactly what he's doing and the SAHM has a fuzzy idea that somehow everything will be ok. Then it goes pear-shaped and despite having done endless childcare and domestic work for decades, the SAHM is out with no earning capacity, no pension, and a pittance in CM.

Then we need to understand why men seem to have this knowledge and women don't.

Because men don't naturally know it and women are naturally adverse to understanding legal and financial implications. Its got to be at a social level.

But I do think, as your quotes suggest, that women seem far to willing to ignore or back away from learning this under the pretense of 'he wouldn't do that to me'. Then seem to think it's a good idea to convince other women its a good idea.

I do also think we need to be honest about how marriage won't gaurentee security either and that women would be better off securing their own financial independence, even in marriage. Or at the very least keep up to date on the family finances.