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.

Indeed, Tread- I used to insist I was at my parents' wedding when I was little, much to my mum's annoyance. They were married three years before DT and I arrived. "Apparently" being in attendance as unfertilised egg doesn't count to some people.

AnotherEmma the majority of the benefits of marriage can be replicated if you chose to (though dp and I have chosen marriage as it's cheaper!). I haven't found a way around the pension issue with dp but I really can't see that many unparalleled benefits if you are both financially equal. Certainly non requiring an eye roll!

What's your definition of the majority? I wouldn't say they can, personally, so it's simply a question of relevance.

Araminta that has to be one of the biggest amounts of baloney I've ever read on MM.

Marriage gives you respect- err no it doesn't. Personality ,how you behave,at work it's qualifications.... give you respect.

And sorry years of struggling as students,near death,infertility,sharing our children,history etc all these things have added to our closeness in our 24 years of being unmarried.A piece of paper couldn't add anything.

Protection wise we are beneficiaries on each other's life insurance and pension and we share savings so if one walked away everything would be split etc etc

Really? Normally you can change beneficiaries just like you can change your will. This arrangement can protect you for unexpected death, but not separation.

If you're the higher earner and will be throughout maternity and the early years marriage is less important. Ultimately though it's the woman's body and career that tend to take the hit of children so I wouldn't do that without marriage. In your circumstances OP I'd price up the cheap and cheerful wedding and do it. Whilst I'm sure it's lovely to have your children present at the wedding/honeymoon, it is logistically more complicated and weddings and children both take time and money, so do the straightforward one first!

If you're the higher earner and will be throughout maternity and the early years marriage is less important.

A few posters have said similar to this. Just got me wondering why the higher earner/ more career focused partner would agree to marry. Plenty of advantage for the Sahp/ lower earner; not much for the other. What is mooted as "essential" for one seems like a millstone for the other.

I am married BTW but rather ignorantly never really thought about the reasons (legal and financial) being discussed here until I joined mumsnet.

I used to care for a lady who 100% believed in marraige before kids. She was very disappointed when I told her I was pregnant. She would go on at me every day. I used to repeat the same thing over and over 'if it's not broke, don't fix it' I hated the idea of a wedding and the only reason I did get married was to share the surname of my children. Just because your married doesn't mean things won't go wrong. However, if you own a house, I can see how being married would make a difference if you split. I think you just have to do what suits you.

I've been with DP 5 years. We have two DS, one of 2 and the other 6 months. We're getting married in a couple of months. See...children and the stability of marriage.

Personally i would never have children with someone who 'didn't see the importance of marriage'.

I did not have a big, white wedding - we had a short, legal ceremony with a couple of family members/friends for lunch afterwards. Quick, not expensive but most importantly it gave us both legal protection if we break up.

It's not about dresses, big parties, invitations, hen do's, presents, shared surnames or any of that other stuff - don't let those things get in the way of the legal protection side of making such an important commitment.

And yes, I would be very wary of someone who was prepared to commit to having children with me but not commit to marriage.

A piece of paper couldn't add anything.

It might well do if one of you decides to leave the other. What about pension provision? Next of kin in the event of serious accident or illness or death?

And yes, I would be very wary of someone who was prepared to commit to having children with me but not commit to marriage.

Agree with this^^.

Lots of people have said that the legal provisions of marriage can be replicated without marriage. If my OH was really against the idea of marriage and I had no religious faith then I'd want to make sure all of these legal provisions were in place before I had any children with him. I wonder how many people actually bother. I'm sure some do, but I'm sure there are many who don't. It's probably a lot easier to 'just' get married.

Should have said "Then I'd still want to make sure these legal provisions were in place before I had any children with him"

Personally I would not TTC before getting married, for the legal reasons already mentioned, but also for me because it is not just a 'piece of paper', it's an important and meaningful promise that I intend to keep, and I would not have a child with a man who was not willing to make that promise to me.

Also, as others have mentioned, I think you need to be prepared for the fact that looking after a newborn is probably going to be more difficult than you are imagining and working at all in the first 6 months is probably unrealistic unless you have childcare. I know with my own baby, she cried constantly and couldn't be put down at all whilst awake. When I finally finally got her to sleep and tried to put her in the bassinet she would wake up, so I had to hold her while she was sleeping too. If I did manage to transfer her then I would have about 30 mins to eat something/shower/clear up the pile of sick on the floor. It was an all-consuming, 24 hour job and there is no way I could have done any kind of other work at the same time.

I'm just saying this because I would also advise you to make sure that it is financially possible for you to take some time off work altogether, and I would definitely prioritise putting money aside for that, rather than having an expensive wedding. I would go for the registry office option if money is tight.

I had children without being married.

My partner wanted to get married and I didn't. I thought perhaps I could get over my emotional issues with marriage in the future but I couldn't leave having children indefinitely.

I did not get over my emotional issues with marriage as essentially I didn't really trust him (and didn't want to admit this to myself). I was right not to, and he left me.

I wouldn't have had children at all if I had waited for marriage. And I am very glad I do.

Materially things worked out well for me, as I was always the harder worker and I walked away from the relationship with more than I would have if we had been married, as certain assets were in my name (because I had paid for them).

Having small children was tough on the relationship and probably contributed to its end in some ways. However, although it took its toll on us, it would have been harder in the early years if he had left sooner. Although he was a git about it, he didn't do literally nothing, and I don't know how I would have kept all the balls in the air - work, babies, etc - if I had been on my own.

I wouldn't, if you are planning to take longer than maternity leave off work.

If you're going to work anyway, that's different. But discuss what having kids will mean to both of your lives. Some men think (subconsciously - most would never admit it) that they are owed a life untroubled by domestic or childcare duties. If you have children, and if their mother also WOH, they can't get away with that, and they may resent the woman. Having small children is hard work and many men see this as unfair work inflicted on them by their woman (even if she is working much harder and contributing materially too). Find out if your man has these attitudes (he won't admit it but try to find out anyway).

If he does, you have the choice:

ltb (hopefully to have children with someone else?);

have children anyway, knowing that you will continue to WOH, that rocky times are ahead, and you may end up alone (but you are guarding your independence and this is something you can deal with) (outside chance that having children will educate him and he'll turn into a better man);

accept that if you have children with this man you will be stepping back from work, taking on a very domestic and child centred role, and in that case GET MARRIED.

I don't know why everyone insists on here that marriage is 'essential' if you have kids. It all depends on the financial situation in your relationship

^^This is very true - but I think most women do seem to underestimate the protection marriage can bring to the average woman and the impact children have on careers and even their own prioritises.

While I do know a few families who got married after children for most the some point in the future actually meant never.

That happened to my sister despite owning a house and having a child and being engaged she'd have got a better deal with the house at least instead having to move and years of no money for their child and then sporadic after that - a trick he keeps pulling with others. We had a small wedding wanting to save saving for house buying - we got talked into delaying honeymoon to a future point to spread the cost out for us- it's never happened next holiday was a family one eldest 4 as money got prioritised to the children needs.

While I do know a few families who got married after children for most the some point in the future actually meant never.

I've read enough posts on mumsnet to see that this happens quite a lot.

I think a lot of people who discount marriage don't think about the worst case scenario - which is death or serious illness rather than divorce.

A friend of mine has basically lost her career to care for her husband. He's now terminal and in the final stages of his condition. If they werent married she wouldn't be entitled to bereavement payment (£2000) and she wouldn't be entitled to widowed parents allowance. I know WPA is changing soon, but currently that's £112 a week, non means tested, until a child leaves school. For many people that's how they pay for afterschool care, or how they afford to do 4 days instead of 3.

Also, what happens if one of you has to sacrafice your 'equally paid job' because the child is sick or disabled? Or if the birth goes wrong and you are left disabled? Separation/divorce isn't the worst case scenario when a couple have children imo - health is the big one.

I'm the higher earner and still felt marriage was important before having children, for the security it would bring my husband.

Why? Because no one sets out in a relationship expecting that one day they might run off with someone else, and decide the person they once loved can be left to struggle financially - I certainly don't intend to ever do that. But my dad did, and our family position would only have been much worse if my parents hadn't been married.

But people do run off, and if you love someone enough to have children with them then you should (in my view) be prepared to protect them against future you turning out to be a bit of a dick.

We had our 2 DSs before we got married.. various reasons that I won't go into but we had to wait for a while before getting married but I didn't want to wait to have children. We got married when they were 8 and 5. I don't think if makes much difference nowadays. We've now been together for 11 years and married for almost 1.

I've read enough posts on mumsnet to see that this happens quite a lot

Yes - but I only know a few this has happen to - though they had lovely weddings and are very happy - but many more where it hasn't.

Not sure how statically abnormal that is or what is says about our social circles as oppose to people posting on MN about getting married.

Thinking about it, I have only been to one wedding where the couple already had children, but I know a few couples who plan to never get married, but do plan to have children or already have a child.

I know one couple where the man is completely against the whole concept of marriage for moral / ethical reason. I don't really know what the reasons are exactly, but he's totally against the whole. He does, however, want to have children with his oh who he has just bought a house with.

I know another couple who always said they would get married one day, but when their DS arrived the woman said it was too late and she couldn't be arsed basically. Said she'd wanted a proposal for a long time, but now would turn him down if he asked.

MrsWhiteWash I tend to think the opposite! I often find people overestimate the security and protection marriage brings. On mn I hear 'I would only give up my job if we were married' etc as though being married is a magic bullet whereas it is the job rather than the marriage that gives you financial independence and security. I have known several people who have also lost out in divorces.

Not sure if I'm being naive here- own a house 50:50 with partner, have a small child together, not married. If anything were to happen to either of us I understand the share of the house would go to our parents- his parents would surely want the best for me and their grandchild and wouldn't demand their share though.
Also re NOK, I thought I read that this would be your partner if you live together.
Still open to the idea of marriage (decided house and kids was more of a priority) but not sure why so many people are saying how important marriage is for the woman as otherwise you'd be left vulnerable?

How can someone say marriage is essential?

Okay...as replies to my previous post:

To me, marriage is a piece of paper. I never want to get married, never have, never will.

We don't own a house, my car is mine. We have no savings.
I have my own life insurance policy and my own pension plan.
I work and we have separate bank accounts, with one account joint for bills.

We have a DS, who we love dearly and was very much planned...with no mention of a wedding! A will yes, but we both agree what should happen and are firm on that in the case of one of us dying and who DS should be with.

Yes people leave and people also cheat, not only fathers that leave their children though is it? Either way, as PP have said, marriage won't prevent this if it is going to happen. You may still have to fight back and forth through court for access/maintenance

I appreciate you are looking out for your children but why would you marry someone just for security?

If it came to it, I am able to provide for and look after DS on my own, but then I've no assets to split with anyone...

Cinnamon I would get a will in your postion (dp and I have very simple mirror wills). Your parents will obviously want what's best for your dc but it might not be the same as what your partner thinks is best. If you want your partner the have the house shoukd you die then get a will. Or married.