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 “?

Getting a job that is just fine and supports you is possible for the vast maj of women.

You’re right about this - the “stinking rich” was a bit tongue in cheek, as I thought would be obvious from the “live happily ever after”. If you raised children a long time ago, or if you live in a cheaper part of the country though, the cost of childcare may not be that familiar to you. I’m unfortunate enough to live near London where you really do need a fair amount of wealth behind you to raise a family. Some women I know here simply couldn’t afford to pay childcare for more than one young dc and had no family nearby, so gave up work after their second.

It’s lovely you didn’t feel you had to do this when you raised your dcs, but the reality for some women is that they can’t afford to work. The lucky ones work flexibly, but that isn’t always something employers will be happy with. And it doesn’t take much research to realise that women are still not given equal opportunities in their careers and still don’t earn as much as men. If you’re not struggling with this yourself, it’s easy to say it’s all the women’s fault - “they should have just done what I did”. The patriarchy just loves that kind of judgemental infighting among women btw. Just like the defensive silliness on this thread from people who aren’t married. “Stop judging me! We’re so in love and great parents!” Not the fuckit point!

Just because you aren’t married and don’t want to be married, you’ve decided there must be nothing right with marriage for anyone. Including the women who are the subject of the discussion on this thread; women with children, who are the more financially vulnerable partner and who aren’t married. They should all do what you and your successful mates did, shouldn’t they? But they aren’t doing, for some reason or another. So maybe marriage offers some protection in those circumstances? If it won’t kill you to admit it .

@MrsDilber my marriage cost £120. That's peanuts in comparison to raising a child and saving for a deposit

Do you think it's sensible for a cohabiting couple with children, who don't wish to marry, to have a legal cohabitation agreement in place, in addition to wills and life insurance?

If not, why not?

If yes, do you have one? How many of your friends who are unmarried with children have one, that you're aware?

@lozster of you read my posts you'll see that at no point have I suggested that marriage is the best contract for everyone, quite the opposite.

The key point in my view (and the point I've made repeatedly) is that everyone needs to educate themselves on the differences between marriage and cohabitation, assess their own situation and act accordingly.

I absolutely accept that marriage would not be the right choice for many people for lots of different reasons. Equally, there are situations where, on the balance of probabilities, you are likely to be much better off married than not.

It seems that some posters are unwilling to accept that marriage is ever advantageous for anyone and that just isn't true.

Actually, I take it back. You aren’t right about that either. The proportion of female graduates I know who simply can’t find a job which enables them to support a household on their own these days is very high.

I used to work in recruitment btw. It’s brutal for many graduates now. It’s “so easy to get a decent job” if you’ve already got one and are from a different generation.

good posts @Fatkins

@lifebeginsatgin no worries!

Yes, I'd imagine the rich thing was in reference to the airy dismissals of the equity in three quarters of a property as shite, and the bereavement benefits that help so many people as insignificant. And the let them eat caking about how people should just be wealthier with more investments instead, and get their security that way.

@chavasticfirebanger so it's ok for divorced men with kids to remarry but not for divorced women? What happens if the woman was widowed like my mother was in her early 20s? Is she never suppose to remarry?

Not sure who all these women are, but society is constructed around the institution of marriage to an extent. Legal rights, taxation etc. I lived with my now husband for about 15 years, had one DC and was pregnant with 2nd when we married for tax reasons. Some women may feel fine about not being married, but it may still cross their minds that their partner may not be committed enough to marry given the extra legal rights. Men, the same. Not sure why it bothers you though.

Blue bug i dont think men should either, not till the existing kids are 18.

Do some people really not see how stopping or reducing work for a few years while kids are small will still impact future earning potential and pension provision even if you do eventually go back full time?

If your friends had partnered with arseholes olivers, if there were no divorce proceedings, those arseholes would have taken their chance to cause extremely expensive trouble in the proceedings relating to the children instead. That's what arseholes who want to punish the other partner for ending the relationship do. If you have children and/or any assets with someone, you take the risk of them dragging you through the courts

You are describing what has happened to all the divorced parents with dc. As it is part of the divorce proceedings it makes it easier for them to drag things out whilst the unmarried ones either agreed when visiting was or if there was any dispute. I.e father wanting full custody then it was up to the father to initiate proceedings.

I have yet to come across one who could actually be bothered.

I would really, really like it if the posters advocating that marriage is unnecessary for the majority of women (NOT ALL WOMEN, it depends on the circumstances, and it's about making an educated, informed, choice about what is best for you and your family), could respond on the question about cohabitation agreements

Do you think it's sensible for cohabiting couples with children who don't wish to get married to have a legal cohabitation agreement in place?

If not, why not?

If you do, do you have one?

With respect, your experience is not definitive, just as your divorcing female breadwinning friends are unrepresentative. Spend a bit of time as a family lawyer and I can assure you that you'll soon see unmarried partners engaged in lengthy, expensive proceedings relating to shared children and/or property.

I find this such a bizarre discussion to even be having. Why can't the answer be that everyone's different and free to choose what works for them!?

There's so much of this black and white thinking of MN - "my way is best and anything different is a direct criticism of my life choices". It doesn't have to be that at all! Just because marriage doesn't make sense for one person doesn't mean it's not valid for people with different circumstances.

I believe the problem is that people quite often choose what doesn't work for them, and don't realise this until too late. Get a look at the relationships board.

*Some women I know here simply couldn’t afford to pay childcare for more than one young dc and had no family nearby, so gave up work after their second.

It’s lovely you didn’t feel you had to do this when you raised your dcs, but the reality for some women is that they can’t afford to work. The lucky ones work flexibly, but that isn’t always something employers will be happy with.*

And this is the nub of the problem married or not... women either through choice or short sightedness facilitating men. Childcare is a JOINT parental responsibility. Do not give up a job/career or minimise your earning potential to rely on a man. Do not assume that it is the WOMAN who has to do this and sort it out

the reality is for some women is they cannot afford to work Really? Where is the man in this? Partner or husband this is still the issue. If you come out of a marriage no divorce settlement is going to set you up for life so do not compromise your earning potential to facilitate the father. It's not a smart move if you are married and, yes, I grant you it is an even less smart move if you are not especially if you are not named on a mortgage/property and have not taken the precautions previously referenced (wills, named on pension etc).

Yes, I'd imagine the rich thing was in reference to the airy dismissals of the equity in three quarters of a property as shite, and the bereavement benefits that help so many people as insignificant

I say it again - bereavements benefits changed last year, not surprisingly in the direction of a reduction, and are likely to change again as they are being challenged in the high court.

@oliver

Court proceedings can drag on in divorce, as in any area of the law. It can drag out in criminal cases too, but that’s what courts are for sadly. If you choose to enter the legal world by making a contract, then it, rightly, takes a court (although none of the recent divorces I’ve geard of went through the courts except for very brief hearings to say they’re now divorced - it was all done through mediation which seems to be more common now). It’s no surprise that all these women you know who have had to go through difficult divorces with repeated trips to court and had a very rough ride wish they’d never got married! I expect they wish they’d never met their exes full stop, except that they have their children.

I can see why you’re put off by this. But that still doesn’t mean that remaining unmarried isn’t a safer bet for the majority of people who are the more vulnerable financial partner. Hopefully they won’t have to get divorced and will stay together till one of them dies, in which case the surviving spouse will benefit from being married.

It would be stupid of anyone to assert that everyone should marry as it’s better. That simply isn’t true. But equally I don’t think it’s right to avoid marriage simply because one assumes every divorce will long, protracted and expensive.

I see it as a gamble either way and there are no guarantees whatever one chooses.

The point is that people need to be aware and make an educated choice instead of passively sitting around saying “nah I don’t need a fancy dress me and I don’t like church so I’ll stay as I am thanks”. Or worse “I’d love to get married by oh hasn’t proposed yet. He does want kids though, so we’ll just do that”. Just encouraging women to think it through.

I would though, like to see an alternative to marriage; like marriage with a different name. I know there shouldn’t HAVE to be such a thing, but there is a stigma attached to marriage in some circles.

“is a safer bet” sorry

In what way does the change in bereavement benefits refute the sentence of mine that you quoted lozster? Or even address it? They are reduced, but they remain unavailable to unmarried partners, at least until we get judgement from the SC (not HC) following last months hearing, and they are still enough to make a significant financial difference to lots of people.

You also can't really say they're likely to change, because having followed the relevant case in the lower courts, it's anyone's guess. Neither outcome would surprise me. I did welfare benefits law for a bit too, btw.

A friend's daughter was in a long-term relationship and produced two children by this man, all the while without going through the process of a marriage ceremony (church or civil), because she had believed that if a couple were living together for X number of years then it would be automatically classified as a Common Law Marriage and thus confer all the legal benefits of a traditional 'do'.

She didn't apparently check the status of this arrangement properly. Unfortunately. The partnership broke down, her former partner vanished off the face of the earth, and THEN she found out that Common Law Marriage has practically no legal standing at all.

If only she and he had taken a quick trip to a Registry Office and got that important bit of paperwork......

And “takes a court... to sort it out”. Typing far too fast. On my phone too!

And heard not geard! I give up! Pesky phone.

Either you are living in the dark ages or fail to see Development as it has developed all over the world in the past two decades.

Women of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Did not have the medical advancements we have in todays society. So they had children on the promise of a future relationship commitment in the absence of a ritual certificate that said they are bound together. It was called co-habitation and common law wives/husbands.

Being a product of such a relationship, we often took the names of our fathers as our mothers were automatically assumed to be 'married,' in the eyes of the law.

It was only when our fathers left that we realised the truth! So, to say that women 'did it on purpose,' certainly not! because in those days abortions were illegal and fraught with back street clinics and health problems that often resulted in death of the mother as well as the babies when it came to termination.

Thankfully in the past two decades we have developed the pill and abortion is now a necessity of choice for the participants.

As many male partners in the Uk now know, having your cake and eating it without being responsible to your ex partner or ex girlfriend is no longer accepted by the CSA who will make you have a paternity test and make you responsible for the children being brought into the world. So the onerous now is on both parties to get protected.

If not they will be made responsible for those they bring into the world.

As a result many fathers insists that the children are given their surnames despite not being married to the mothers.