to not get married?

[TheMidnightHour]

When I was small someone said to me 'you shouldn't get married until you, really, really want to.' It stuck, and I've gone with that, despite increasing pressure from everyone apart from DP: neither of us want to get married, so we haven't.

However, I'm starting to wonder if I'm not seeing some major benefit? After all, if everyone you know jumps off a bridge, you should at least look around to see if it's on fire before you make a decision.

So: here's the status. We are both 30-ish. Not much in the bank, no real assets (no house/car worth anything/heirlooms/trust fund (I wish)), no debt/mortgage. No pensions (I know, I know). No major illnesses. No visa issues. Have wills. We do own a business together, and have a kid on the way (woo!). Both atheists. No religion on my side of the family; DP's parents are very religious and regularly read us a sermon about Living In Sin, which if anything makes it sound quite attractive!

We already have a 'marriage', effectively, as we're as committed as can be and have weathered a decade of storms. I don't want a wedding (large or small, not even a registry office do, gives me the heebs). DP is anti-officially-tying-the-knot for various reasons.

So can I pootle along like this, or is it like going shark feeding without a cage, as one of my friends recently suggested?

(She didn't elaborate on WHAT exactly is out their to eat us, and actually I quite like sharks, always exciting to see one while diving, although they're so quick to vanish they're hard to spot...)

'Your children in later years may pester you both to get married particularly if their friends parents are married'

Not a great reason to get married - 'the kids might pester us'!

Lots of other good reasons here to have a long hard think about it though. I'm not a fan of marriage OP and have been with my DP for 10 years. I totally hear what you're saying about your relationship being just as important to you as any marriage could be, and I understand why you don't see the point in changing things. DP and I have no children and that's highly likely to be the way it stays. However, if we were to change our minds and we did become parents, I would insist on getting married. One of us would be giving up a significant part of our career to do child rearing and I would want to know that we were both protected legally.

Absolutely agree that you do not need a 'wedding' if you don't want one. You dont' even have to tell anyone if you would rather not, apart from your witnesses.

Have to agree with AttliaTheMeerkat and what she says.
You say you have a marriage, well no you don't I'm afraid, not until you have made the legal commitment.

I don't think it's a "bad idea" not to marry if it's not something you want. There are perfectly adequate provisions that can be made to protect both parties if you take proper advice.

DP and I have been together 15 years, 1 child and another on the way. We both came into the relationship with assets and we simply drew up wills to deal with that properly. We are also tenants in common as he put the deposit in for our house alone. He is also named on the mortgage (I'm not). But its paid from joint funds and we have a deed of trust to deal with who owns what share of the house. We're actually reviewing that arrangement at the moment because we now have DC. We'll probably become joint tenants now.

I have another property in my own name. But we pay for the mortgage out of joint funds and when I sell it it will be family money.

DP also has life insurance and our pensions are left to each other.

The only thing we can't cover is inheritenct tax. But we both take the attitude that if it's owed it will be paid.

We may change our minds about getting married. We may not. As for the pp that mentioned marriage being for the bad times - well we've spent the last few years dealing with infertility and illness and lots of surgery. We're stronger than ever.

The partner of a close friend of mine died in a car crash when their fourth child was only a very young baby. As they weren't married she was unable to claim widow's pension. That widow's pension would have been a huge help to her, raising four young children is expensive.

Sometimes it's best to look at worst case scenarios.

Having a friend who stands to lose just about everything because she had his kids, lived in his house and took a career break to care for the kids and therefore cannot prove contributing to the household financially - I would say that not being married is a big gamble.

If they had just popped to the registry office then all of this would be taken care of in the divorce. It's a sad state of affairs.

I know there was a high court challenge being mounted by a heterosexual couple who wanted a civil partnership so that there relationship was recognised in law without having to have a marriage. They have a point!

Your objections all sound very "right on" to me.

Honestly I feel like plonking you and your man down in front of a Solicitor to go through and value your assets properly because I think you have seriously undervalued your assets or have not wanted to think about what would happen if the worst did happen.

You have no visa issues so that is an irrelevance to you.

As for this comment:-
"being unable to easily leave when they become abusive"

Regardless of whether a person is married or not, people do find it incredibly difficult to leave due to other factors namely fear of their abuser. Also if they have children and or not much access to money, this also plays a part. They can also be nice sometimes which also adds to the overall confusion. Abusers usually also ramp up the power and control abuses over time; they can be and are often plausible to outsiders and are often niceness personified in the early days.

"I love the fact that all that holds us together is love and a mutual commitment. I don't have any desire for a 'husband' rather than a 'partner'. I don't want a wedding, splashy and grand or even a registry do with family"

The above is all very nice and dandy but again such wishy washy sentiment (and that is what the above really is) cuts no ice with the authorities if you were to split up or if either of you die suddenly.

Will your child to be have a double barrelled surname; why can't the child have your surname alone?.

Same sex couples fought long and hard to get their civil partnerships in law recognised; they saw the advantages of such partnerships being enshrined and recognised in law.

If heterosexual couples want such rights then they have to get married; they do not really need a civil partnership. That's what marriage would give them.

"'Your children in later years may pester you both to get married particularly if their friends parents are married'

Not a great reason to get married - 'the kids might pester us'!"

Well indeed but Angelina Jolie got married partly because their children spoke to their parents about it. Children like security.

Seems harsh, but I always assume people who have children with their partners without getting married (and I do just mean married not the meringue-dress big day) are not REALLY in love with their partners; they're simply waiting for something better to come along.

A partnership without kids isn't a huge deal, either party can walk away at any time without ever seeing that person again, but once you bring kids into it all that changes (though granted some people do just walk away from their kids as well).

Marriage is the smart thing to do when you start a family with someone, so why on earth wouldn't you get married - unless you didn't really love them enough to marry them?

The visa issue is a red herring, because if your visa is tied to your spouce, chances are if you were unmarried you'd have no visa at all. I know 2 couples who got married solely because the man had a great job offer overseas and his DP couldn't go with him unless they got married. So yes, in both cases the wife's right to be in that country was tied to her husband's, but in both cases, the wife would have not been there at all without the marriage.

Harsh and and ridiculous.

Attila I do agree that leaving an abusive partner is difficult. In the cases I have personally witnessed, marriage has made a difficult exit even harder. Perhaps I phrased this badly, but when someone is legally tied to you they have even more opportunities to mess you around.

"I think you have seriously undervalued your assets or have not wanted to think about what would happen if the worst did happen"

I appreciate that you're very pro-marriage, but I don't think this is a fair thing to say simply because I'm unwed.

As it happens, I know exactly what my net worth is, and know DP's to within a couple hundred quid. Most of my married friends can't say the same.

DP and I have also discussed the future, including end of life care and funeral wishes, and made wills at 23. Again, none of our married friends have done this - many think 'it will all be OK because we're married' or 'we don't need to worry about that yet.

And yes, we have sat down with a solicitor. We've taken professional advice at a number of key points.

I realise that, faced with some disasters, marriage is a good fix. However, as far as I can see it makes other situations worse and I would like someone to address that.
What if DP doesn't wind up in a coma, but in a retirement home?
What if he does become abusive, and I want to leave with the (imaginary so far) kids?
What if we split up, and neither of us want the other to be able to draw on their assets?
What if we think our parents would be better at making end-of-life decisions than our DP?

Also, don't you think that a lot of people get married for wishy-washy reasons? Surely, on that basis it's not so unreasonable to stay unmarried for similarly romantic reasons!

oh and DH can't access my accounts or make decisions for me! He can access the joint accounts, but that's the point of a joint account, and we had it when we were just living together before getting married - it's not a requirement of marriage that you stop having individual accounts.

Divorce is hard. But having seen couples split up when they haven't been married, it's usually the case that the lower earner and primary carer for the children (so normally the women) ends up a lot worse off than if they'd been married.

Mary depends on the country and the visa. As an example, for a UK visa, two friends have come over separately: one on a spousal visa, which will be withdrawn if she gets a divorce, the other 'sponsored by' her partner, which is hers even if they split up. By the time the second one comes up for renewal, she will be in a different category and not need sponsorship.

OP - what will happen to your business if you split when you have a young child? Will you be left with the baby, and he with business? The other way round? The statistics for unmarried couples splitting within the first five years of the birth of a baby are not encouraging (it's something like 4 out of 5 - google it) - you need to make sure you and your child are protected you split. Will you be able to continue to support yourself alone? You need to think about these things because starry eyed "love binds us together" statements won't help you if he walks out.

A lawyer friend of mine once said she can't imagine why anyone having children together wouldn't get married.

oh, cross posted. Sorry Mary I clearly don't understand the accounts thing.

If a husband/wife can't act on behalf of the other person, why do people keep listing it as a benefit? I mean, I can ring the gas company and deal with them even though it's in DP's name, he sorted out my last mobile network problems (I did have to say 'yes' at one point, but that's it) so surely there's something more?!?

If you're in a relationship with someone that:
A) you wouldn't want to be with it they were in a retirement home
B) you believe may become abusive
C) you're assuming you're going to split up from at some stage and not want to share your assets with
And D) you think your parents would be better than making end-of-life decisions for you rather than your partner

Then I'm not surprised you don't want to marry him.

I hope my DH lives long enough to need a retirement home
I believe my husband will never abuse me (and in well over a decade he never has)
I honestly think I will be with my DH forever (but that the laws of marriage will protect me if I'm not)
And my DH is by far the best person to make end of life decisions for me

And that is why I married him.

'I know there was a high court challenge being mounted by a heterosexual couple who wanted a civil partnership so that there relationship was recognised in law without having to have a marriage. They have a point!'

They sure do! Civil partnerships are a much more appealing option to some people who don't want to get involved in the sexist baggage that marriage has historically had. The legal challenge is ongoing.

Attila, I was thinking about Angelina Jolie when I read your comment about children pestering their children to get married. I still think its a pretty ridiculous reason to make such a hugely significant and very adult decision. Children pester their parents to do all sorts of things.

'Also, don't you think that a lot of people get married for wishy-washy reasons? ' Most definitely!

I hear you OP, I really do. Marriage makes me want to hold my nose too. However, in your position, I would be seriously considering it doing it

visa? - is that something to think about for you? if so, that sounds quite mercenary to be honest

you are not liable for debt he runs up even if you are married

you can walk out the door if you are married as easily as if you are not - its just the legailities that take a bit to sort out

they cannot access your single account unless you give specific permission (nothing to do with being not/married) or make decisions for you - no idea where you got that idea from

joint accounts? more likely to be frozen if one dies if you're not married i think - just have enough in reserve to keep going for a while in a single account (again - marriage makes no difference here)

"all assets being funneled off to pay for residential care for one great-uncle" thats an agreement made with the couple, and if you OH did this, he could do it without being married

What if DP doesn't wind up in a coma, but in a retirement home? his assets will be sold, because you have no rights to them

What if he does become abusive, and I want to leave with the (imaginary so far) kids?
what do you think other wives do? are all abused wives tied to the abusive husband - no

What if we split up, and neither of us want the other to be able to draw on their assets?
thought you werent going to split up? why shouldnt you share what you made together?

What if we think our parents would be better at making end-of-life decisions than our DP?
why would you be with someone you cannot trust to make an end of life decision? My DH knows more about me than my parents do - i havent spoken to my (not D)F in 25 years, i dont want him making decisions for me thnk you very much

www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/relationships_e/relationships_living_together_marriage_and_civil_partnership_e/living_together_and_marriage_legal_differences.htm

You can formalise aspects of your status with a partner by drawing up a legal agreement called a cohabitation contract or living together agreement. A living together agreement outlines the rights and obligations of each partner towards each other. It is not clear whether living together agreements are legally enforceable but they can be useful to remind a couple of their original intentions. In practice, instead of a living together agreement, or as well as, it's possible to make a series of legally enforceable agreements on specific matters, for example, how a jointly-owned house is shared. If you want to do this, you will need legal advice.

OP, I'm not quite sure why you asked the question as you seem vehemently opposed to the idea of marriage for any reason, emotional or practical? And ever so slightly superior over those of us who have chosen to marry.

Banking
Living together
If you are living together and you and your partner have separate bank accounts, neither of you can have access to money held in the other partners account. If one partner dies, any balance in the account will be the property of your partner's estate and cannot be used until the estate is settled.

If you have a joint account, then both you and your partner have access to the account, regardless of whether only one of you pays into it. If your relationship ends, the money will belong to both of you. However, if one of you didn't use the account at all, for example, you didn't pay any money in or take any out, it may be difficult to claim that you have any right to it.

If the account is in joint names, on the death of one partner, the other partner becomes entitled to the balance and can continue to have unlimited access to the account. However, a proportion of the balance will be taken into account when calculating the value of the estate of the person who has died.

If you separate from your partner, you should consider closing an account in joint names to avoid your partner accessing the funds or running up debts which will be your responsibility.

Marriage
If a married couple has a joint bank account, the money is owned jointly regardless of who put it into the account. On the death of one partner, the whole account immediately becomes the property of the other. Debts and overdrafts relating to a joint bank account will be the responsibility of both or either partner, irrespective of who incurred them.

If each partner in a married couple has a separate bank account and one dies, the bank may allow the other partner to withdraw the balance providing the amount is small.

If you separate from your partner, you should consider closing an account in joint names to avoid your partner accessing the funds or running up debts which will be your responsibility.

That will is valid until a new one is written. You dont have to be told that a new one is written. a marriage is valid until a divorce, you do have to be informed that a divorce is happening!

You need to think about end of life care because you're not married, being married gives you the 'luxury' of waiting until you need it...

But this is the main issue with being unmarried, in most cases, you can plan round it, and if you have supportive families that like your partner, then you can be sure good choices will be made and your/your DP's views will be heard, but it's a lot more faff and effort than just being married and reliant on good will - and when situations change (as they tend to do over the course of 50 years!), you'll have to go through it all again, rather than just have it all covered by marriage.

With children and jobs and life to manage, it's unlikely you'll keep going back to review wills, financial arrangments, seeing solictors regularly until something jolts you into it, by which point it might well be too late.

I don't get your question about the retirement home vs coma scenario?

And of course in terms of accounts you only have joint what you want to have joint! So me and DH have our own bank accounts, which we alone control, and our own savings accounts, which we alone control. We also have a joint savings and current account which we can both control.

If we were to split up then the divorce would sort out the joint account stuff (ie to whom does the money go, 50/50 or something different..). And similarly if we divorced our assets would be split up as part of the divorce too.

Of course if you and your DP split up then you would need to split your assets too, but I presume it would be trickier to sort out as there is no 'divorce' as such, you are just two individuals.

sausage those aren't things that I believe about my DP. But then I don't believe I'm likely to wind up in a coma after giving birth, either or that DP is going to do a Downton Abbey on the way home from the hospital, which are 2 reasons, apparently, we should get married.

I do want to be with my partner for the rest of my life. Given how high divorce rates are in the UK, getting married is not enough to make that claim. You have to be committed and (probably) lucky. We are committed.

My point was that being married is not a panacea. As an example:

Unless you can pay the full cost yourself, you do not necessarily get a choice about being 'with' your partner when they are in a retirement home. If we wind up like my great-aunt and -uncle, then one of us could be off in care 20+ miles away, mandatory contributions eating through the funds that both expected to live off, leaving the other in poverty.