Women who have children before marriage

[FissionChips]

..but get upset when their partner does not want to/ has not asked to marry them , yet still insist they are too traditional to even contemplate asking their dp to marry them or just discussing it like adults.

I dont get it. Most of the complaining women give the child their partners surname as well which isn’t even traditional if the parents are not married. They live together for years. They are in no way following tradition.
AIBU to not understand why they lie about being “traditional “?

However, some silly people seem to think it gives their relationship some kind of moral superiority or general status above cohabitating couples. No idea why.

This!

neonyellowshoes If after 450 posts you can't see the benefits and or disadvantages of marriage outlined in this thread then no-one can help you at this stage. It might be more an issue with your comprehension ability rather than the ins and outs of matrimony.

@VladmirsPoutine

Yep, that's it. I'm just plain thick..,

Or.....

Maybe we have a case of emperors new clothes here? People go on about the benefits of marriage as that's what they've been brought up to believe is a good thing. Career, marriage, mortgage, TTC.... Any deviation is WRONG.

Questioning why they think this way would involve questioning their own personal paradigm and that is too terrifying for most.

So, what are those benefits? IHT? Not many people will hit that in my world. The tax break is tiny, most women work, NOK doesn't work like that anymore.....

So, what are these benefits? Go on, humour the thick person here

IHT, Bereavement Support Payment/Bereavement Support Allowance, Widowed Parents Allowance, Inheriting a Spouse’s State Pension.

Hope that helps.

So it's a couple of obscure benefits that few will probably claim anymore and IHT again...

Nah, sorry still not feeling it.

neon my sister was with her partner for many years. She gave up work when they had children (for a few years then returned)and he was a high èarner. They had savings in both names and houses in both names. To reduce his tax liability he paid heavily into a pension, a lot of money he would have been unlikely to have had ' spare' had he had to have days off for sickness, drop off and pick up at nursery and, of course pay half of childcare for 3 children. We they split she got half of the savings and half of the houses. She doesn't even know how much money was in the pension and has no way of finding out much less getting her hands on some of it. Had they been married she could have.

Then don't get married neon. Seriously as many of us have said marriage will not suit all, but it does suit others. I genuinely could not care less if someone is married or not but ffs EDUCATE yourself so that you can make an educated decision first.

Also please can the unmarrieds stop asking for legal protection without signing the contract, it won't happen in the UK.

Why a cohabitation agreement is essential for non-married couples - Unmarried couples have no legal rights if they separate – so without an agreement, one of them could be left with nothing

"Basically the law does not recognise in any meaningful way a living-together relationship outside marriage or civil partnership," says Christina Blacklaws, director of family law at Cooperative Legal Services.

If a cohabiting relationship breaks down there is very little protection for the weaker partner, typically the woman, who often has children. As a result, some cohabiting families can find themselves facing real difficulties should they split up, particularly when children are involved.

In England and Wales, when married couples divorce or civil partners break up (known as dissolution rather than divorce), both parties have a legal right to maintenance and their share of assets, including property and inherited property. The judiciary has complete discretion under marital law to take all the circumstances and history of the relationship into account and decide on a fair division.

Cohabiting couples have no such rights, regardless of the number of years they have been together and whether they have children."

"A cohabitation agreement sets out who owns what and in what proportion and lets you document how you will split your property, its contents, personal belongings, savings and other assets should the relationship break down. It can also cover how you will support your children, over and above any legal requirements to maintain them, as well as how you would deal with bank accounts, debts, and joint purchases such as a car.

The agreement can also be used to set out how you and your partner will manage your day-to-day finances while you live together, such as how much each contributes to rent or mortgage and bills, and whether you will take out life insurance on each other."

If you don't see these as relevant or important, well, that's your choice. If you don't want to get married but don't feel there's merit in putting in place a cohabitation agreement, well, that's your choice.

Do you have one in place? If not, why not?

So if you're married you can walk off with chunks of your other half's pension? That's hardly fair- get your own!

I've been married, got divorced. Sure as hell didn't want his money.

The main risk for lower earners is that if they earn less than their other unmarried half and they spilt up they will not get spousal maintenance and if the property has been kept in one name only , if they own anywhere or have any savings, that person keeps that. Also many more living together couples split up than married couples so that's a relationship risk too. I agree that IHT does not apply to move families although it does ours.

The benefits exist. That is a fact. You may have considered these and decided that, for you, they don't benefit you much. That's perfectly valid. The point is that they absolutely DO benefit lots of other people (including pretty much anyone with an average sized house in London or the SE).

The point is to go through the process of educating yourself, considering your own position and taking appropriate steps. The fact remains that huge numbers of people sleep walk into situations that disadvantage them without realising and there are huge amounts of misinformation out there. We are still getting people on this thread saying that having a will is "basically the same as getting married" after all these posts. There's your issue.

Thing is neon, I can't stand it when women think being married is something of an achievement, i.e. they are proud to be a 'wife'. It makes me internally cringe. I can't say I've seen any sneering of unmarried women on this thread and I don't think anyone has been immutably preaching about the so-called natural order of things: Career, marriage, mortgage, TTC..

I think it's been a broader discussion. The point I made earlier on was that an unmarried woman that relinquishes her job or career in order to raise children is leaving herself in a very precarious position. Marriage is neither here nor there imho - security (financial) is.

Some people have said that marriage can work to solve / expedite visa issues for spouses, others have a more romantic or wistful notion of marriage. Others see it as a catch-all contract of sorts that deals with issues which would otherwise present a bureaucratic nightmare. Others don't want to because they don't want to risk being parted with half their assets or risk those assets being passed on to those outside their bloodline.

I don't think it should be such a polarising issue.

People who are wealthy enough that can dismiss bereavement payments with an airy wave of the hand usually are also wealthy enough for IHT to be a concern. Your financial circumstances must be rather niche, neonyellow.

But meanwhile, when we still have posters coming out with shite about wills being able to replicate the protections of marriage when that's completely and emphatically wrong, there continues to be a need for these threads. Because the level of ignorance on this topic is just astonishing, and it can have a real impact on people's lives.

However, some silly people seem to think it gives their relationship some kind of moral superiority or general status above cohabitating couples. No idea why.

It gives them a legal status....that's the entire point. Nothing moral about it, it's just legalising the relationship.

I'd never say I'm more in love than a cohabiting couple, that's ridiculous. I would say I'm more legally committed because I am. Marriage is not and has never been intended to be a contract of love.

On another point, if marriage today is so patriarchal them I wonder why so many men won't do it.

Marriage is the cheapest way to ensure security for your children in the event of your death, or for yourself in the event of your partners' death.

Of course you can write a will, get deeds drawn up and things to give you half the house, but if my partner died and I was grieving and had small children to look after, the last thing I'd want to worry about is having to move house because I wasn't their next-of-kin or named in their will, or accessing their pension or widows' allowance.

I think a lot of the benefits of marriage aren't seen until the worst happens. You see it time and time again on here - relationships end and women find themselves with nowhere to go, because the house isn't in their name and they're not married or on the mortgage. Or partners are seriously ill in hospital and they have no NoK rights, or heaven forbid, the worst happens and they don't have access to things like pensions, death-in-service payouts or widows allowance from the government.

Now, for some people those things are irrelevant because they're independently wealthy, own their own homes and have their own incomes, and that's fine. But a lot of people DO need that kind of protection. I see a lot more sneering about people who insist on marriage on these threads than I do the other way around.

And yes, I don't for one second seeing getting married as a declaration of love. It's a legal, financial contract. I love DP but that's not why we're getting married!

To be fair, unmarried partners are generally fine with NOK stuff now. That situation seems to have improved a lot in the past 10-15 years. I'd say you would be very unlikely to be excluded from your unconscious cohabiting partner's bedside these days. Of course, that isn't enough security for some of us. But worth pointing out I think.

Salient point about patriarchy yorick...

If you are on benefits and have kids you are better off single than if you were married. He moves in with his mum and you get single parent housing and tax credits.

If you are a higher earner or have inherited - better off unmarried.
If you want to ensure your children are provided for if you should die - better off unmarried.

And yes I am also sick of the assumed superiority of women who are married over those who are not.

My own relationship lasted for over twenty years and we are still good friends, yet a five minute marriage is supposedly better??

Women attacking and belittling other women again. Horrible

I'd say you would be very unlikely to be excluded from your unconscious cohabiting partner's bedside these days.

It's not just about being by their bedside - it's things like making end-of-life decisions, organising funerals and dealing with finances etc. if they sadly pass away. Being married and having a legal contract in place makes all that a lot easier.

My own relationship lasted for over twenty years and we are still good friends, yet a five minute marriage is supposedly better??

Where has anyone said it was better? A marriage affords you legal protections that cohabiting simply doesn't. It doesn't mean it's a better relationship, just that you're more protected in the event it goes wrong.

That doesn't matter/is irrelevant to some people and that's fine. But to others it's really important and can make a huge difference in the event of a break-up (if one partner stays at home with children, for example, or a child is disabled and needs life-long care).

Pensions are a massive incentive to be married. If I become a widow I'll get 65% of my husband's pension, if we weren't married I'd get nothing. I could survive him for 30 years, that's a lot of money.

You're potentially better off single than married if on benefits, yes, but that's because of the cohabitation. Not the marriage. The benefits system doesn't distinguish between a partner you're married to and one you live with, which to be fair I think might be a part of the reason why a lot of people are confused on this point. You move a partner in and they affect your benefits claim straight away, but you die without a will and they're nowhere. It's inconsistent.

But actually, if you're on benefits and you're living with a partner anyway, you're better off being married so that if one of you dies you'll get bereavement payments. Cohabiting unmarried would be the worst of both worlds. Compare like with like. And if you're married but separated, you're better off benefits wise than someone who's unmarried and cohabiting.

Still though, pretty much everyone on this thread who has been pointing out the legal realities has said that there are situations where marriage is less advantageous. You're not refuting anyone's point by stating that a woman who wants to leave her property to her children is better off not marrying.

In terms of your relationship being worse than a 5 minute marriage, it depends where you're standing. Of course the level of love you have for each other doesn't necessarily correlate to marriage. Equally though, if you want to inherit your partner's unused IHT allowance, for example, yes your relationship is emphatically worse than someone who got married yesterday just before one of them keeled over. Without a doubt. This isn't any kind of matter of opinion, and making sure women know this isn't belittling or attacking anyone. It's helping.

adaline your chidren are not financially protected by marriage.

Anne inherits from her dad. Anne and Ben have two kids. Anne dies at 45 - kids early teens. Ben re-marries at 48 - to Cathy, ( 35 and broody). Ben and Cathy have a baby, Danny - all cute. Teens are difficult, unhappy about Cathy and baby, soon to go away to college. Ten years later at 58 Ben dies.

Scenario A = Anne never married Ben and left all her assets in trust for her kids. The kids, when their dad dies are in their late twenties and buying a home.

Scenario B = Anne and Ben married. Ben inherits all Anne's assets. Ben marries Cathy. Cathy inherits all Ben's assets. Kids have nothing when Anne dies and nothing when Ben dies and probably nothing when Cathy dies as she is both younger and likely to leave everything to Danny.

I have seen that happen so many times to my friends.

I don't know that it does these days adaline. There used to be a lot of horror stories when I first started doing law but I haven't really heard any for the past few years, and anecdotally lots of posters on here who aren't married have talked of their unmarried partners being able to be involved with medical decisions etc. As I said upthread, inevitably being married is still going to be more security than relying on this general attitude change, but I don't think it's the problem it used to be. Interested of course to hear any recent examples that would suggest I'm wrong.

I am named NOK for my partner still - even though we have split up.