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

[MollyMatey]

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 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.

writer with respect, your sister's problem was that she let the house be in his name only, not that she wasn't married.

funnyrunner yes, I think inheritance tax is the one thing you can't get around easily, although you can set up a trust, it's just a bit diddly and there are pitfalls..

If the OP's DP refuses to put everything in joint names, then I'd say you've got a problem.

fiddly

It was his dad's house you see - his dad died unfortunately and he left the house to his son. My sister and her partner already lived in a house they shared together (as in her name was on the mortgage etc) but they left it to move into his dad's house after he'd died as they thought it was a cheaper option, which it was. Whenever any of our family asked about the situation in terms of it being only his house she was very evasive. I guess she thought they'd be together for ever and it wouldn't be an issue. That's the only point I was trying to make really, nothing is a certainty and it is naive to think a relationship will never break up just because it has lasted a long time and that children are involved. In hindsight she knows she was stupid.

The thing is, it's a right faff (not to mention expensive - solicitors' advice ain't cheap) sorting wills, legal issues re tenants in common, possible cohabitation deed, informing GP and pension providers about next of kin etc.

Much more straightforward to nip down the reg office and sign the marriage register - one piece of paper automatically gives you all the above.

I know the system isn't perfect and it would be great if straight couples could also have civil partnerships - same legal benefits of marriage without the patriarchal connotations!

I would assume that if we bought a house it would be in both our names, and I'm sure DP would assume the same.

If there's a way to ensure the same level of security as marriage without getting married I'd be happy to compromise. Eg. the house split equally, access to family money on splitting/death, inheritance etc.

Frankly speaking, keep the job and LTB. You are already on your own if staying singke is so important to him he is willing to sacrifice the dream of having a house and provide better for his children in order to avoid it.

There is only one decision I will regret in my life, and that is stopping working to support my exh's career/own business.. I put myself in a financial disadvantage, suddenly my opinion was no longer that important, and I found it VERY difficult to get a job , any job, when I wanted to go back. I have been working very hard for YEARS and still have a crappy salary, which makes things difficult now that I'm divorced.

That's a hard one. I think the main risk is that if you split up and not married he only has to pay maintenance for children and not for you, which would make things very difficult if you don't have decent earning potential, therefore more important to keep focused on career, not easy if you have two small children. if you stay together IHT is the main issue - although need to have quite a lot of assets for that to actually be in issue.

Have you both made wills? Presumably he has parental responsibility for older child?

I do think you are a little U to bring this up at this point, and not say before you got pregnant with your second child.

Obviously a compromise would be to have a secret wedding, no fuss and not tell anyone, if he doesn't agree to that, well you are not being unreasonable, but neither is he, but then I don't understand why someone would have children with someone if they weren't prepared to get married.

no dont assume joint tenancy unless he names you as joint tenant you're not
Look you need to be more savvy,less assumptive. Keep your job
I presume when you divvy Up childcare costs he pay proportionate to wage

Oh, and not having a job also meant, that although unhappy, i couldn't leave the marriage for years as DS and I couldn't survive in the 15% net of his salary, which is the maximum he would be forced to pay in child maintenance.

I'm the most anti marriage person around. There is a legal challenge going through the ECHR right now and if successful then CPs will be introduced for hetero couples, as they should have been years ago. Judgement is expected next year. Would you partner be up for that OP? I understand your POV entirely but I also know what it's like to feel that marriage is just not the right thing for you. in your position, I would keep on working but would also ensure that wills etc are in order

The only way to have the same level of protection is getting married. End off.

So you knew he was adamantly anti-marriage,what did you think would happen
Did you simply hope he'd change his mind?did you consider his stance prior to getting pg
I'd say you two need a cards on table conversation.no marriage but what will you both agree upon

At the moment childcare is paid from the joint account. I do see what people are saying about seeing childcare as a joint cost, but if it is roughly the same as my earnings then it hardly seems worth all the stress and having the baby in nursery.

writer in that situation i don't think it would be fair for exdp to lose the house that he had only recently inherited.

Just get a solicitor to draw up a tenants in common agreement when you buy the house to protect yourself. I agree with your DP some people just cant see the point of it but there are other ways to protect yourself and if he doesn't want to do that then you need to reassess things.

But childcare cost isn't borne solely by the mum,it's joint parental cost.end off
Look he's not marrying you,hes said.so you need to keep working.fact
Your dreams of being housewife are unrealistic,so start talkin money and he earns more so he proportionately pay more

I didn't hope/expect him to change his mind - it only became an issue more recently, I suppose since after our first child was born.

What about HIS rights?

Bear with me.

If OP and he split up at some point - he has no rights over the kids. Or, is that an urban myth

pearls - He hadn't only recently inherited the house, they had lived their together for over 4 years by the time they broke up.

Ps) in his instance he definitely isn't a 'dip' but a 'wp' (wan*er). I don't think he was ever a darling, lol

Look you're not getting married,at least not to him.so gave a cards on table about finances
Please don't assume it will be joint,you make it explicit you want joint
If he says no,that's v telling....and not in good way

Pps) Deeply ashamed that I accidentally put 'their' instead of 'there' in my first sentence

What I mean is, I don't understand why men don't see the advantage to being married for THEM.

Protects their relationship with their kids. I think. I admit, I know nothing other than that gleaned through Radio 4

Agh, getting sucked back in! Molly in the nicest possible way you would be crazy to give up your job. This is going beyond the whole marriage or not thing. This is actually about what you have written in your OP.

There is something about your partner's whole attitude that rings alarm bells for me. The fact that he is throwing his toys out of the pram and saying 'Fine, we won't buy because you want to get married before giving up your job' just leaves me cold.

Lotta that would be a very good compromise for most people who just don't believe in marriage. Molly why don't you tell your DP you've heard that the CP change is coming in and that it might be a solution. See how he reacts.

I sympathise op.

If he doesn't give a shit about marriage, it won't harm him to go through a meaningless ceremony to give you peace of mind, though.

If I had children with someone but wasn't married I think I might become a bit paranoid about house ownership/giving up my job/guardianship of the children/joint accounts etc.