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

Why the hell would she be so stupid as to give the baby his surname? That’s HER decision- because they’re not married!

He won’t marry
He won’t share assets and acknowledge her sacrifices - and there will be many, personal and financial - to have his child

And the one disadvantage to that for him - that if they aren’t married then he has no right and there is no tradition for the baby to have his family name - she just meekly GIVES that to him and is seriously considering having to change her name by deed poll to share her own name with her baby?!?!

That is utter make entitlement right there.

If she can’t simply laugh in his face and say, no, if you won’t get married, then it’s you who will be changing your name by deed poll I’m afraid!’ then she is sunk. The relationship will be - man boss, her lackey.

Ask her in surprise why on earth she’d give her baby the surname of a man who’s shown her that he doesn’t want to join families with her, and just wants to get a child out of her with no risk to his assets?

Honestly I can’t get over that. Does she not realise that he has no right to even be on the birth certificate, the way things are?

If she wants marriage, I’d be telling him that the baby will be having her name, and she will have final say over anything on the birth certificate. He doesn’t like it? Then he can commit, can’t he!

I think women DO know they have no rights in this situation. As a PP said, it’s impossible that all men know this but no women. It’s all out there online with just a few clicks.

But so many women just go ahead and do it anyway because they believe that

1. He will marry them in time so everything will be ok.
2. Even if they don’t marry they will stay together because lurve.
3. Even if they don’t marry and they split up it will be ok because he’s such an amazing man and loves her and her kids so much he will never leave them short of money.
4. Even if he dies and leaves everything to his family, they will look after her and the kids because they are all so amazing and love her like family.

It’s the trump of hope over experience. These women obviously exist on a diet of romantic movies and when they are given sound advice like that above, they stick their fingers in their ears and go La La La.

Or they go on the attack “ You are so old sad and bitter just because you got divorced doesn't mean I will . I am smarter and have chosen a better man than you “. So people leave them to it.

@LolaSmiles

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.

What? Don’t you know that when we try to do this, we’re told that we’re just bitter and jealous that we’ve not given up our financial freedoms to become dependent on men?

(I agree with you, BTW!)

Those saying she shouldn’t give the baby his surname, isn’t it in her child’s favour to have his or her father on the birth certificate. In case she needs to claim CM or for inheritance. Seems like she has nothing to give the child herself.

Re your question OP Mondayyoghurt has it right, men like this don’t want to get married usually because they don’t want to share their assets but they still want the children, domestic and childcare duties and sex that a woman can provide without being obligated to her in any way. 5 years from now having provided all that he can kick her out and pay pittance in CM.

Honestly I can’t get over that. Does she not realise that he has no right to even be on the birth certificate, the way things are?

Is that true? I thought father's could take a legal route to be added.

Those saying she shouldn’t give the baby his surname, isn’t it in her child’s favour to have his or her father on the birth certificate. In case she needs to claim CM or for inheritance. Seems like she has nothing to give the child herself

No it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, in an/all of the jurisdictions of UK.

Those saying she shouldn’t give the baby his surname, isn’t it in her child’s favour to have his or her father on the birth certificate. In case she needs to claim CM or for inheritance. Seems like she has nothing to give the child herself

1. She can’t choose to “ have him on the BC”. Only HE can make that choice by attending the registrars office with her.

1. Having father on the BC doesn’t determine the surname. Traditionally it should be the mothers name as they are not married.

1. The child’s name does not affect its right to child support. It’s the parentage that counts, not the name.

1. The child’s name doesn’t affect its right to inheritance . It’s the parentage that counts , not the name.

1. I think it’s pretty offensive to say that a mother has “ nothing to give the child” if she is not wealthy. Most mothers give their children decades if not a lifetime of time, love and devotion. A loving parent and a good upbringing is worth more than all the money in the world.

Of course he’s protecting his assets. He’s not stupid. Many women are doing the same.

If they split up and aren't married she won't be entitled to any part of his property or money. She could apply for child maintenance, that's all. If he dies without making a will, current intestacy laws state that his children would inherit his estate, although without a will nothing will be quick or straightforward. She wouldn't be entitled to anything unless he specifically leaves her something in his will. She won't even get the government's Bereavement Support Payment if they aren't legally married when he dies. She is being financially foolish.

If your friend is gold digger enough and daft enough to leave her job to be entirely supported by him then she deserves to end up in the shit tbh.

What is with these women who think they’ve got a free meal ticket for life just because they got pregnant by a bloke with money?

Women on here would be advised not to marry to protect their assets, so it’s fine for a man to do the same.

@Pyewackect

Of course he’s protecting his assets. He’s not stupid. Many women are doing the same.

This.

I would do exactly the same if I were him. People rarely marry for life now and many are looking for what they can get out of a situation. She needs to make the most of his money now whilst they're together but sort her own assets and pension out.

He is being realistic. Why should he get married and then be taken to the cleaners when the woman wants out 10 years down the line. I'd say exactly the same if the sexes were reversed.

What’s worse, OP? A delicate conversation now about “do you know the reality of your financial situation?” or potentially seeing her up shit creek in 5 years’ time and saying “I had doubts about your financial rights but I was being polite"?

You could just say “other friend mentioned her partner being against marriage and I thought of you because I read this article” and find something online about how being a “common-law partner” is utter BS.
Look here : rightsofwomen.org.uk/get-information/family-law/

As many, many PP have said, the only way that she (or the kid(s)) could ever have a claim on his finances or assets is if he marries her, or if he names her in his will. Until then, she is entirely dependent on his good will. She may be living the high life now but it sounds as though she is setting herself up for financial abuse; he earns all money, owns all assets, and clearly does not see it as a family pot. What if he cuts her off? What if she has to justify the price of nappies? What if he turns into an utter prick but can’t afford to leave him?

OMG just have a word with her. Surely a slightly uncomfortable conversation is preferable to watching a friend crash and burn.

Side note: as they are not married, I would give the baby her name as travelling with a child who doesn’t share your name is a nightmare. She might even be able to leave him off the birth certificate although this might be more provocative than helpful, in her situation.

Women on here would be advised not to marry to protect their assets, so it’s fine for a man to do the same.
Agreed.
Cocklodging is not acceptable and vaglodging is equally unacceptable.

I feel very differently if a couple get together at a similar point in life, have a family, and a woman (or man) gives up their career to be a SAHP and their staying home with the children facilitates the working parent to increase their earning, pensions and family assets. In that situation it 100% makes sense that any decent man would marry in order to offer his partner protection and recognition for her contribution to the family unit. When one person already has a assets and the other is quick to give up work/become financially dependent on them, it's a huge red flag and they'd be wise to avoid being legally tied to the potential cock/vaglodger

@LolaSmiles

Women on here would be advised not to marry to protect their assets, so it’s fine for a man to do the same. Agreed. Cocklodging is not acceptable and vaglodging is equally unacceptable.

I feel very differently if a couple get together at a similar point in life, have a family, and a woman (or man) gives up their career to be a SAHP and their staying home with the children facilitates the working parent to increase their earning, pensions and family assets. In that situation it 100% makes sense that any decent man would marry in order to offer his partner protection and recognition for her contribution to the family unit. When one person already has a assets and the other is quick to give up work/become financially dependent on them, it's a huge red flag and they'd be wise to avoid being legally tied to the potential cock/vaglodger

Completely agree with all of this^^

It's a different scenario to the usual, as he has come into the relationship with assets and she has come into the relationship with no assets and has then promptly quit her job. If a man did this everyone would say "cocklodger".

@meditrina

Those saying she shouldn’t give the baby his surname, isn’t it in her child’s favour to have his or her father on the birth certificate. In case she needs to claim CM or for inheritance. Seems like she has nothing to give the child herself

No it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, in an/all of the jurisdictions of UK.

I work on cases where a child can't inherit because their father isn't named on the birth certificate.

In Scotland.

@Pyewackect

Of course he’s protecting his assets. He’s not stupid. Many women are doing the same.

The difference is

1. Women earn less than men
2. Women get pregnant and give birth and breastfeed, not men .
3. Women are discriminated against in the workplace for being parents, not men .
4. Women do more unpaid work than men so work longer hours but earn less
5. When couples split up, the children will nearly always have the mum as the main carer
6. Women’s career options and earning capacity will be affected even more as single parents
7. Women take more family leave and go part time more often than men.

So it’s not a level playing field.

He could throw her and the child out tomorrow or in 5, 10 or 20 years time and she would get nothing. He could did tomorrow and his family would throw her out.

I cannot imagine being in a position where I've been out of the job market at my age for decades and having to start again.

Double3xposure
Yes, but in this situation he has assets and his partner (who wasn't pregnant) was quite quick to drop her career, drop her aspirations and become financially dependent on him.

That is a giant red flag.

Society isn't a level playing field, but piss takers looking for someone to fund them through life are wrong whether they are men or women.

She sounds a bit dim if she thinks she has any rights to his house. Tell her not to give up work.

@LolaSmiles

Double3xposure Yes, but in this situation he has assets and his partner (who wasn't pregnant) was quite quick to drop her career, drop her aspirations and become financially dependent on him.

That is a giant red flag.

Society isn't a level playing field, but piss takers looking for someone to fund them through life are wrong whether they are men or women.

Totally agree with this.

@Double3xposure

You need to add "In general" to every single one if your points as from childhood I've known different the opposite situations both inside my family and outside it. I suppose that's the difference in being brought up and living in London amongst diverse groups of people.

@Darkpheonix

Honestly I can’t get over that. Does she not realise that he has no right to even be on the birth certificate, the way things are?

Is that true? I thought father's could take a legal route to be added.

They can.

www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-can-register-a-birth

Unmarried parents
The details of both parents can be included on the birth certificate if one of the following happens:

• they sign the birth register together
• one parent completes a statutory declaration of parentage form and the other takes the signed form to register the birth
• one parent goes to register the birth with a document from the court (for example, a court order) giving the father parental responsibility

The mother can choose to register the birth without the child’s father if they’re not married or in a civil partnership. The father’s details will not be included on the birth certificate.

It might be possible to add the father’s details at a later date by completing an application for the re-registration of a child’s birth.

"Society isn't a level playing field, but piss takers looking for someone to fund them through life are wrong whether they are men or women."

Sounds like the definition of most Wags.

C Ronald is having more children with his CURRENT girlfriend, he does not want to marry her although they seem get along well. In this way, he protects his assets and powers to her (she needs to make him and his family happy to stay longer). He could easily walk away without worrying a thing.
He had at least 6 ex-girlfriends.