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 “?

I do always worry for any SAHP who is not married . They are very vulnerable legally .

I'd be more outraged to be living in a country that insists on couples getting married if they want financial protection. Plenty of countries have relationship property protections that kick in after just a few years of a de facto relationship and give similar if not identical protections to marriage.

I don't agree with this. If I were to divorce I wouldn't remarry. I am reasonably wealthy and I wouldn't want to be obliged to split that if met someone else then broke up.

I believe that if you want the legal rights associated with marriage then get married.

I do believe however that it should be taught in school that the misconception of a "common law marriage" doesn't exist though.

In this day and age with contraception and the option of abortion etc, no one is getting hoodwinked into having children with someone they're not married to. If they're willing to accept the risk of doing that without being married that's up to them.

@notsohippychick you don’t need to spend money on a party to get married though, that’s the point. You can go the two of you to a registry office and get married for a £100 ish.

If you don't want to have any financial obligations towards the other partner and don't want to access the tax benefits of marriage, then you should be able to cohabit without having the rights and responsibilities forced upon you without having explicitly opted into that contract

If you do believe marriage is just a piece of paper and you want to delay the legal signing of a contract in order to have a big party at the same time, then presumably you have made an active choice to opt out of the financial rights and responsibilities of marriage, which generally offer protection to the more vulnerable & lower earning partner

The idea that you can't sign a legal contract without a big party is baffling to me. We did our legal marriage and our wedding celebration separately. A friend revealed she got legally married several months ago (for a spousal visa to stop her having to leave the country and her partner of many years), but hadn't told anyone - they'll do the party at a later date. Another friend got legally married when pregnant because it was important to have the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage before their child was born. They will have a wedding celebration at a later date. If a party is more important to you than the legal rights conferred by marriage if those legal rights are important to you, then fair enough. I just don't get it! But each to their own. If you'd prefer a party over being able to access things like bereavement allowance, your choice.

I do always worry for any SAHP who is not married . They are very vulnerable legally.

Why are you spending your time worrying about other people's decisions?

In the case a woman has been a sahp or worked part time/sacrificed promotion if the husband meets someone younger and leaves when the kids are teens then those women are absolutely fucked. All that sacrifice has been for nothing and he has the power to start again without backwards glance.It is very very unusual for a woman to be financially independent and have kids.
Doing it properly as you will only doing it once , or not being able to afford a party are missing the point. You need that legal contract. Those things have slso been used by men as excuses to future fake and carrot dangle.

Same name in my case to keep father interested in their offspring!

All that sacrifice has been for nothing

Well I've had 12 years of experiences with my children that OH hasn't because I've worked freelance or part time. I've also benefitted from his earnings paying my half of the mortgage etc.

But yes I do know a lot of previously high-flying professional women who now do not work. They are vulnerable married or not.

Why get over upset over something that doesn't affect you?

But whilst you are insistent... Some people get married for religious reasons/some for the
dress/the party.Others don't as they feel living with someone/having dcs is commitment enough.There are plenty of people who stay in unhappy marriages because of their religion-how hypocritical. I'm not telling you my status as it's not important and none of your business. Personally I have little time for people that are so judgemental and petty over other peoples lives when they aren't doing any harm to anyone. It's narrow minded. Maybe you have too little in yr life and too much time on yr hands to be considering this. Some people are obviously stuck in a timewarp and I can only pity them.

YANBU.

Jeez. 20 years ago I had DS. We weren't married, i did not want to get married then. We owned a house together with all the legal rights carefully set out & made wills. DS had half DH's name, which was hyphenated.

We did marry eventually, when I decided I was ready, & had another child. I kept my maiden name.

This was 20 years ago, and weirdly, it wasn't regarded as unusual or odd then. I'm shocked at how attitudes seem to have regressed.

*This thread is hilarious.

I'm an unmarried mother and my children have my surname.

Thankfully I don't recognise myself or my ex in the frankly ridiculous assertions being made about women in my situation on this thread.

For one thing, marriage would have been a financial risk for me, rather than providing me with security. But hey, let's just make assumptions about unmarried mothers financial situations. It's more fun that way.*

Fully agree.

Yes schnitzel the being "traditional" only applies one way it seems.

I see lots of couples with new babies professionally and feel uncomfortable and sad for the small minority of women with tiny babies that are unmarried due to the mans choice. The women are usually stepping back from their jobs to focus on their babies. I don't think well of those men. Taking from women without offering any protection or security in return. It's not right.

I do think people on here are very naive. Given the very high rate of divorce/break up we all see around us and women on here frequently outlining their financial and other problems due to being dumped you are very unwise to have children without being married unless you - have your own assets/high income from a well paid job or family money.

Men, let’s face it are not always that keen on children, hence the horrible stories we see on here about men who abandon their children.

When I was younger through work especially had men saying things like ‘why does she want a/another baby’ many of them see it as a hobby - like the hobbies women on here are always complaining about. This was usually followed by a divorce a few years later.

To protect yourself - don’t have children too young, get as good job as you can and keep it - make sure any property is in both names, make sure you pay into your own pension.

extint i'm not sure they have in real life tbh. However this is mn where it sometimes feels to me like threads are started to more or less say 'AIBU to think other women are much, much more stupid than me?'.
People who constantly moan are always a bit annoying.
People who have been mislead by someone they love get upset.

People that aren't married are only vulnerable if they aren't savvy enough to put their ducks in order incase of a split. I would like to think they are.

We owned a house together with all the legal rights carefully set out & made wills.

A legal cohabitation agreement is usually hundreds of pounds, significantly more expensive than a civil marriage. I don't get why it's worth spending hundreds of pounds at a solicitor to get one drawn up, rather than get married, but each to their own

Even then a legal cohabitation can't set out all rights.

Wills can be changed without the knowledge and consent of the other partner and an unmarried partner stands on much shakier legal ground to challenge a will than a married partner does, if they've been cut out of the will unknowingly

It's also impossible for a cohabitation agreement to secure married person's tax allowance, bereavement allowance and exemption from IHT

It is absolutely possible to get some financial arrangements in place through legal mechanisms without getting married. But they're more expensive and less comprehensive than marriage, if those rights are what you're seeking to replicate. If you're specifically trying to avoid these then of course a legal cohabitation agreement makes more sense.

In Australia for example they have essentially the same rights after a certain amount of time or after children. I wonder this every time one of these threads comes up (ie frequently).

In Australia, do you have the option of opting out of this So that you can live together without the financial commitment?

We have several 'millennial' couples in our family who have multiple children and are not married. The relationships are all a constant rollercoaster and the mums seem to struggle with kind of having the sort of rights that marrieds generally assume......so one pays her DP rent each month which we find odd. The mums are our blood relatives and everyone feels their rights and those of the kids are vulnerable without marriage. Cost, hassle etc are the reasons cited for not marrying.

@StAgnesEve you clearly haven’t spent much time on this board

too caught up in female socialisation to contemplate being the one that does the asking in a relationship

But in that case you try not to get yourself in that situation in the first place. If marriage is important to you then don't get pregnant. Yeah yeah accidents happen but don't actively try to conceive if you want to get married and the person you're with doesn't.

And marriage isn't expensive. A wedding can be - but they're not the same thing. A registry office ceremony costs very little.

having the sort of rights that marrieds generally assume......so one pays her DP rent each month

They live together, as a couple, with children, and she pays him rent? Does she have a tenancy agreement setting out how much?

I have no intention of getting married. I have made sure that I never need to rely on a man for anything. Something I would be teaching my daughter too.

I would stand to lose more if I was married and our relationship broke down. There is no incentive for me.

We have a happy family and I am secure in the knowledge we will both be ok if anything did go wrong - obviously hoping it won't come to that.

I think marriage is old fashioned and outdated. I would only opt for a civil partnership.

My direct experience is:

-Women who really really want a baby and aren’t massively fussed about the man- although there is love and a relationship there mainly it’s more “whoever you’re in a relationship with at 35” than “the one”

I find these women tend to be quite laid back and probably not so fussed, at the beginning at least, or, have total blind faith that they will get a proposal at some point anyway

• women who are running out of time and just can’t wait for proposal, engagement, wedding planning etc. Start having the babies and then come back to marriage which isn’t time limited

• finally- and it does happen- women who want to keep the relationship going and make it more serious than it is.

Of course men who want babies do all of the same. Personally I wouldn’t have children outside of marriage but I had that choice. Many women who want the fairy tale have to accept that the ship has sailed and get on with it, but the longing for a big day doesn’t always go away

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

We are getting married next year. Cost of the service on a Monday afternoon? £225 for proper legal protection for both of us.

I mean financially primal. Too many men think 'funding' a woman to be a sahm is a huge favour. Shes also working, providing labour not money. That is for nothing when the dad has been using his labour to fund his pension which you'd get none of.
Memories of caring for kids are nice but dont pay the bills in old age.