Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Me vs. DP on marriage - who is being unreasonable?

166 replies

MollyMatey · 23/11/2013 20:59

DP and I have been together for about 6 years, we have a 3 year old together and a baby on the way. We currently rent a house. When we first met I earned more than DP (though still a low wage) as he had a business that hadn't really taken off and earned basically nothing.

A few years later and he earns more than twice as much as me, my wage is still pretty low (around £16k) and not a "career" job. Childcare is a chunk of money now and for the new baby will be £40-£60 a day. Our plan is to buy our own house in the next 3 or so years, which requires a lot of saving, and DP and I have discussed whether it is worth me continuing to work in the short term when we might be financially better off if I take care of all the childcare/home admin therefore allowing DP to build his business and work/earn as much as possible.

I would like to retrain in the next few years, which will probably involve going back to uni once the baby is at pre-school/school. So this kind of fits with the timeline of me staying at home for the next 3 or so years, saving, buying a house.

All good so far, BUT - if I'm to stop working and be financially dependent on DP, and buy a house together, I feel I need the protection of being married. Is this correct? AIBU?

DP is flat out, dead against getting married Hmm In fact he says fine, I should keep my job, he'll work less, we'll keep renting.

When we met, neither of us wanted to get married in the future. I was 24 btw, so when I said I had no intention of ever getting married it was true at the time. He feels that I have somehow reneged on a promise by changing my mind on this as my circumstances have changed.

OP posts:
Thurlow · 23/11/2013 21:47

Oh, and can people please stop making the assumption a - a couple who won't get married are less committed, they've just made different decisions. And b - that it's the man whose made this.decision Hmm

Babanouche · 23/11/2013 21:47

Having read some of the posts previous to mine I just want to say that I have children with my DP but I don't want to be married. It's a personal choice for everyone. He would marry me if I insisted but I just don't see the need. We've been together 15 years and have as steady as relationship as anyone. The fact the OP's partner objects to marriage does not make him a 'tool'.

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 21:48

Thurlow in the OP's case it is the man's decision. Presumably that's why people are suggesting it as it's her situation people are commenting on.

palemistyveil · 23/11/2013 21:48

You're not being unreasonable to have changed your mind at all. But I think bigger/better protection would be to keep your job if possible, whatever the outcome regarding marriage.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 21:48

Utter rot,why should anyone feel compelled to marry just to protect the other
If he doesn't want to marry,so be it,op hasn't been hoodwinked.she knew his view
He is quite simply,being consistent in his no marriage stance.which op already knew

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 21:49

Babanouche I'm afraid my personal opinion is that putting your principles above your family's well-being is selfish. Couple with the OP's OH's 'fine stay at work we'll just rent instead of buying' - that to me is being a tool.

MortifiedAnyFuckerAdams · 23/11/2013 21:49

I have the 'protection' of marriage and a DH who.adores me and whom.I adore, yet I will.not give up.work. I am with him.because I want to be rather than need to.be, and it will stay that way.

Even if you drop to PT. Keep something that is yours.

It is a perk to.me knowing that if ever DH wanted to leave, I could afford to keep the house and the childcare with or without his contribution.

palemistyveil · 23/11/2013 21:51

And so-called financial 'protection' isn't the most romantic reason for getting married is it now, OP!

Thurlow · 23/11/2013 21:52

Funny - yes, sorry, that was a more general point about the common opinion on MN. In the OP's case she's not really being U as the current and old fashioned law in the UK forces marriage. Though I agree with other posters that I'd personally feel working is more protection

Babanouche · 23/11/2013 21:53

FunnyRunner, have you considered that a family's 'well-being' relies on everyone being happy, including the male? The OP asked for advice. She didn't ask for us to insult her OH, no matter what your personal opinion is.

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 21:54

Scottish when circumstances change it is sensible to re-evaluate your stance. I know two couples who did just that when their children came along because of the legal implications of not marrying. To me that's a sign of maturity. I don't see clinging to an idea because you said it ten years ago as something intrinsically admirable.

It doesn't have to be marriage because marriage is some wondrous thing - for me I would be happy if all partnerships with children just had some kind of legal documentation outlining what both parties will contribute to raising their children. I get so frustrated when I read stories like writer's upthread and see that decent, trusting partners are taken for a ride when they think they are building a life together.

OrangePixie · 23/11/2013 21:55

You don't need to be married to be protected. You make sure you have wills that leave everything to each other. You make sure the house is in joint names. You have joint bank accounts. You pay into a personal pension from the household income.

It's easy enough to make yourself secure, you just have to cover all your bases.

Babanouche · 23/11/2013 21:56

Exactly, OrangePixie.

WhoNickedMyName · 23/11/2013 21:56

when circumstances change it is sensible to re-evaluate your stance

The time to do that was before going on to have two children with him.

BillyBanter · 23/11/2013 21:56

Can straight couples get civil partnerships these days or are they out the window? Don't they give legal rights?

What is it about marriage he objects to?

Tell him he doesn't have to have marriage but you must have legal protection by one means or another.

FrequentFlyerRandomDent · 23/11/2013 21:57

OP - If marriage is not on the cards, are the other ways to protect each other being addressed? Wills, life insurance with named partner, etc.

It may be worth a visit with a solicitor to get the protection you seek.

Also, I cannot work it out from your OP but childcare should come from both your salaries / one pot. If you think my salary pays childcare, his is savings, of course it seems your salary is not bringing much. But if you think of your salaries as one pot, then the conversation is more about keeping one's career open, etc.

BillyBanter · 23/11/2013 21:58

perhaps security is a better word to use than legal protection. legal protection is the means to getting security whether by marriage or other means.

Pearlsaplenty · 23/11/2013 21:59

I think you need a long term plan to get a better career. Maybe work and study part time. Pay into a joint mortgage.

He doesn't want to get married so you need to protect yourself.

cantthinkofagoodone · 23/11/2013 21:59

It depends why he doesn't want to be married. If it's you, the principals, the protection it affords you?

You should be protected if you're supporting his career.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 22:00

Ok op you cannot force marriage but you can go solicitor become tenants in common
Inform your GP you're his NOK get that recorded.don't need to be married to be medical nok
But don't give up work,don't become dependent upon a man

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 22:00

Thurlow I completely agree with you on the legal issue around 'marriage or nothing'. Palemistyveil that is an interesting point too - I know people who were together a long time who got married for the unromantic reasons above - because there was no alternative which gave the same benefits to all parties. As Thurlow said this is a gap in UK law.

Babanouche I gave my opinion based on the facts outlined by the OP. My opinion informed the advice I gave her. I think her OH sounds selfish and the line that jarred the most was his attitude of 'oh that's all right keep working then and we'll just rent'. He is basically asking her to give up her job so he can work more while she is unpaid childcare. He will then buy a house (which will be in his name presumably) and she will have no claim on that home, despite being a contributor. Family well-being is about ALL parties. Personally in the OP's case I would be saying she was the selfish one if she were in her DP's shoes. It's not about 'the male' or 'the female'.

NumTumRedRum · 23/11/2013 22:03

I think an appointment with a family law specialist, preferably one on the Law Society's family panel would help you. You can do many things (as Orange has mentioned upthread) to protect your position. It may be that a Cohabitation Deed would be appropriate. The deed would set out the agreement between you as to finances, contributions and division in the case of separation. Not romantic, but preferable to legal proceedings later on. Don't skimp on getting advice and getting the deed right. It will save you thousands if things do go wrong in your relationship.

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 22:04

OrangePixie are there implications for inheritance tax there? I would be fascinated to see whether the OP's OH would be willing to put everything in joint names. Also if he is paying all the mortgage and bills because she isn't earning, would this not give him a much higher claim?

Whonicked hindsight is a wonderful thing! been there

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 22:05

Numtum I didn't know that existed and might well be a good compromise for the OP if it is all binding and enforceable.

OP good luck.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 22:06

Op make wills naming each other as beneficiary
Inform GP you're each other NOK
Go see solicitor re:joint names in home