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 “?

@oliver

Good for your friend (friend 2)! How terrible for friend 1 .

Marriage is 100% no protection against evil behaviour from men like that. (But then, neither is just cohabiting imo).

And YY, I know anyone can turn! So far, I can’t imagine anything less likely than my dh doing the same, but I never say never to anything in life!

And you’re right, I have heard of men becoming more controlling as soon as the wedding ring is on. There is a spike in domestic violence perpetrated by men against women when their partners are pregnant as well. I told my dad that and he just said “aren’t men bastards”? He really meant it!

Just a point that marriage isn’t a one stop shop as said upthread.

You do still need to make wills and name beneficiaries and makes sure your name is on everything you need it to to be on. You cannot just delegate it all to one signature, rely on marital law and assume it’ll be OK.

We can’t lament how people don’t sort their positions out and make wills on one hand and suggest that if they would just marry they don’t need to do any of that stuff on the other.

@oliver. Your example is one example of where marriage can make you worse off - if there is only joint property as you say, she would be better off unmarried as she now has the cost of divorce plus his debts can be taken off her share in the award.

My case is another- my ex had very few assets and I had built up a lot and was a higher earner. He was never abusive and I gave him some stuff (car, some money) but I took the home for me and the dcs that I would otherwise have had to split.

I do think there is an element of smugness on this thread. Ultimately to get married you need two people to consent. In the cases people post on here it’s usually that the other person doesn’t want to marry (keeping their opinions open as I did). There’s not much you can do about that other than to take steps to protect yourself (house in at least joint names) as much as you can or leave.

But unlike me who never married she wont end up with half the house and half the rental properties as with my situation any debts my dp runs up in his name are his whilst if you are married they become half hers.

NO NO NO NO NO THEY DON'T.

Not if she's in England and Wales anyway.

Sorry for the capitals, but this is a really common and really dangerous error. People say it all the time. You don't automatically have responsibility for your spouse's debts because of marriage. That's not a thing.

There are certainly situations where the debts can have an impact. If you jointly own property, for example, whether married or not then the other person owing debts secured on their share of the property obviously can have a big impact on you. Not being married will provide you with precisely zero protection there. It's possible, no 'will' about it for debts to be considered as part of any divorce settlement. It's also possible for them not to be considered at all.

Basically, partnering and having assets and/or children with someone opens you up to the possibility of them being a dick and then on separation, using court proceedings as a means to abuse you. That friend of yours married to the abusive cumrag oliver, that's what would have happened to her if she'd just lived with him instead. Someone who's as much of a shit as that wouldn't have been like, oh we haven't got married so I guess I'll just behave myself instead.

Also there are examples in England where cohabitants have received a share of assets (usually a house) by establishing that there was an agreement for them to own part of it and that they had contributed. Generally these are pretty rare and it’s expensive to take things like that to court. Cohabitants do have certain rights in Scotland. So it’s not clear cut and varies. Generally if you are the poorer party though, you would be better off married. But not always (as Oliver’s example shows).

And of course if you are the wealthier party you would be better off unmarried . Financially at least (which seems to be what threads like this are about).

If I were ever to marry it would be for love. I would be concerned at this stage though about protecting my assets for my dcs. So it’s never simple

You do still need to make wills and name beneficiaries and makes sure your name is on everything you need it to to be on. You cannot just delegate it all to one signature, rely on marital law and assume it’ll be OK.

You definitely shouldn't. That's sage advice. I mentioned upthread that I didn't bother with a will for a while after getting married because the intestacy provisions did what I wanted, but that was on the basis of knowing what was in them.

It's just that if you don't, and the reality is that at minimum a significant minority and probably a majority of the population don't, the existing de facto provisions for married people who couldn't be fucked doing anything other than getting married often do a pretty good job.

And this is the important point to make. Because for all the posts about putting in place wide ranging alternative and frequently expensive provisions instead, the reality is that at least a significant minority and probably a majority don't. Unmarried people should be better at it, but all the evidence is that they're worse- not surprising since married couples also have more money on average and lawyers are more expensive than registrars. And meanwhile the CBA marrieds are better protected as a group than the CBA cohabitants.

Whether the wealthy person will be better off depends on their priorities and outcome really zsazsa. Marriage is on average more likely to end with the death of one party than it is with divorce, so a richer person wanting to hedge their bets might well feel IHT is the more pressing concern. It's just about what the person is most bothered about protecting against.

@paul I AM AFRAID YOURE WRONG. (I can use caps too). The divorce settlement will likely take into account his debts and could award her less than she otherwise would get. Matrimonial assets you see - court can award the share they think fit.

That’s where the “protection” so many are talking about comes from. Giving the share of assets on divorce to one party that they wouldn’t otherwise get if they were not married.

@paul Richer person would be dead or have the assets anyway paul. So not really a consideration .

I think nearly half of marriages end in divorce- so certainly a concern.

YY to wills and name on mortgage regardless. When my mum died, (quite young and unexpected), it made things so much quicker that she had a will.

And other ways of tax planning for iht Lots and lots. And lots

Spouses don’t necessarily get everything on intestacy either. So if no will some could go to children (in England) and even if there is a will some will go to children (in Scotland).

Yes yes to wills, that post of mine was careless. We do have wills as well as our marriage.

If a man doesn't want to marry you he has his reasons for that. Going along with the 'its just a piece of paper' talk is weak, giving your power to a man and living in hope that 'one day' he will propose.

Thinking that now you have children, thats a reason he will (may?) marry you. There is nothing independent about that.

Being afraid to have a conversation that you could and should have had when relationship turned serious.

I know men who've been with their partner for years, unmarried, upped and left then got with another woman and married her. Perhaps that woman required marriage and was confident enough to say so.

I can never understand why some women seem to think they're making a big statement by having children with a man and remaining unmarried. You're not. It's wife in everything but name, and less security.

This is how women get played, then try to imply that married women are in a worse position. No - they're not.

We live in a society where women put themselves into precarious positions over men, and are in total denial about it. Talking as if remaining unmarried but playing wife role to suit the man is something great.

Still each to their own. If happy that way then fine. But there are enough posts from women awaiting proposals, or left by their DPs after 20 years and worried about their financial position to make me know there are a lot of women who aren't happy with their status quo and are pandering to men's wishes and putting their own aside.

There's nothing wrong with a woman considering finances as part of marriage either. So what. We are encouraged to think critically about many aspects of our lives but as soon as it comes to men and marriage, take some pointless moral high ground re 'that which should not be mentioned'.

@paul I AM AFRAID YOURE WRONG. (I can use caps too). The divorce settlement will likely take into account his debts and could award her less than she otherwise would get. Matrimonial assets you see - court can award the share they think fit.

You do realise that's what I said? That courts can take into account debts but do not have to do so, meaning it's incorrect to say they will. There's no automatic provision for a spouse to be responsible for the debts of another spouse in English law. An important point to stress because it's a misconception many people are under.

@paul Richer person would be dead or have the assets anyway paul. So not really a consideration

Two rather large problems with this claim:

1. Some people are wealthier than their partner whilst also being concerned about their partner's financial well being and tax liability even after they themselves die.

1. Being wealthy doesn't mean you'd have enough to pay an IHT bill, especially if like most people these days your wealth is primarily in your home.

It is of course possible to have a vehicle in place to pay IHT, but this again assumes the couple have the money to do it. It is also possible to be the wealthier partner and not care what happens to your widow/er, and/or to also have enough assets to pay IHT without hardship or having to sell the family home. But again, these things cannot be assumed.

It is thus very clear that some wealthier partners will still find their interests and concerns are better served by marriage.

I think nearly half of marriages end in divorce- so certainly a concern.

Yes, just a lesser one than the marriage ending in death which is statistically rather more likely.

Spouses don’t necessarily get everything on intestacy either. So if no will some could go to children (in England) and even if there is a will some will go to children (in Scotland).

But then nobody said they did. Though I should have clarified I was talking about England and Wales, which is the jurisdiction in which I'm qualified to practice.

It is, however, certainly the case that for a lot married, intestate couples, the intestacy provisions do what is needed. I learned this when I was doing probate. Frankly a lot of simpler wills for couples pretty much mirror the intestacy provisions anyway. My first one did.

So on the whole, not a particularly successful series of interjections there zsazsa...

Absolutely Yorrick. !

I would also suggest that their is also a degree of 'coercion' by women themselves. That kicks off this situation. I know everyone will be lighting their flame throwers but bear with me while I attempt to explain what I mean.

When couples meet up there is (in vast majority of cultures) complete equality of choice. You spend time with someone, you get to know them. If you like them you keep seeing them. Time passes and either you both feel the same about each other and the relationship develops into love and deeper respect or one /both of you decide it's not for you. There is no pressure either way.

When the relationship has had that time to develop without pressure and a deep bond has formed, marriage is the natural next step. It is wanted by both. They want a declaration to the world that they love each other. The romantic side is firm. There is also the practical side. Both are adults with no responsibility except to each other. There is time to develop this deep bond and also time to make a home in which to bring up a family . Both are working. Paying a mortgage or rent is a lot easier when divided by two. Especially when you are a t the bottom of the career ladder. It's a real partnership. This way of doing it is not because of some outdated patriarchy , religious fanaticism or ideas of Male 'ownership'. It is simply the most sensible way to make sure you know who you are shacking up with. So babies are born into the most secure environment. It takes time. Simple as that.

The other side of the coin. The woman gets pregnant - and of course I understand that it is a joint enterprise - there is a HUGE amount of duplicity surrounding 'accidental' pregnancy.
Contraception in a relationship is 'mostly' something the woman takes care of. This is a HUGE issue. Men are gambling with their fertility by trusting someone they don't yet know well.
There are about 15 different methods of contraception. Including MAP and termination. If you really don't want to be pregnant, you don't have to be. The effectiveness of contraception is not based on socio economic class. If it were the leafy suburbs of Surrey would have an equal number of cohabiting couples to the inner cities. It doesn't. It's choice. Mostly born by a society that wants everything NOW. No time to get to know each other. Just 'want a baby'. "I'll have a baby. Oops didn't take my pill/get injection. Never mind - I'm in a relationship, he'll be happy. He wants to be with me. (Or in worst cases, this will MAKE him stay with me" - and in MOST cases he does. But the relationship is not get fully developed. There is an OBLIGATION in the relationship, a child. The un-pressured nature of the relationship has changed . Deciding wether this person is someone you want to build a life with is now completely skewed by obligation. An obligation that has not been an equal choice. Getting pregnant is a joint enterprise. Staying pregnant is a choice quite rightly , the domain of a woman.
I am not suggesting for one minute that men don't love or want their children. I am suggesting the lack of control of their own fertility (their fault) combined with women , prepared to make a unilateral decision about the arrival of babies into a relationship removes choice. A baby arriving to a female partner the man has just met and doesn't know - can be just as loved by a man who has been married to the mother for 20yrs. It's the relationship between parents that is different.
Marriage is a choice. It remains the EQUAL choice between contracting parties. Babies are a single choice. Not bringing children into a fledgling or half formed relationship gives it the chance to develop to marriage or die. Bringing children into the mix obliges someone to stick around who may have made a different decision but that development of a decision is overwritten by the commitment of children.

Men are not monsters but neither are they stupid. Most men will stick around when a baby is on the way. Married or not. I think everyone hopes that a happy family life will develop. What can't be forced is feelings . If you are living with someone who becomes pregnant, who you like well enough. then of course you stay. There is a child and you are fond of the mother. Marriage is a whole different level of commitment that hasn't been allowed to develop. As well in some cases a deep resentment (unfounded as THEY should have protected their fertility) that they had been bounced into fatherhood without choice and will not do the same for marriage.

To my mind (and because of the horrific experience of my dear friend in my last post) I have thought about this a lot. The answer is , as ever, EDUCATION. Everyone has the right to their own decisions even bad ones. But make sure that it is a decision based on fact. This topic should be at the forefront of the relationships and sexual health agenda in schools. No women should leave school not knowing EXACTLY what consequences there are to children before marriage and the subsequent lessening/ loss of income. Young men MUST start taking ownership of their fertility. Don't want a child. Wear a condom. Do not trust anyone else with your rights of procreation. We on MN know men lie . Women lie too. At present there are a Male pill, Gel and non surgical vasectomy in clinical trial. I will put my last penny on the plummet of 'surprise' pregnancies and an upsurge in marriage once the decision to have children becomes something that both parties have control over.

Great postPaulDacreRimsGeese. and puts to bed any myths touted around by the I'm unmarried and happy brigade. I can confirm the issue about debts. My DH had a tax debt to his company of which both he and his ex wife were directors. The judge decided in her favour and my now DH had to pay the lot. He still smarts about it now but actually I think it was fair. He 'ran' the company and should have sorted out the debts before they accrued to the level they did. It's always down to the judge to make the call. No set formula.

Ultimately there is no argument to be had on this topic. If a single sahm/part time working mother who lives in their partners home, wants to come on this thread and tell us why they are happy to be unmarried then I will be interested to listen. It's all very well for the independently wealthy, high earning women with joint home ownership to keep blathering on about how they have made the right choice, - but you are a minuscule minority.

** I made this point a few days ago and someone came along to say that I was wrong as they had statistics from 'LV' (no idea - insurance company maybe) that refutes my figures. Because '25 % of women under 40 earn more than their Male partners'. ! !!
This shows such a stunning lack of understanding of statistics. The ONS only has 71 % of ALL women 16-64 in work at all !. So that '25%' is missing over 29% of the child birthing/raising women in the population. Add to that a percentage of the under 40s from that who are married and you have a nonsensical comparison.
For facts on the issue of cohabitation vs marriage. Go to the ONS and be prepared to be truly horrified as to how this is a shitty 'put up with' that poorer women and their children have walked into.

@paul. I’m afraid not necessarily. Marriage doesn’t necessarily benefit the wealthier party. If you own all the assets and your partner passes away, there are no iht implications of not being married. None. And also you don’t have to worry about handing your assets over on divorce.

A simple will that mirrors intestacy provisions wouldn’t usually be appropriate where iht was a concern. I can only assume that you don’t have too many years pqe in probate (or you don’t deal with high earners).

Anyway marriage doesn’t benefit all women and certainly doesn’t benefit everyone. Because where there’s a winner there’s a loser. In many women’s circumstances they’d be better off getting married but in a significant minority they would not. And in any event as I pointed out - it’s not a choice open to many women in these situations as their partner doesn’t want to marry them.

It’s not a miniscule minority either font (women who earn more than their partner). It’s about a quarter. I know quite a few. Lots of men don’t work too - you’re muddling the stats.

So sorry- those may be your circumstances but they are not everyone’s.

in my case I was worse off married as exraned 10x what he did but that's quite rare. It just depends on the situation. I would not marry again and I hope not to pay IHT (as want to die penniless if I can!)

What are the benefits of living with and having children witha man, that are so advantageous in comparison with marrying him?

& are these "benefits" something discussed at serious stage "oh just to make it clear to you, we aren't going to ever marry because..."

I doubt it.

Do people have lots of friends who are married and poverty stricken as a result?

I don't know a single shacked up no marriage couple in real life who even appear to be somehow better off than married couples

Those women sad at the realisation they won't marry the man they love/father of their children etc are the ones crying on the end of their married girlfriends' phones.

The denial of how things are in real life is strange. We live in a patriarchal world of course we have less advantages. The sooner more women wake up to that and accept that no, kids family life + non-marriage isn't some marvellous concept that benefits the woman not the man, then the better.

It's not about comparing non-marriage to marriage. It's about stop pretending non-marriage is the great option when it comes to interdependence.

“ No women should leave school not knowing EXACTLY what consequences there are to children before marriage and the subsequent lessening/ loss of income. Young men MUST start taking ownership of their fertility. “

I agree young people should be educated about the pros and cons of their choices and to protect themselves. But this is unnecessarily loaded language.

• everyone (not just women) should be protecting themselves and understand the laws surrounding marriage and intestacy.
• everyone (not just men) must take ownership of their fertility and understand how adding a child can affect their earning potential, and how it changes their status and obligations in law.

It is about giving the information. Not drawing lines in the sand.

@paul. I’m afraid not necessarily. Marriage doesn’t necessarily benefit the wealthier party.

I KNOW!!!!

You're the one who phrased it as an absolute when it isn't. You said 'of course if you're the wealthier party you'll be better off unmarried'. I, correctly, said this generalisation is incorrect because it is going to depend on the circumstances and priorities of said wealthier party. Which it does.

If you own all the assets and your partner passes away, there are no iht implications of not being married. None. And also you don’t have to worry about handing your assets over on divorce.

Yeeeees. Why do you think that's relevant to anything I've said in my posts?

A simple will that mirrors intestacy provisions wouldn’t usually be appropriate where iht was a concern.

This is a strawman. Not for one second did I suggest that it was. You are not in any way refuting the point that I made.

Anyway marriage doesn’t benefit all women and certainly doesn’t benefit everyone. Because where there’s a winner there’s a loser. In many women’s circumstances they’d be better off getting married but in a significant minority they would not. And in any event as I pointed out - it’s not a choice open to many women in these situations as their partner doesn’t want to marry them.

Yes, this is precisely what I have said on a number of occasions throughout the thread. Although you're wrong on the where there's a winner there's a loser point. A married widow/er who wins by not having to sell their home to pay IHT isn't winning at the expense of another person. Well, the person who'd have purchased the home I suppose.

What would be the point of school lessons re marital and co-habiting rights? Who is going to deliver those lessons?

Most people talk around the houses around the subject and can't even get to or accept that of you're co-habiting you don't have marital rights. If it's your choice why not live with it? 1000 words of blah pertaining to what it should be (but isn't) is pointless.

It's not as if you're forced to marry, or not. People have choices. You are not 'forced' to marry to get certain rights. You can stand in your own right.

Any direct pertinent questions on thread are ignored - it happens every time this subject is brought up yet again.

Those co-habiting but apparently don't want to be married..strangely, they talk the most about it and find various ways to judge married couples too.

A certain type of man reading online about all these women who will have kids with him and he doesn't have to bother with marriage, will be rubbing his hands with glee. Relationships board shows what a car crash all this is re co-habiting.

It doesn't matter who does the asking/proposing. Men - especially younger men - won't marry a woman if they think she's not good enough to share life with. They'll take what's on offer tho, and will move on eventually to a woman they do want to be married too. Lots of threads about that.

So much denial of reality in favour of some fantasy world where women call all the shots.

We live in a patriarchal world and women need to know how to navigate it well. That's the reality

ZsaZsa - sorry you are talking nonsense. Your statistic of 25% of ALL women under 40 earning more than their partners brings nothing to this debate. ALL women under 40 includes married women, single women, and divorced women . It also includes ALL childless women, IN ALL of those categories !! I am in NO doubt that at least 25 % of single childless women under 40 earn more than their partners. Probably more. It doesn't however mean that 25% of ALL cohabiting women with children earn more than their partners. For a start 29% of ALL women aged 16-64 don't work outside the home.

You need to take a class in statistical in analysis before spouting figures . You are trying to compare apples with pears.

Married, divorced, single women and to a minor extent childless women do NOT form part of this debate as they are not detrimentally affected by the lack of security in cohabitation when the assets are owned and accrued by the wealthier man.