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 . )

His family really could make a lot of trouble if they don't like you!
Also make sure he doesn't have an accident abroad.

You don't need to get married at all, just be financially prudent. Like joint ownership of the house, even if you are not paying in all the time (maternity leave, being sahm for a while) , like a registered partnership, like having your own pension etc.

I would not recommend anyone becoming s sahm unless married though, as you hold all the babies (responsibility) whilst being financially very vulnerable.

And when you are being financially prudent go to a solicitor and check it is all covered.

The subject came up last time we saw a solicitor. She said that she had been responsible for 7 couples getting married that year- there are so many things to take into account and a marriage certificate is so much simpler and cheaper.

Do not just 'assume' anything.

Thanks Thurlow, it's all so much more complicated it seems when not married No matter how protected you think you are financially.

Out of curiosity, those who are against the concept of marriage, why?

When I (eventually!) marry my dp it'll be mainly for financial reasons. I do not intend to take his name, nor be given away to him. I just see it as us saying we want to officially and legally say we wish to join our assets.

A second question - does anyone know what would happen to all my dp's bank accounts and some bonds he has if he were to pass away? Just curious really as for pensions and other benefits you nominate, but if you had an account with x thousand pounds in it, where would it go?

I haven't read the whole thread but have dropped down to say that she needs very very good legal advice. It is not as simple as "not entitled". There is a type of settlement that goes with "pregnancy resulting from one night stand with footballer". There are other ways of doing things to do with having been a "wife" for a long period. And if she contributed in a material way to his career (helped him build up a business for example) then that might be reflected in the settlement. Keep talking to lawyers till she finds one that is prepared to dig a little deeper into the situation.

Can someone explain the next of kin situation please? Would the Nhs ask to see your marriage certificate?

I'm pretty sure they want proof during a life or death situation chem.

NickyEds - oh, we dont have rings!

On the subject of wills, it would be prudent to leave everything to the children rather than the partner. It would avoid the risk of disinheritance if the surviving partner remarries & forgets to make a new will. People don't realise that wills become invalid upon a remarriage and that the new partner will inherit everything unless clauses are put in.

I have left everything to my kids and my husband has done the same. This way we know everything is secure for our dc regardless of what happens.

I did check with the solicitor regarding inheritance tax and we were under the threshold. Apparently leaving it to the dc means half or all of the property is also exempt from the local authority assessment for oap care. I am not sure how that's assessed so I am hoping someone more experienced can explain.

TinkerBella - it would go to his next of kin. This would not be you, if you are not married, unless he had made a legal will specifically leaving it to you.
You would not be exempt from inheritance tax.
His next of kin would be his closest living relative by birth or marriage - e.g an existing spouse, if not divorced, a parent, or sibling and so on.
If no will, his estate would be divided equally between living relatives.
ditto any insurance policies, property, shares or pension.

Apparently leaving it to the dc means half or all of the property is also exempt from the local authority assessment for oap care.

I thought the government took a dim view of this and it wasn't always successful...

SaucyJack - not everyone has their fathers surname. I certainly don't. I have my mothers and want to keep it.

The tax thing is huge.

If unmarried and your partner dies, you pay 40% (ie you'd probably have to leave your home and sell up)

I can't emphasise enough that if you are not married you need to see a solicitor - if you only find out the problems on death or accident abroad etc you are too late.

Yabu

That is why you need a solicitor, precious.

SaucyJack - I do not belong to my father or my partner, likewise my name is my own. I wouldn't change my first name as this is what I have grown up with and identify with, it is who I am. I feel exactly the same about my surname.

I don’t think we should be advising women - anyone really - that they need to and should ‘marry for security’. Instead we should be encouraging women to want and to be financially independent, to be assertive in relationships, and for fathers to have a more direct responsibility towards their children – they're more than material worth. In the event of a separation, shouldn't joint custody be the norm? In any relationship, shouldn't childcare, housework, finances, leisure time all be split equally? Why is it that only women are expected to sacrifice their careers, earning potential, independence and free time when children are born?

If we keep promoting marriage as a way to make lower earners or potential SAHP secure, to the likely detriment (just look at divorce rates) of the other person, is it any wonder that some people (mainly men) are so unenthusiastic about marriage when they can, and often, have it all for nothing?

Interestingly, in Australia you can be considered a de-facto partner, whereby if you split from your partner, financial matters and any issues regarding children are determined in the same way as married couples.

You're right chunderella and I agree with everything you have put. This is societies failing and we should absolutely support vulnerable women who are in this position. There should be a system in place to do this, though I don't know how. It it sad that this even happens, that this is even quite common! I just don't think getting or forcing marriage is the answer - it is deeper than that. Societies views on the roles and expectations of mothers, fathers, sahp etc need to change also. Marriage does not mean equality. Women alone should not have to make the significant sacficices / risks in order to give their children a good upbringing. But you're right, I'm asking questions and making points that I don't really have answers for.