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.

the DP was suggesting the OP could give up work to provide childcare

Funnyrunner My reading of her post is that it's more her idea than his.

In fairness, having just checked, her language is completely neutral on whose idea it is. I suppose it says something about our respective prejudices that we have come to opposite conclusions!

What is his objection to marriage?

I think we look at marriage is a romantic thing but it is business transaction. Other cultures really do get to the nitty gritty of finances before marriage and we really should be more business like. My husband didn't want to be married but I told him I wouldn't have children without being married and I would find someone who would marry me. My friend didn't marry her partner and he got early on set dementia and you and they were thrust into a legal minefield. They got married very swiftly!

It's possible to do all of the protections marriage gives you with contracts, trusts and other varied bits of legal technique. It's a huge faff to do it that way, but it is possible. Not sure how you'd frame it as instructions to a legal adviser, but then that ought really to be your first question to the legal adviser you pick.

Why doesn't he want to marry you?

My friend's partner of 20 years died completely unexpectedly (in 40s heart attack while exercising, was v fit). The complications of not being married did not help a horrible time.

Have you got wills in place?

I think you need to see a solicitor, and you need to talk about ways to protect yourself financially in the event of a split, and shield you (both) from the tax implications of being an unmarried long term couple if one dies.

IMO you'd be crazy to give up work, unmarried, to support the family or a DP's business ambitions, unless that was solely to embark on training/education to improve your career prospects. Fair enough if he's opposed on principle to marriage and always made that clear, but in that case he can't expect you (if the main thrust of the suggestion is his) to make career sacrifices which would leave you completely financially vulnerable. If you can't earn much now, you'd earn one hell of a lot less after an extended career break.

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

It's an urban myth.

I personally was better protected before I married. Marriage has taken away a lot of freedom. For example I'd rather DH didn't have any claim on my money and assets if I die, and vice versa. We each have our own funds, we don't need each others, and we can both think of far better beneficiaries. We know each others wishes and I believe he will carry mine out, as I will his, but I deeply resent that I have to rely on someone else to carry out my wishes regarding my personal funds and assets, and it makes everything much more complicated. I'd also rather he had no say in my medical care. He makes emotional decisions, I'm a brutal realist...I'm not sure he could bring himself to make the rather extreme decisions I'd want him to in certain situations. I've been able to get around that slightly, there's no need for him to be involved at all now, but it's cost a fortune in legal fees and at the end of the day DH still has every right to take control if he chooses to (which he won't, but again I resent the fact that he potentially could despite my express wishes that he doesn't). We had children before we married, and they had all the same protections then, in fact on paper they were better off because if either of us died they stood to gain more.

I agree with scottishmummy. You make your own protection. End of the day, if you marry a twat, there's nothing stopping them from screwing you over anyway. If your safety net is based on someone else stepping up and facing their legal responsibilities, you don't have much of a safety net. Some people will do ridiculous things to avoid handing over any of their cash and it can take years to get your share, during which time you'll be completely fucked.

You can get everything sorted without marriage. It's a hassle, but it's entirely possible.

At the end of the day, you've got three options (the same three options I had):

You leave him.

You insist, cajole, nag, bully, ultimatum your way into making him get married.

You compromise. You sort out all your legal and financial affairs so you're protected as possible, take a risk on the rest and move on with your lives.

Marriage is far more than a piece of paper. If you are not getting married you must both go to a solicitor and get it all sorted out legally to get protection.

To answer who suggested me giving up work - it was him that suggested it, but in the context of a discussion between both of us and him knowing that I don't particularly enjoy my job and don't want to do it long term anyway.

To answer why he doesn't want to get married - I think partly due to the historical connotations of it, and partly not feeling the state should interfere in personal relationships. I don't know what his stance on civil partnerships would be.

Dp and I have been unmarried for 23 years.

I would be a tad if he had insisted we got married and tried to railroad me as we've both really not wanted to.

We have a very strong relationship though,been through some really shitty times,great times and taken turns at supporting the partnership financially and otherwise over the years.We're far more committed than the maj of marriages.

We have 3 dc 10,10 and 9.

I gave up my career(a necessity for various reasons when the twins were born), did 4 years working from home,had a year to regroup and will start looking for part time work in the new year.Had some lean times but it was best for our family.

Everything is signed over to me,joint mortgage and I would be well provided for if god forbid anything should happen.We would like me to have the widows allowance thing though(dp wouldn't need it) and are tentatively discussing a huge US road trip with the kids on our own and a trip to some kind of place to do the deed.We are both discussing it and both coming to terms with the idea and both equally as scared.

Neither one is railroading the other.

Civil partnership not available to Heterosexual couples seeing they can marry to gain the legal rights
Cp was to bring legal parity to same sex couples relationship,as they cannot marry
It's great if op boyfriend support cp,but it's of no relevance to him and the op

Retropear if neither party wants to get married then that's fine. It's when one person really does and the other 'objects in principle' that I think the 'principled' person should think again.

OP what do you think he would say about the idea of paying a certain amount to your bank account in lieu of salary, if you gave up work?

I don't think op should give up work or be hoping he'll pay her an allowance if she does
If you're unhappy with your career op,then make moves to change it
He shouldnt be compelled to marry,if he doesn't to want to.but do see solicitor

OP - keep working. Look for a job you prefer, but don't give up work all together.

He can't have everything, the 'cost' of his stance against marriage is that he hasn't made a legal commitment to you, just words that might be true or might not be, but you can't base your family's security and future on what might be a lie. He's not taken any action to prove he means his commitment to you - do not take the fact he's had DCs with you as a sign of commitment to you. Having DCs is a commitment to the child, to be a parent to them, it is not to be mistaken for a commitment to the child's mother.

If you go back to work when your DC is 1, when they are 3 they will get 15 hours free knocked off your nursery bill so it's only 2 years of the cost of childcare being the same as your income. Then once they are 4.5 and go to school, your costs will fall dramatically again. (And if he's self employed, you might be able to work round which hours he does to fit in school holiday time off.)

Don't sacrifice your independence for 2 years of it not paying. you are 30, you're work life could be another 30 years. Does it really seem worth giving all that up for 2 years of not making a profit?

You haven't got married, therefore your options involve greater risks than a married mother, realistically, you need to assume at any point he could walk out. He might not, but he wants the door kept open, even if he'll never go through it, he does'nt want that door shut. He can't expect you to be a housewife, doing all the household chores, childcare, taking the traditional "little woman" role, but at the same time not doing the traditional role himself of being the husband.

He is. It's not a very praiseworthy approach to follow a 'principle' that means the mother of your DC will be badly off if anything happens to you. Unless she is happy with the situation, has her own funds etc, it's an abuse of power.

No.a woman should make her own provision for being solvent and protect against eventualities
The op shouldn't need to see marriage as preventing her being badly off
She can work in a career build up finances,experience in case she get badly off

My dp and I had very similar opinions about marriage to the op and her dp. I am at best ambivalent and dp is pretty anti-marriage. However, we will be visiting the local registry office to say the words and sign the papers in new years eve. It will be us, dd and 2 friends. There will be no wedding party, just some tapas at a local resturant for lunch.

There a 3 things that led to this decision. 1, dd was born, 2 we are buying a house together, 3 my mum has terminal cancer.

My mum being ill has made me realise how quickly things can change and life can be taken. It has made me think very seriously about what would happen if something happened to one of us.

It is not for my protection, I am the highest earner, or for dp, he can take care of himself. We are getting married for dd, because the fact is that getting married is the easiest and most comprehensive way of ensuring that finances and home ownership and all the boring but essential stuff will be sorted should one of us die or become critically ill. Yes we can do it other ways but it is complex and there are so many uncertanties.

I don't think dp has changed his views on marriage as a concept but he has realised that the best thing he can do to secure dds future is to put aside his feelings on the matter and get married.

Sorry your mum is unwell,that is tough going
I still don't think marriage us the ultimate commitment or act of familial security
They can see a solicitor about wills,property etc,tie things up that way.unmarried doesn't necessarily = absence of legal rights!just you need to go tie all those things up

True Scottishmummy, however having seen the price of just doing wills, it's often far cheaper to just go have a civil marriage. The ceremony itself is very cheap, it costs alot to try to reproduce the rights and responsibilties of marriage, and it's not 100%.

Yes,marriage ceremony cheaper than trips to solicitor,but seeing he's not want to marry its irrelevant

He may well prefer marriage as the cheaper option. It seems mad to pay out to a solicitor to end up the same, but without a marriage certificate.