To think that anyone who has Dc's with a Dp without getting married doesn't realise how precarious their situation is ?

[kittensinmydinner]

Just that really. Have just spent 6 months supporting best friend after her 'd' p met and left her for OW and 'soul mate' in May. leaving her with 5 dcs. He married in September despite not believing it when bf wanted to. She is entitled to nothing except maintenance (which wouldn't come close to paying the mortgage). She has been SAHM for 19 yrs and supported his carreer trajectory as a very big earner but is not entitled to anything in the way of pension or property. So aibu in thinking that primary carers who give up work or reduce their income to look after dcs do so without being aware exactly how vulnerable they are financially. (unless of course they have their own private income . )

I kinda agree with Claw.

These things only matter if either party actually has any money/property. Otherwise, a legal right to half of nothing is still nothing.

You're friends situation doesn't sound all that bad (other than raising 5 Kids alone obviously). She has somewhere to live free of charge, £1500 CM, she'll also be entitled to a fair amount of child tax credit and CTax benefit.
Many single parents are left to support dc completely alone, no free house or CM.
Her best bet now is to go in to further education or vocational training so she can support herself when her dc leave home.
Whilst it's a shitty thing her ex has done she did leave herself in a vulnerable position and now she has to take charge of her future.

We got married as soon as I found I was pregnant because:
DH would get full parental rights over DD
Even without wills he would get most of my estate with DD getting the rest
His pension then would pay me on his death
My pension would pay him on my death
We wouldn't pay inheritance tax (our bog standard London semi is worth over half a million now)

On the grounds that even if we never left each other one of us would die and the other be left single with the same house and same bills, the marriage ceremony ensured we would both have incomes once that happens.
If we were not married neither of us would get the other's pension.

So much has to be "spouse" such as medical consent forms etc.

Individual examples aside, the majority of SAHP are women and women overall earn less than men, so if there is a power imbalance in a relationship it will generally be the woman who is in the weaker position.

My dp and I have never wanted to get married. We've been together 17 years and never really wanted to do the whole wedding thing and not seen the point in it at all. Everything's changed since having ds. I'm now a SAHM and feel incredibly vulnerable without an income of my own. I know I probably have nothing to worry about and we'll probably live happily ever after but just in case we will be getting married, not a big wedding-just us a registry office but the papers will be signed so to speak. OH shrugged and said "fair enough"! We don't own property but he has a fantastic pension and insurance. For us it's a case of a simple wedding costing a couple of hundred quid-probably what it would cost in solicitors fees to arrange something similar. Aren't we romantic!

Such a shame about your friend OP, as others have said there was lots she could have done to avoid the situation but of course that doesn't help now. Hope she finds her feet again soon!

I have no desire to get married but agree it's a convenient legal contract.

Looked at from a purely legal and financial point of view it's virtually armour plated.

Interesting thread.

I'm not married, currently not working very much & 2 DCs. I object to being called "daft" but I do see what you mean.

As a pp posted said the key is ensuring financial security in the event of a split. Does marriage automatically entitle a spouse to 50/50 of what the other spouse has? Could it be the case that she'd only get what he's offered anyway - maintenance and house until oldest child leaves. As that's more than DM got from my father when they split (although it was aeons ago).

We're both on the mortgage, and we each inherit in the event of death, I'm the beneficiary on his pension and insurance and vice versa, we have wills leaving everything to each other, he has parental rights as he is named on the birth certificate.

I have my own independent pension and I hope to be working more next year.

And am I right in thinking that we'd need to have equity more than £640k in total as the surviving partner would only inherit half, as they own the other half already?

"My / her salary didn't cover the childcare" is a phrasevi have seen a couple of times in this thread as one of the reasons women got trapped with no income. This is the wrong way to look at it, IMO. Each parents income only needs to cover half the childcare. The childcare enables both parents to work, not just the mother. And working in a low paid job is the stepping stone to a higher paid job

I completely disagree and think that although that view is admirable, it's probably not feasible for many.

Of course it's both parents responsibility to pay childcare...but people who talk about 'my wage not covering it' are generally referring to the impact that would have on household income.

When we had two dc under school age, the cm fees were £400 pm more than my salary. Dh has a decent salary so we were 'lucky' in that when I returned to work the £400ish deficit meant having a lower disposable income, not being unable to pay the mortgage. And of course, in the long term it's been much more financially beneficial for us as a household as I kept continuity of employment so was able to progress, get pay rises etc. and now our cc fees are a quarter of what they were.

But if dh had had a lower salary, that £400 could have been the difference in paying the mortgage or not and one of us (me as the lower earner) would have had to be a SAHP for a while. It doesn't matter who was paying what % towards the cc - household income is household income and if there isn't enough of it then you're fucked either way.

We're both on the mortgage, and we each inherit in the event of death, I'm the beneficiary on his pension and insurance and vice versa, we have wills leaving everything to each other, he has parental rights as he is named on the birth certificate.

You have no idea how much I wish more couples who are in partnerships did that. At the risk of sounding patronising, I take my hat off to you.

My exdp would have preferred that I had given up work when I had DS but I flatly refused, I also made sure our house was in both names and had a deeds of trust drawn up to protect the fact I put in more money than him.

No way was I going to give up my job, career, pension and I am bloody glad I did as he fucked off with OW 3 weeks before DS 2nd birthday. tried to force the sale of the house even though he had stopped paying any of it. The things I and put in place stopped that and I was able to get the house transferred into my sole name because I had carried on working.

If I had given up my job I'd be living in some awful crappy rental accommodation as rent round here is so expensive. I always internally shake my head at those women who just give it all up and leave them self open to being left with nothing.

However, I don't think marriage saves you from everything when splitting up, its better than having kids outside of marriage in some respects however if you DH leaves then you will still need to be the one paying the mortgage etc and finding a job. Its very rare that spousal maintenance is given and pension shared by any significant amount.

*"My / her salary didn't cover the childcare" is a phrasevi have seen a couple of times in this thread as one of the reasons women got trapped with no income. This is the wrong way to look at it, IMO. Each parents income only needs to cover half the childcare. The childcare enables both parents to work, not just the mother. And working in a low paid job is the stepping stone to a higher paid job....

However I am and always have been the higher earner in our household.*

I so agree. My salary was LESS then our childcare costs when my 2 were both young. But now I have a career that I would not have had if I had left work then and now earn many times the average wage. Swings and roundabouts.

YABU Im not married and am better for it. I'm main earner, have (meagre but still......they are MINE) savings of my own, own pension, jointly own house, own bank account that I pay the bills out of into a joint account so DP cant touch my money. DP has nothing. If we split up hes got nothing I'd want or need.

So, why would I marry him to give away half of what I have if we split?

I know this sounds unromantic, but I don't want to get married because I am a realist and I know that things can change. Being married wont make us any stronger, but its much easier to split if unmarried, and I'd get to keep whats mine thank you very much.

I am not married to dp. We own our house jointly (I am on the deeds and named on the mortgage). I work part time, he works full time and earns considerably more. We have dc's. I am named as beneficiary in the will, if anything happens to him I inherit the house (mortgage would be paid off by life insurance etc). We have life and critical illness policies that will protect both of us if anything happens to the other. Myself and our children will inherit all his financial assets and pension assets if anything were to happen to him. If we were to seperate then I would have my share of the house. He would have to pay me maintaince for the children. I don't think I'm daft. How would it be different if we were actually married? (Genuine question, I'm wondering if there would be an advantage).

It's up to them isn't it? If they are daft enough to do it then they will have to take the consequences.

Not married but 2 DC. I am a SAHM and have no intention of working for quite a while. We always both agreed that I would stop working indefinitely while the children were young.
Mortgage in joint names, both named in each other's wills.
We are engaged though, between 2 young children and a new house not much spare for a wedding. In fact, would eater save for a family holiday (first in 5 years!) than a wedding right now.

GahBuggerit because as it is you'll only get 50% of the house whereas if you were married you would get more, maybe 100% of the equity. Or an agreement to stay in it until the children are grown up and then sell.

ineedausername and what will you do if your partner leaves, refuses to pay more than the bare CS money and demands the house is sold and the equity split 50/50?

Move back to my parents. Sell house, look for a job, sort out benefits. I wouldn't fight to keep a house on I couldn't afford.

We have no equity, we have a loan from his parents for £68k... So house would be sold, parents given their money back and any excess he can have. I would rather focus on a clean break than fight over money.

Not sure if this has been said but even if you continue to work full time, maintenance does not need to take into account child care costs or extra cost of bigger place if you are the main carer.

YABU to think that all people who decide not to get married don't understand the potential pitfalls.

There are plenty of things you can do - own your house together, have shared parental rights, be the beneficiaries of pensions and life insurance, get powers of attorney, and get a cohabitation agreement.

We've done that. We both work f/t and have similar incomes. I feel secure and am happy with the provisions we have made.

However, I do agree that giving up your job (and thus potential future earning ability) and becoming a SAHP relying solely on your partner's income without being married is a very risky thing to do, even with a cohabitation agreement in place.

I have a huge issue, personally, with marriage and do not want to do it. But if I ever felt I was at financial risk then fuck it, I'd make DP get married. Though I'd be seriously pissed off at the legal system that there was no other way to do it

Wigfield, I believe the difference is if you split up from being unmarried your DP would owe maintenance for your DC. He wouldn't owe maintenance for you - which he would if you were married. Well, he wouldn't automatically, but the courts are changing their view slowly and cohabitation agreements help by legally laying out your intentions towards each other and your children.