Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
NearTheWindmill · 23/11/2013 22:36

I think legally you are far better protected as a legal wife than as a common law wife. I think you need to speak to a solicitor and get it all sorted out.

Personally, I would never have agreed to have a child with a man who wasn't prepared to marry me. When I met DH I owned my own house; he didn't. He certainly wouldn't have moved into mine if he hadn't been prepared to make a permanent commitment.

Cake and eating it is what too many men like and have come to expect. Unfortunately OP in the name of equality women have taken this on board hook line and sinker because they don't realise that they have far less protection in a common law relationship. Please get some legal advice about this and about your circumstances.

MaryZygon · 23/11/2013 22:37

In fact, everything FunnyRunner has said.

NearTheWindmill · 23/11/2013 22:37

That's a very good point Maryzygon. If marriage is "only a piece of paper" what exactly is a big deal about getting a "piece of paper" Very good food for thought.

Pearlsaplenty · 23/11/2013 22:41

writer maybe he had planned it all along.

4 years there means it would've definitely been the dc home. I don't know why a father would deliberately want to uproot their children from their home, especially during a separation. The decent thing to do would be to let them continue to stay for at least a few years, it is not as if he was paying a mortgage on it.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 22:42

I read this on mn all time,man should marry woman to appease her.even if he vehemently antimarriage
Why should anyone marry simply to appease or protect their partner
If you hook up with someone who tells you they're anti marriage you were given fair warning

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 22:43

Btw there's no legal construct of common law wife,it offers no protection

Writerwannabe83 · 23/11/2013 22:47

He was just an arse pearls - the decent thing would have been for him to leave and let my sister and children live in the house, but at the same time it was his dad's house and it was solely in his name so he probably didn't see why he should leave.

MaryZygon · 23/11/2013 22:49

Exactly sm

You are a wife, with all the legal protection, or you aren't.

And it doesn't have to be romantic - but if he loves you, why is he scared of just signing a piece of paper? What is he protecting?

FraidyCat · 23/11/2013 22:53

Where there is a significant disparity in income and wealth, it is in the lower-earner's interest to get married, and the higher-earner's not to. From a financial interest/risk point of view, he should not get married. If this is not one of his major reasons for avoiding marriage, he needs to add it to his list.

He would not be selfish to choose not to advance her interests at the direct expense of his own.

(Actually the income/wealth disparity doesn't sound that large in this case, but of course it may grow with time.)

This has nothing to do with the higher-earner not being committed to the relationship. It doesn't matter which partner instigates or is at fault in any separation, it is the higher-earner who loses and the lower-earner who gains, if they are married. If not married, they each keep their own money.

If OP wants to take time off while not married, and he agrees, a fair solution would be for him to pay her a "salary" during that period, out of which she could build up her own savings.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 22:54

You're all spectacularly missing point he can legitimately decline to get married
No one us compelled to get married,nor should they be.esp not to appease partner
He's always been upfront about being antimarriage op knew this.she needs to make best what she got

MaryZygon · 23/11/2013 22:56

Yes Fraidy. That all makes sense until you factor in the lower earner being the lower earner because they are the primary carer.

As a parent, would you want your partner to be a primary carer by choice, or by force? And if they are carer by choice, would you want to avoid suporting them financially.

And if you do isn't marriage a good and fair way to show that you do?

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 22:57

Scottish lots of people were anti-marriage but changed their minds as their circumstances changed. I for one was NEVER getting married... Hmm :o

The one thing EVERYONE is in agreement with: Molly don't give up your job!

MaryZygon · 23/11/2013 22:58

I'm not missing the point sm.

Of course he can decline. But if he does, it's fair enough for the op to wonder why.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 22:59

This man can legitimately decline to not marry the op.she knew his stance
They need to move on from marriage and address legalities of finances,property

FraidyCat · 23/11/2013 23:02

I don't understand why he thinks being married is a bigger commitment than creating 2 human beings together.

The commitment of having children is not a part/a subset of the commitment of being married. They are two different things. His responsibility for the children is the same whether or not he's married, and has already been incurred. The financial risk of marriage is an additional burden, if he expects to be a much higher earner.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:08

Why would op wonder why he won't marry her,given she knew his stance
He being consistent in a previously stated pov.shes not been mislead
I'd say the marriage is no goer proceed to seeing solicitor re property etc

Pearlsaplenty · 23/11/2013 23:10

writer yes it was also his children's grandfather's house.

I guess I see the relationship between parents and children and grandparents and children as being the same as I was raised by gp for awhile. So he was being a huge selfish arse.

Morloth · 23/11/2013 23:13

It is fine for him to not want to get married.

He is being very clear.

Now you need to make your decisions on what you will do next.

Not a fucking chance would I leave the work force in that situation. If you do and it goes wrong you will be shit out of luck.

A marriage certificate is the easiest option as far ad working out joint finances/plans but there are others and if you agree to not getting married you still need to get all of that together.

Joint mortgages, joint deeds, next of kin etc. Half of the childcare costs are his so if you are going to maintain separate finances you need to sort that at ad well.

Don't hand over all your power/security. That would be foolish.

Mellowandfruitful · 23/11/2013 23:13

My take on these situations is always that the person who doesn't believe in marriage should suck it up, since what harm is it going to do them to go through a ceremony they feel is meaningless and 'just a piece of paper'? I'd say that whether or not the reluctant party was male or female, by the way - believe it or not sometimes it is the woman who is not keen to marry.

As for the 'marriage is bad for higher earners' argument, well, yes, it is if they split up - but that is not to say it's unfair. If one half of a couple has supported the other but hasn't earned as much, then some rebalancing of the finances to reflect that in the event of a split is fair. The OP has said that her becoming a SAHM would , among other things, allow her DP to build up a business. Where is the justice in him becoming well-off in part through her support at home, then keeping it all if they split while her career and future earnings are screwed? If of course he doesn't believe in fairness, then that is a larger issue even than the question of getting married.

It's not inevitable that all high-earning men feel this way, either. Neil Diamond gave his second wife (who had been with him for 26 years, before he became famous) half his fortune, $150 million, and said she 'deserved it'. Obviously he recognised that having spent many years raising his kids and supporting him from backstage was worth an awful lot.

FraidyCat · 23/11/2013 23:16

Yes Fraidy. That all makes sense until you factor in the lower earner being the lower earner because they are the primary carer.

I don't see anything in the OPs post to suggest her income so far is lower as a result of being the primary carer. It would be fair for him to compensate her for any losses they both agree she should incur. A transfer out of his monthly income during a specific agreed period would do this far more accurately than would getting married.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:17

No one should be compelled to marry,it's a fundamental right to chose
It's deeply flawed so many of you see female protection as being located in marriage
You make your own protection,you don't simply hope to marry it

MaryZygon · 23/11/2013 23:18

What Morloth said.

He doesn't have to get married. But if he is protecting himself, you can too. So you don't have to stay with him. And you certainly don't have to give up work.

FraidyCat · 23/11/2013 23:19

If one half of a couple has supported the other but hasn't earned as much, then some rebalancing of the finances to reflect that in the event of a split is fair.

As far as I'm aware, the low-earner gets exactly the same regardless of whether they've "supported" the other. The idea that the low-earner is entitled to half because of their contribution is wrong: they are entitled to half because divorce law says so, they will get it even if they've contributed less than nothing. (Which is perfectly possible - think about it for a moment. Someone can spend more than they earn, mess more than they clean, etc.)

FraidyCat · 23/11/2013 23:22

The OP has said that her becoming a SAHM would , among other things, allow her DP to build up a business.

Apparently he's not convinced of the benefits. My reading is this more her take than his.

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 23:23

Scottish you are labouring the point about his 'stance'. His stance was made 6 years ago. Lots of people said similar things but changed their stance when their circumstances changed. The OP once shared his stance but has moved on from it. The fact that she has moved on maybe led her to believe that he would move on too, as many people do.

She is not unreasonable to ask him if his stance has changed. SWBU to FORCE his stance to change but that's not something she actually do. At this point she can either accept his 'stance' and make provision for it or she can decide to walk away.

OP you are the only person who knows in yourself what you're willing to accept. If you are willing to accept that your DP will not marry you then as Scottish says you need to look at safeguarding yourself and your children as best you can by various legal means. If your DP is reluctant to do so then that tells you everything you need to know.

Swipe left for the next trending thread