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 . )

Your title is wrong. Having DCs and not marrying is not of itself a problem, it is having DC, giving up financial independence and not marrying.

This. Or even better "it is having DC, failing to ensure you are protected financially and not marrying".

Marriage certainly doesn't provide rock solid protection in the event of a split, but it's definitely going to put you in a much better starting position than not being married. Although there are other things you can do which give nearly equivalent legal protection, but it's complicated and still not quite as good protection as marriage.

This is assuming you are the lower or non earner of course. If you're the higher earner you're probably better off not marrying, assuming you want to keep open the option of not sharing any of your assets or income with your ex and the parent of your children.

A pp wrote of being entitled to all of her partner's financial and pension assets should he die(and they aren't married). Of course if you are the beneficiary you'd get the financial assets but as I understand it with regard to pensions you fill out a declaration of wish form. This is not an entitlement in the same way as if you were married. The pension firm are unlikley to refuse to pay out but it's possible. It's unlikely in your case but if for instance a 58 year old man decided he wanted his 2 year old GC to recieve a portion of his pension on his death they would probably go against his declaration of wishes.
My friend was a SAHM for years and years, her and her partner bought their home and a rental house (both mortgaged) with a view that the rental would be "her pension". Both houses in both their names. After the split her ex is now living in her "pension" with the ow. As it's in both names she will get half but no pension. He'll keep his half a million pound pension set aside from the family money he was able to earn whilst she took care of their children. If they had been married then the pension would have been a marital asset and she would have had a claim.
Marriage doesn't provide a rock solid protection but it's so cheap for a license that for us I can't see why we wouldn't just go do it. I'll keep my name, won't wear a ring, no big wedding, in fact the only time it will ever be relevant is if one of us leaves the other or dies.

I'm sure this has been done to death before but why keep your name?

I'm too old to change it and... well, it's my bloody name!! And OHs name is hard to say and spell[smile}

It's unlikely in your case but if for instance a 58 year old man decided he wanted his 2 year old GC to recieve a portion of his pension on his death they would probably go against his declaration of wishes.

Don't you believe it. I can't say too much as I'll out myself but as someone who been involved with running pension schemes, they could well assume there's a very good reason why the DP isn't on the form and follow the deceased's wishes.

I have seen this happen and the Pensions Ombudsman's site is full of cases where the DP has tried to get the decision overturned and failed.

Sorry, what I meant was even if there was no dp and someone just didn't want their pension going to "waste" so nominated someone to receive it the pension company could refuse the declaration of wishes and the pension go to no one. Bad example, but I was just trying to illustrate that a declaration of wish is not iron clad.

I kept my name
because its my name and I wanted to

and Didactylos has such a ring to it!!

Why would you change your name?

Wigfield I think there are inheritance tax benefits if you are married too, whereas unmarried partners might have to pay some tax. There's benefits for children too when/if they eventually inherit.

youareall as Thurlow says, why change your name?

It's a hassle to change name - think of all the writing to banks, council, utilities, passport, drivers licence, work colleagues, clients etc. Nobody has yet given me a good enough reason to change my name which outweighs this hassle. "Tradition" isn't a good enough reason for me. "Same name as children/DH" could mean children/DH should take my name, rather than me changing mine - but I don't think it's important anyway.

My DH didn't change his name either, would you ask him why?

Anyway this is a massive tangent!

I know, mini (and apologies for the derail, OP). But one thing in life that frequently perplexes me is why some women give up a name they might have had for 30 years, say. But that's just because I'd find it insanely weird. I'm Jane Thurlow well, I'm not, clearly . I couldn't imagine waking up one day and having to refer to myself as Jane Smith.

Plus plenty of ex-husbands screw their wives over, refuse to pay maintainence, lie about their earnings etc. and women have to drag them through the courts so if that's what he's going to be like, then that's what you've got to deal with, regardless of whether you're married

and stand more chance of getting something if they're married than if they're not.

wigfieldrocks

Are you named as each others' next of kin?

I spoke to a friend today who went through an extremely ugly separation nearly 2 years ago. The child residence issues are still dragging out, though going in her favour in a big way. The one thing she repeats again and again is "Thank GOD I never married him." She would be in a far worse position today had she been married.

thurlow totally agree.

Garbuggerit's post above:
"........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 wonder if pps reading this and imagining it said by their own dp would still prefer a holiday to a marriage ceremony?

Bonsoir out of curiosity, why would she be in a worse position? Is it because she holds more of the assets/income, or because being married would give her ex more rights to residence? Or just because it would have taken longer/more money to get shot of him?

minipie - yes, she would have had to give him a share of her assets and he would have therefore been in a better financial position which would have given him more leverage over the DC. My friend wanted to move to be near her job and to take her DC with her. This was ultimately greatly facilitated by the fact that she wasn't married. And she gets to keep 100% of her house, car etc.

At the end of the day having sat through endless cab appointments and free 30 minute solicitor advice sessions with bf there is no getting away from the fact that the HUGE majority of people left to look after dcs and give up work and go pt are female and whilst is all fine if you happen to have big earnings, that is the minority by a long chalk. You only have to look around a school playground at pick up time to see women outnumber men 50/1. !! (for those men who are true primary carers not just adjusted work hours to pick up.) I think the biggest issue of all is the state pension. No matter what clever paper work you complete, his state pension will never pass to you and all his ni will go to exchequer, when for the sake of marriage it would all of come to you. Without a doubt until the law changes in favour of living together without marriage, the majority would be better of refusing to provide dps with children unless they were equally committed to making their loved one and mother of their children their wife and women should not feel bad for insisting on it, after going through this I have tried to think how the conversation would go. ...dp: I would like to start a family, Dp : Fantastic, so would I, when shall we get married ? dp : oooh I'm not ready for that much commitment. Dp :

If you are not married I should make sure that you get in well with his family and that they love you to bits! They could cause all sorts of problems if they don't like you ,if he is dead or in life support etc.

I think it really depends on your circumstances. I'm the higher earner in our relationship and the mortgage is in my name. I don't think not being married puts me in a precarious position. But I can see that it would be different if I were financially dependent on DP.

I heard a thing on the radio recently talking about the fact it used to be "safe" for a woman to be a SAHM becaus the divorce rate was so much lower, you could generally assume you would stay married and your husbands salary would pay for everything. (And of course people could buy houses on one salary then, at least my GP's and their circle did!) but now, you just statistically cannot be sure in the same way. I have always worked and I am the main earner. We are married with 2 DC's and rent through the housing association - no other assets. However when DH and I went through a very bad patch, I found it very reassuring to think that I would be able to support myself and DC's financially (just)
Being a SAHP would not be the right choice for me anyway so
Perhaps this colours my view. But I would Feel very anxious about the future of I compromised my earning Potential for a long period of time.

Thurlow- I can't wait to get married and take DP's name.

The way I see it, your name either marks you as your father's or your husband's and given the choice I'd much rather have DP's.

I appreciate tho it's different for those of you who actually like the men that were shagging your mothers at the time of your conception