Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:25

Not at all,considering the mn advice is variously suck it up,and he should marry her
For as long as posters assert he needs to marry,ill assert he's under no compulsion
It's depressing this emphasis on security via marriage,she needs to make her own security

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 23:26

X-posted. At the minute marriage is the easiest and most straight forward way to protect all parties in a marriage. There are other ways - expensive and convoluted though they may be. If as lotta said CP arrangements come in they may be the way forward but my gut feeling is that the OP's DP wouldn't be interested in that either. But that's just my gut instinct.

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 23:27

I haven't seen anyone say that he should be compelled to marry. I just see lots of people telling the OP that she needs to secure herself as best she can and certainly not quit her job!

ithaka · 23/11/2013 23:30

He doesn't love you enough to marry you - bottom line.

Personally, I would LTB, but it is your life.

My DH married me when he was 25,for a reference point. I said I would never get married - until I met him. I was 26.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:31

No one stating he should be compelled Oh really?off top of my head 'twas said
My take on these situations is always that the person who doesn't believe in marriage should suck it up
Thread is littered with advice he needs to marry her,for her protection

MaryZygon · 23/11/2013 23:31

No, I don't think he should suck it up and marry her if he doesn't want to.

But I also don't think she should suck it up and not marry him and also give up her job to become dependent on him.

That wouldn't be sensible imo.

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 23:34

Scottish I missed that one but it was one opinion. Everyone else is saying to the OP 'marriage is the easiest way to protect you / kids if you give up work but if that's not a runner either look at other ways or keep your job.'

Mellowandfruitful · 23/11/2013 23:35

Scottish it's not necessarily female protection - it's protection for anyone who gives up their job and earnings so that their family can run with one member out earning and the other covering childcare and domestic/organisational tasks. That could in some cases be a man. s it happens, what with patriarchy and all, it's mostly women. It seems a bit 'having your cake and eating it' to me that we have a system that due to historical status and social systems makes women less able to be financially powerful/independent, and then complain about them wanting to do something that affords them greater financial wellbeing because instead they should just suck up the injustice and work harder. At a lower rate of pay and with lower status, of course.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:35

No,read the thread the majority recommend he marry her,fir her financial stability

Mellowandfruitful · 23/11/2013 23:37

Yep, I stated he should suck it up and get married. Hardly the 'MN opinion' though, is it, since a range of opinions has been offered on this thread. Notice also I said it was my take and didn't attempt to assert it as universal truth. Exchange of opinions, that's the beauty of the internet Smile and how I will carry on using it

FraidyCat · 23/11/2013 23:37

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.

Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't really understand what you are driving at. I agree that someone who does a disproportionate share of care should get something in return, which might be financial support. Marriage is one way to do financial support, but not the only one.

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

A "good and fair" way to show you want to support them? No, for the reasons I've already stated, it some circumstances it deeply unfair and dangerous.

It might be "unfair" not to marry, the problem is that marriage doesn't necessarily take you to a fair middle ground, it can take you a long way past middle to a relationship that's unfair in the opposite direction. If you don't marry, then there is a possibility of agreeing a fair arrangement. If you marry, it doesn't matter what those involved think is fair, some generic law that know and cares little about their precise circumstances will override their own judgements.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:38

Women can chose not to enact patriarchy but not expecting marriage to protect them
Women can chose to remain employed and not dependent upon male wage in a housewife role

KeepingUpWithTheJonses · 23/11/2013 23:38

I don't understand all this 'protection' malarky tbh.

Df and I are unmarried with two children. We've been together 10 years.

We have a mortgage - in joint names.
We have mirror wills - leaving everything to each other.
We have life and crit illness insurance - we are the named beneficiaries of the other
We have joint accounts - all monies and savings are shared
We pay an equal amount into each of our pension plans each month, even though he earns a huge amount more than I do.

Exactly what 'protection' am I missing out on?

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 23:43

Those are not mutually exclusive.

keeping in your case you'd 'only' get stung for inheritance tax but someone up thread said there are ways round that.

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 23:43

(something to do with trusts but I'm not a lawyer!)

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:44

Jonses,let GP know you're each other nok that will go in medical records

Mellowandfruitful · 23/11/2013 23:46

See, I'd say women can choose not to enact patriarchy by pointing out that if two members of a couple do different forms of work, the rewards each earns should be shared fairly. OP's already financially dependent on her partner since he earns a lot more. Telling she has to accept she has no claim on that and should just put up, shut up and keep working for buttons with no legal claim on assets acquired during the relationship is arguably telling her to continue to accept dependency and second-class status.

FraidyCat raises an interesting point though, actually - OP, what would he say if you said that instead of getting married, you would accept him transferring an agreed amount into your sole bank account every month to address your loss of earnings, career development etc?

KeepingUpWithTheJonses · 23/11/2013 23:46

Df's assets wouldn't quite qualify for inheritance tax anyway - so not applicable.

So there you go - i'm as good as a married woman! without the respectability

MaryZygon · 23/11/2013 23:46

Keeping, if he chooses to move out, to stop paying the pension/mortgage/etc, then sadly you will realise what protection you are missing out on.

Mellowandfruitful · 23/11/2013 23:47

And now I have a point on which Scottish and I agree - Jonses, make sure you are named as each other's next of kin. You don't want to end up with one of you in hospital and the medical staff not accepting your right to make decisions on the other person's care, be consulted on possible treatment etc.

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:48

I've cohabitated years I'd most certainly not pay or expect an allowance
If op wants highr wage she needs to change career,study towards that goal
I can see no justification for her partner paying her pin money,or loss earning money

FunnyRunner · 23/11/2013 23:52

Scottish whoever said about the allowance was saying it because the DP was suggesting the OP could give up work to provide childcare. The allowance was a suggestion to give her an income if she did give up work. But if the OP has any sense she won't be giving up work.

OP hope you haven't been scared off - the thread has taken on a life of its own - but you have the MN massive watching your back and wishing you well! :)

KeepingUpWithTheJonses · 23/11/2013 23:55

Mary - so if a married dh ups and moves out with a 'fuck you and the bills' to the dw - what protection is there?

Does the dw wave the marriage certificate in the bailiffs faces when they come to repossess the house?

scottishmummy · 23/11/2013 23:55

NOK card useful for nhs and gp easily undertaken you write to GP
Btw anyone can be medical nok,inc friends
I don't think the op needs her pomander for this thread it's not scary

WhereYouLeftIt · 24/11/2013 00:16

"I don't understand all this 'protection' malarky tbh ... We have mirror wills - leaving everything to each other."
At my most cynical - one of you could change your will to not mirror the other's will, without telling their partner. Nasty shock ensues on death. I guess what I's maying is that although you have given 'protection' to each other, you can also take it away unilaterally. That to me is the difference.

IMO, not being married is fine in the good times, but sometimes good times go sour. And pretty much no-one expects it to happen to them Sad.

Swipe left for the next trending thread