To have kids before marriage?

[PandaEyes25]

I'm desperate to start TTC with my Partner of 7 years. Everything is pretty much spot on regarding timing as I am in a good job which will allow me to work flexibly, we have a good amount of savings and live in a nice area in our own house with a couple of spare bedrooms.

The only thing is, we are not married.
It's not the my OH doesn't believe in marriage. He says that we will get married at some point but I'm not sure if I want to bring a baby into the mix without having the stability marriage provides.

I'm just curious to see if other people agree with me that getting married first is definitely the right thing to do or if I'm just getting a bit hung up over it and that it's not worth putting off having children for.

Marriage first, for all the reasons stated above. Seen far too many people get stung by having children out of wedlock, with the promise of a wedding in the future, only for them to be completely screwed financially when he decides he isn't that committed to her after all. Quick registry office wedding takes very little time and expense and provides lots of protection for you and your future children.

Though I guess looking at other replies, DH and I were lucky with our circumstances. We both work FT. If either of us walked out, the other would have enough money to live on. We got our legal stuff sorted before we had kids - so mirror wills, insurance policies, house equity etc.
DP was names on birth certs as father. My parents are dead, so my sister is next of kin pre-marriage. DH and DSis are v close , so no issues there. DH's NOK would have been MiL, who again is very close.
So for me there were very few risks having kids before marriage.

I guess things could have been different and I might have thought differently. I'd been married before and he had had a 16 yr relationship before we met, so clock was ticking and we were in no rush to get married.

I think it is the legal and financial aspect which is important. A wedding doesn't have to be expensive. One of the most fun weddings they hired a hall, bride's side brought main dish in lieu of present, groom side brought dessert and everyone brought their own booze. They didn't get a house full of toasters and didn't cost too much. Guests didn't have to worry over how much cash to drop in the well. True friends will be happy to support you however you get married, the older generation may moan a little but the economic circumstances are different now. It is of course still your choice.

I am genuinely shocked at all the women on here who think marriage before kids is important. OP you are not a statistic. Your relationship with your DH will be exactly the same after you get married as before. Having kids is a much more profound change to a relationship. Only you & your DP can guess how you will react to that

You are genuinely shocked that a group of women would chose to protect themselves financially before having the very important child and reducing their own working hours (pension contributions etc) ? I just see that as common sense, The relationship doesn't change with marriage but your rights do and this can not be replicated by anything a solicitor can draw up - plus it's cheap if you don't want the glam.

If you both have a share of the house that's a good start. I'd also have a clear talk about things like maternity leave - would he be happy covering bills etc. Oh and keep everything to do with DC fair from the start. (I cover child illness for the first 6 months, he does the second, although we're flexible if needed). Both pay equally for child care etc. Having a kid out of wedlock is fine as long as rights are covered. I wouldn't be a sahm without getting married though.

In fact I probably know more married couples with kids who split up than unmarried ones. It is a sign of trust & commitment in itself.

Having kids together? No it isn't. It can be, but it isn't necessarily.

^Though I guess looking at other replies, DH and I were lucky with our circumstances. We both work FT. If either of us walked out, the other would have enough money to live on. We got our legal stuff sorted before we had kids - so mirror wills, insurance policies, house equity etc.
DP was names on birth certs as father. My parents are dead, so my sister is next of kin pre-marriage. DH and DSis are v close , so no issues there. DH's NOK would have been MiL, who again is very close. So for me there were very few risks having kids before marriage.^

And even then, in that pretty advantageous and relatively low risk situation compared to some, either of you could still have decided to unilaterally change your wills to disinherit the other (assuming England and Wales) without telling them. With pretty much sod all the other one could have done about it, based on what you say here.

Obviously for some people that will be a positive not a negative, so I'm not saying marriage is better than cohabitation. Just different. People need to be able to choose the option that suits them more.

I am genuinely shocked at all the women on here who think marriage before kids is important

There are legal differences between being married and not:
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership-s/living-together-and-opposite-sex-marriage-legal-differences-s/

You can get same protection but it's going to need to be put in place properly and paid for how relevant any of it might end up being to the OP I have no idea.

It does, because you could have prevented him from being on the BC and having automatic PR if you weren't married. He'd have had to go to court. He could also have refused to be on it and there's nothing you could have done to make him have PR if he didn't want to. So marriage gives more or less rights wrt children depending on how you look at it.

That is rue - but I wouldn't have kept him off and he'd have wanted to be on so less relevant to us as a couple I guess so not on my radar.

I'd say do not reduce your earnings/prospects without some sort of legally binding mitigation for that.

Or at least understand how vulnerable you are making yourself and do it with your eyes open.

I think children are more of a commitment than getting married. However I knew I wanted to be married before I had my children. I would of course have had them had I fallen pregnant accidentally before we got married but I wouldn't have planned it that way. I agree with poster who say marriages can fail just like any other relationship so I'm not sure why it was so important to me - but it was. Probably just that I am quite old fashioned.

Meh, I went for dc before marriage, not least because I felt like the years were running away with me.... I've been married before so less of a bucket list item I guess (although we do plan to marry one day), plus it will be a good few years before I'd be the one to benefit from the legal aspects of marriage were we to split. I have all the assets, we make comparable money (even taking into account time off for maternity leave etc.) so I could afford to take that risk.

Saying that I did advise a friend to strongly consider marriage before children as her other half is substantially better off, and she was planning to essentially give up her career indefinitely when having kids. Plus she's a bit younger than me. She is currently very pregnant and due to marry in a matter of weeks, so really you can do it any which way you like! But do consider the issues raised by people in this tread and make the right decision for your personal circumstances based on a good understanding of the risks.

I'm certainly not clutching my pearls (I was pregnant when I got married) but I do think that marriage is a good idea for your or your DH's financial security. For the most part having a child together means you absolutely have to become a somewhat combined financial entity. Even in families with two working parents one person's career (usually the woman's) suffers more than the other. You both have less flexibility in your careers in general and the possibility of unforeseen financial issues multiplies by about ten (medical issues, schools, housing requirements, children's stuff etc).

If it's important to you to have a big wedding could you not put that aspect on hold but get the legal marriage done first. The legal bit doesn't have to be unromantic either - my favourite two weddings have been in beautiful registry offices (one in Edinburgh one in London), lovely historic buildings that were actually much beautiful than some of the very expensive "wedding venues" that I've been to.

Marriage offers legal protection to the financially dependent partner; whoever gives up work to be a SAHP, goes p/t after DC, or (more indirectly) takes a bigger salary hit by not pursuing particular jobs or turning down promotions due to childcare issues. It offers diddly squat by way of stability unless you both already believe in advance that it does so. For some (including me) it's a legal contract like any other.

Often, it's the woman who becomes financially dependent, hence the rightfully dire warnings about not sleepwalking into a vulnerable position of doing all that w/o marriage.

However, it's possible - and sensible - to get the same legal protections through other agreements, though the solicitor time will cost a lot more than a trip to the registry office.

It's also possible for neither partner to be financially dependent (both parents work f/t earning similar salaries, etc.), in which case marriage is less relevant for its legal protections.

OP - what's your situation? Are you likely to be financially dependent when you have kids and need the legal protection?

As a much much higher earner than my ex who I paid out to on divorce I would not risk my assets again by marrying a man (or a woman for that matter)! Let us not assume women earn less than men. If this poster might earn 10x her ex and work full time with a very short maternity leave as I did then she is better off financially by not marrying the man as no risk of spousal maintenance down the line. Their house is already in joint names so that's all sorted out.

If she is likely to earn a lot less than the other half then best to marry although even then that mightb e morally bad - for women to work less and claim money from men may be that doesn't ultimately do women much good.

I don't think anyone is unreasonable to have kids before marriage.

I personally didn't want to take on the huge commitment of kids alone, so taking on the lesser commitment of marriage first made sense to me, but that's a personal choice I think. (At the other end of the spectrum I know people who have deliberately and happily had kids without any father figure).

I knew someone whos partner died suddenly, leaving her in a complete mess, no bereavement allowance, the banks etc obviously would even let her see her partners financial details. Took ages and hardship before it was sorted. I always remember her saying 'marriage is just a bit of paper - but if the worst happens it can be a really important peice of paper!'.

I think people who get married first are sensible. I think people who decide marriage isn't for them and take the time and effort to arrange financial matters, joint accounts, wills, insurance etc, so if the unexpected happens (death, divorce, etc) they and their kids are protected are equally sensible.

I think people who don't think about the possible problems, or who intend to get married for the legal protection for them and the kids but then don't because they want a big wedding are frankly a bit stupid and irresponsible.

You can go to a registry office get married (about £150 round here), you don't have to change your name or tell anyone. Then throw the big white dress party (aka wedding) a few years down the line. Or you can pay a bit more and set up your own legal protections (wills, joint finances etc) as mentioned above. But having children is a big responsibility and you owe it to them to get yourselves sorted one way or other before they arrive.

I don't see any issue with having dcs and not being married as such.
However, I would also put a lot of legal and financial protection in place 'just in case'.
Not just the house but wills, life insurance, savings at both names and a clear organisation when you will be on ML or if you are reducing hours and so on so that you don't end up with nothing.

It's quite heavy paperwork wise and I would assume advice from a lawyer could be helpful there.

But certainly not a 'HAVE TO' iyswim

However, it's possible - and sensible - to get the same legal protections through other agreements, though the solicitor time will cost a lot more than a trip to the registry office.

No it isn't!

I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, but that's just not true. No solicitor will be able to challenge a will that revokes provision for a cohabitant unless they fall into very narrow circumstances. No solicitor will be able to take away a partner's right to disinherit the other without notifying them: quite the contrary, in fact. No solicitor will be able to transfer one unmarried partner's unused IHT allowance to the other. There are some legal protections that are available through one route and one alone- marriage.

So the question is simply whether the individuals involved care enough about these to get married or not. Personal choice.

I think the view of not having children before you are married is very old fashioned. What difference does it make particularly now most women continue to work and in many cases are the higher earner. It's a very simple process to ensure the legal protections are in place.

Depends what you want. I wanted to be married before kids. Had simple wedding, still nice, had extra cash for few wedding bits.

Bestf is getting married now after her kids and it's a real struggle trying to plan, sorting the money.

I'm glad I did it re kids

DP and I got married and then a year later we had the wedding once we saved for it. Full dress, blessing and everything. Only a couple of hundred pounds for the marriage (forms & registrar time I think). Suggest that you get married and, as others have said, have a big wedding/renewal when you have a couple of kids and they are old enough to take part.

Hmm regarding the ones who say 'I'm better off than him so it wasn't a risk', that's discounting that life isn't always as you plan it.
When we got married and had dcs, both DH and myself had a similar wage, 50/50 in the house etc... so on paper it didn't feel it would make a big difference.

Move on a few years down the line, and I can only work part time due to health issues. It could have been a child with SN or anything else that can crop up in life.
That's when you will be happy to have taken that 'insurrance' (marriage or all the legal stuff) before hand.

I would go for the cheap wedding, myself. Marriage is an important signal. I don't know any unmarried couples still together with children over the age of 10.

and have a big baby shower or party when the kids are born....

Just sign the paper & get married. You can have the wedding later or not.

No way would I have children with someone who doesn't bother to sign his long-term commitment to me.

"not sure if I want to bring a baby into the mix without having the stability marriage provides"

Clever girl. Get the date, tell him to show up & sign his name on the dotted line.

Eurus you're dead right, I should have been clearer. You can get the same legal protections when it comes to splitting up that marriage offers. Death and inheritance is another story.