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 “?

Unfortunately because of friends disabilities she really isn't capable of representing herself.

Not really confident with the solicitor.

The bill keeps going up by £1000s. £7000 added since April. Solicitor wont give her a breakdown.

Just caught up with the scenario of the women struggling to divorce. I am baffled as to how marriage has made this harder. Presuming your friends stbex is an arsehole plain and simple and not made one by marriage ? There wasn't some weird transformation from decent guy to fuckwit upon the exchange of rings. ?
The house issue would still need a court procedure. He could still fuck around rack up the bills and attempt to screw her.

Again it's an anecdotal situation that doesn't 'prove' marriage is not the sensible path when there are children.

If you have children and are not married - earn less/live in partners house or are not named on deeds on your home then you are in a very vulnerable position. There is no discussion to be had on this point. It's fact.

If you're NOT in that position, have a higher salary/own your home/ have independent wealth, then you are NOT in such a vulnerable position and do not need to marry for security. Fact

Vast majority of cohabiting women are in the former group.
Fact

There wasn't some weird transformation from decent guy to fuckwit upon the exchange of rings

Yes there was. I have known a few who did just this. One who didn't make it back from the honeymoon.
*If you have children and are not married - earn less/live in partners house or are not named on deeds on your home then you are in a very vulnerable position. There is no discussion to be had on this point. It's fact.

If you're NOT in that position, have a higher salary/own your home/ have independent wealth, then you are NOT in such a vulnerable position and do not need to marry for security. Fact*

I would say it isn't about being in one category or another
You might not have a job but your name is on the deeds, pension, wills etc.

With friend if she hadn't married it would have been one court case. He wouldn't have to come up with paperwork or answer questions about his salary. How much his business was making etc
It would be a straight asking permission to sell the properties and then splitting the money 50/50 and moving on.

That isn't necessarily so though. There'd be nothing to prevent him fucking around with paperwork and/or making applications for more than 50%. Are we really saying he wouldn't?

I can also well believe that a switch flipped when they got married, heard about that happen before, but someone as horrible as that wouldn't have behaved himself for 18 years of partnership.

You might not have a job but your name is on the deeds, pension, wills etc.

Deeds yes. But beneficiary names on wills, pensions and life insurance policies can very easily be changed, so mean nothing. Absolutely nothing to stop someone very quickly and easily changing their will, changing the beneficiary name on a pension or insurance policy. There's absolutely no protection at all.

You would still have pension and will if partner died and half a house if you split.

Pp talked about her friend"Lucy" who ended up with nothing as although she had obviously moved with the bf over the years she hadn't insisted on her name being on the mortgage or deeds.
I wonder if her partner would have been so quick to jump into bed with another woman if he thought it would cost him half the equity in his house.

OliversMummy you really need to stop trying to persuade everyone that cohabitation with children is the same or better financially. It really isn't.

Except if you are in a tiny tiny minority . Less than 3% of cohabiting women between 16-64 With children .. earn more than their partner.

It is simply really bad advice.

To continue with ;
You would still have pension and will if partner died and half a house if you split.
Is even more ridiculous.
On the matter of pensions ;
For occupational pension schemes, any entitlement to a spouses' pension is determined by the scheme deed and trustees.
There are usually 2 types of benefits which are payable:

1. The first comes as a lump sum payment. This is usually only paid on the death of the active scheme member.

The member can nominate who they would like the benefit to go to before they die and, as such, unmarried partners can benefit as much as married partners. (BUT the person whose pension it is CAN CHANGE THIS AT ANYTIME WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE.MARRIED OR NOT.

1. After this, there is the widow/widower's pension. This is usually 50% or 65% of the members pension. THIS CANNOT BE CHANGED . IF YOU ARE MARRIED YOU GET IT.

This is determined on an individual basis according to the pension scheme level, but legislation does now stipulate that registered civil partners must be treated same as married couples. However, this does not extend to couples co-habiting. So most schemes will pay out to married and registered partners but not to unmarried partner not in a civil partnership – this is unlikely to change given the shortfall in funding of many schemes. For personal pensions, individuals can decide whether they would like a spouses' pension – once again these are normally paid to married spouses or civil partners but some providers now allow you to nominate a unmarried partner before you die. AGAIN THIS CAN BE CHANGED WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. So at present, unmarried partners are at a disadvantage to married couple and registered civil partnerships.

All Wills can be changed prior to death. Married or not. But if you are married your other half cannot 'Will' ALL the property you jointly live in to his children. Leaving you homeless because Half is yours upon marriage.

Your partner can.

'Lucy's partner had a Will. Lucy's partner had a HUGE pension that Lucy had enabled him to amass by being the perfect corporate 'wife' for 25 yrs. Lucy's partner also had £2m of life insurance.
Upon marriage to his Latvian Lovely - his Will was revoked automatically. The life insurance became payable to the spouse and his Pension also to his spouse.

There is no 'spin' to put in this. Women think they have somehow liberated themselves from the patriarchy by not marrying and having child. When in fact they have made themselves far far worse off.

Women don't ACTUALLY think it's liberated though. I 100% agree with your post fontofknowledge

Most in this situation know that if they pushed it, they'd just end up a single parent and have to start again. But that is for the best because as soon as a woman is on her own any little she has is her own pot.

I’ve thought of a scenario where marriage is a disadvantage. If you (as a couple) want to buy a second house. An unmarried couple can own one each and pay normal SDLT on both but a married couple can’t.

If they own a house each then the woman won't be homeless in the event of a split.

It is very often SAHMs who end up in these shoes I think. Not women with salaries who have their own house somewhere else. Or if they do, they are hardly staying awake at night worried about splitting up.

You wouldn’t both need to be working to do the house each. Just one big wage.

I’m married for what it’s worth, partly to protect DH (who doesn’t work) and partly just because we wanted to.

There are PLENTY of scenarios where a high earning woman might be financially better off on paper being unmarried

If you're sufficiently wealthy to buy two homes then chances are you're going to be liable for IHT, so swings and roundabouts from a tax POV

Oh yes lots of individuals are better off not married. I was trying to think of ways in which a couple are better off. I think almost always they aren’t.

It's priorities too. SDLT or IHT? Is the high earner more concerned about divorce or death? Depends where you're sitting.

Tbh as long as people think, and are informed, I'm ok with that. If a couple are sufficiently aware that there's an IHT v SDLT implication, I'd reckon they would know enough to come to a good decision. Whatever it is.

The classic case of cohabiting being best for both is when both people have children from previous relationships, no plans to have kids together, and want to be sure their estates go straight and fully to their own children.

Cohabiting can be the better option, and many people on here have made it clear they don't want to marry. So it's best that marriage continues to exist as an opt-in contract, rather than something that happens by stealth or inevitably if you want to cohabit for X years. That means people can always choose if they want to do it or not.

"The classic case of cohabiting being best for both is when both people have children from previous relationships, no plans to have kids together, and want to be sure their estates go straight and fully to their own children."

Exactly. I'd worry about cohabiting being given the same status as marriage after XX amount of time has passed--surely this could create a huge barrier for lone parents who simply want a relationship but don't want to pool their finances.

Very good point re previous children.

My grandfather did the classic of marrying a much younger woman after he was widowed. So my mum and her sisters got nothing after he died. It all went to her and will then go to her children, including a lot of art and furniture and jewellery which was my grandmother’s.

*fontofnoknowledge"

Very long reply. Yes I agree with what you say.

As I said if one partner died you would get pension and will but if they split and both names are on the deeds they would get at least half the house.

I mentioned "Lucy" because of the fact Lucy and her partner had most probably bought houses as Lucy's partner moved up the corporate ladder. I was wondering why Lucy had never had her name on the mortgage or the deeds and if she had her name on the deeds would her partner have been so quick to jump in to bed with some one else if he thought he would lose half the house.

Yes it was a long reply although you still don't get my point because you reiterate

As I said if one partner died you would get pension and will but if they split and both names are on the deeds they would get at least half the house.

It is extremely unlikely that you would get a pension (as per the long post) and a Will is in the hands of the writer who can change that without your knowledge at any time. Marriage makes you entitled to the spousal pension because you are a spouse.

The one thing above all else that I learned from going through 'Lucys' awful split - was just how much a 'none' person she was. At almost every turn she was told 'but you aren't married' 'I'm sorry but we can't do that without your partners permission' (permission that had been freely given for 25 yrs) ... mention 'ex-partner' and you might as well be invisible. There is no legal recognition for partner at any point . Even after 25 yrs. It was heartbreaking and frustrating. Even more so that someone who had only known her partner 15 Weeks had been bequeathed all those rights that she had been denied.

As Lucy said.. it seems I was the 'alright for now' woman, it just worked out that 'now' lasted 25 yrs.
Regarding name on the property , this is something that hadn't crossed her mind to not of happened. She assumed, (as many many women - especially women do) that this would have happened automatically by the partner she loved and trusted and had 4 children with and had been with since she was 16 !!. The idea of this devoted family man doing what he did, was inconceivable not only to her but also to me. We honestly thought his anti marriage weirdness was a reaction to parental divorce - not a deliberate calculation to keep all for himself.

RileyW has actually summed it up perfectly. ;

I’m married for what it’s worth, partly to protect DH (who doesn’t work) and partly just because we wanted to.

If you love someone sufficiently to make a child. Why wouldn't you want this for your child's parent. Like RileyW why wouldn't you want to protect them ? . My belief is that there simply isn't enough care in the relationship to want to do this. Regardless of who is earning the most. If you LOVE someone . Really LOVE them , you want to 'cherish' and protect them. Somethings are greater than money.

I am on dp's pension. I have seen all the paperwork when he was sorting his affairs out. As well as Life Insurance and Wills.

Realise all that could be changed in a moment.

I don't understand why "Lucy" thought she would be on a mortgage or deeds if she obviously didn't sign anything.

How would her partner have put her name on a house if she didn't sign anything.

That assumption is mind boggling.

The idea of this devoted family man doing what he did, was inconceivable not only to her but also to me

Maybe I am more cynical, always have been. But not having her name on the deeds to her home would have been a gigantic red flag. Certainly wouldn't have moved in with him in the first place.

I would argue that cohabitation is equally disastrous for step families - and in the long term, even more so.
Bearing in mind that this thread is about making sure people are aware of their rights and best interests - rather than insist everyone get married - and is aimed at the standard cohabitation set up where Male partner is working full time and Female is either a sahm in order to facilitate childcare to young children or in low income part time employment to slightly older children. The home is in his name.

If you look at the above scenario and imagine the couple break up. After a few years of being a single mum and receiving sporadic child maintenance, (Which was her only entitlement as no claim on a house) the woman meets a man who is also separated. He was also unmarried but has two children who live with their mum.

The mother in our scenario is surviving on tax credits and part time work in rented accom. Not well off but not on the breadline. All she has , is hers. Now she moves in to New boyfriends home. She loses tax credits and her home but that's ok because new man is kind, good to the children and treats everyone well. He shares his income. He pays maintenance. When the children reach Secondary school she ups her hours to full time. She starts to pay the bills while he pays the mortgage. Boyfriend able to save some money now she's doing this. She is still low paid so paying bills is most of her money and nothing to save.

After 20yrs together, he drops dead. No Will. Law of intestacy doesn't even list 'partner'. The estate including the property she lives in belong to the two children. She is homeless.. with only the small savings she has managed to save since the children have left home.

This is a pretty standard scenario for a second relationship. Marriage is the same protection for the lower income earner as it is for a first relationship. The only difference is the MORAL issue of the fathers Estate going to the stepmother , who could then leave it all to her children bypassing his.

I would suggest it is ESSENTIAL to get married if you are in a second relationship with children each but not jointly if you are the lower income earner and do not own your own home OR both.

I would suggest it is ESSENTIAL you don't get married if you own your own home and want it to go to your children in entirety and not your spouse until you have taken legal advice on 'assets amassed before the marriage ' which can be ring fenced.

However like RileyW I married because I wanted to. DH has children as do I. None together. We both bought money from our divorce to the purchase of the property so that's straightforward because we have a legal agreement whereby DH has left 'his' half to his children as have I. However they only get this when we are both dead. If DH dies first his kids can't force me out to get the money and vice versa if I die first.
Our cash is in separate accounts and left to each other and children in individual bequests.
My pension goes to him.
My lump sum goes to my children
His pension goes to me
His lump sum to his children.

If we didn't marry the pensions simply end when they die. It's a spousal pension (married and civil partnership only) NOT a partner pension.
The house situation wouldn't change.
Marriage would have no other effect on the Will as Wills can be changed without a partner or spouse knowing.

Ultimately its the pension situation that has the biggest effect but having paid in all my life I want this for my husband should I die. With all things considered , it is the Pension that makes marriage essential for second marriages as this is something often only payable to a spouse and is simply lost if there isn't one.

Oliversmummy you have answered the question yourself. 'I suppose I am cynical' . Lucy wasn't (that has changed big time) she was also 18 when they moved in together to a rental property and had a baby 2 yrs later. No 'red flag' to hoist as no one was on any deeds. First house not bought until second child was born. By that point she had been home with both dcs for a year. No income. Didn't begin to think she 'could' be on the deeds because she didn't earn anything.

This is a man who rose from 'photo copy boy' to director of his own venture capital company in 30 yrs. Facilitated by his 'wife' taking care of everything at home including the care and upbringing of 4 children. A facilitation which is financially recognised and handsomely recognised by the legal system for a legally registered wife but completely worthless for a 'partner'. The ex 'd'p did the paperwork /earned the (shedload of) money. She did the home, kids, holiday bookings, corporate entertainment, shopping, cooking and companionship/sexual partner. People aren't generally cynical. Especially after such a long relationship. They assume stuff that they shouldn't assume but they do.

She DID say she wanted to get married many times over the years mainly because she felt 'second class' being the only one of her friends unmarried. But he was adamant that he didn't 'believe in it'.
She did say to him that she was worried about if he died - and was constantly told (and shown) that she was named on the life insurance, pension and Will (leaving her the house). This was a phenomenal amount of money - talking £4-5m. So was not unduly concerned. What she DIDN'T realise was that a subsequent marriage made all these invalid in favour of the new wife.

If you've had kids with someone and become financially vulnerable as a result, and that person turns out to be an arsehole, then it won't be marriage that's fucking you over in the majority of cases. In most cases, it'll provide some financial protection. Arsehole fathers gonna arsehole.

Arsehole fathers gonna arsehole

True story^^

It's a combination of things I think. As women, we delude ourselves into thinking that he'll want to marry me once we have kiddies. While men DO still think 'why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free'. We use excuses like 'a wedding is SO expensive', when it just isn't true. We also have a welfare state that supports women who choose to be single mums far too easily.

It may be old fashioned, but I really believe that you should make the commitment to a partner first i.e. marriage THEN you take on the commitment of kids. Or you have kids in the full knowledge that your DP will probably not be there to support them long term, and don't complain when it happens. And yes I know marriages break up, but no where near as fast as partnerships do.