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 “?

kirsten you clearly don't understand my point. [Never mind. Have better things to do than waste my time on this thread. I'm off.

Usually it's because the women don't need their partners permission to have a baby, they just need a 'contraception' failure - usually within the first few months of meeting.

Then there's nothing more like to put a man off a proposal than a child.

Bit of a broad statement. Lots of reasons some people fear marriage which isn't committment based. Eg had a terrible divorce from first partner or saw family going through a divorce. Also some people may see a stigma attached to a second marriage.

I am unmarried, have two children and live with my partner. Getting married is not on either of our radars atm

But that's not what the OP is talking about. She's talking about people who have a partner and kids and want to get married but their boyfriend doesn't. She;s not talking about couples who for whatever reason have decided marriage isn't for them.

Let me guess alot of PP saying YANBU are the ones who had a career, bought a house and then got married followed by children?

That doesn't make them any happier than those who did it the other way round. Marriage doesn't guarantee a happy life. I know plenty of people who did it that way around and now moan how unhappy their marriage is. Nothing is guaranteed, which ever way you choose to do it.

This post is simply a dig at people who choose to have children first. Please get down off your pedestal OP.

Life happens!

Okay, let me give a direct example of how relationship protections work. An older cousin of mine met a man in her late 40s. They dated for a while casually and gradually became more serious. Both had been married before. The guy was reluctant to be married again but insisted he was committed. She held out hope... as an older woman she felt her options were limited.

They did up a house that he owned (she did not own her own property), sold it, he bought another under his own name, she used her share of the profits to pay towards renovations. She lost her job and struggled to find a new one, so put a great deal of time and effort into the house renovations.

Long story short, he then had an affair and ordered her out. Told her he couldn’t afford to sell the house and that because she’d been living there rent-free while unemployed, he didn’t owe her a thing.

Now, it’s clear she didn’t make brilliant choices here. But are her choices so bad that in her early 50s she deserves to be turfed out with nothing? No. This is why legal protections exist. He profited substantially from their relationship and left her with nothing. That’s not okay.

Putting marriage isn't about making a difference to your happiness

It's a purely legal arrangement

It's like taking out an insurance policy

Having insurance doesn't make you happier....until something goes wrong

Except marriage doesn't have a monthly cost like insurance does!

If you don't want to enter into a legal arrangement then don't. If you don't want to take out insurance then don't. If it suits you better to go without then go without. But opt out of these legal arrangements mindfully and consciously.

@bananafish81
Well I'd rather get married stemming from happiness.

Remember there's a difference between marriage and wedding. You don't need the wedding.

We'll never have a true representation because those women who aren't married will say that they don't 'believe' marriage or it's their choice. Which is sad.

Half would get married given a proposal chance.

I have a few questions for unmarried mums who stay at home with their kids or work part time.

Do all your partner’s earnings go into a joint account to which you have full access? If not, why not?

Is your partner paying into a pension in your sole name? If not, why not?

Does your partner have a life insurance policy with you named as the beneficiary? If not, why not?

If you are living in a property you or your partner owns rather than renting, how is it owned? Is it in his name, your name or both names? If in both, do you own it as joint tenants or tenants in common? In equal or unequal shares?

Have you made mutual wills? If not, why not?

These are all things that can be done to give you additional protection if you don’t get married, although they still won’t give you all the same rights and protections as marriage and your partner still has the ability to unilaterally change some of these things if he decides he wants to walk away.

But a lot of the time unmarried stay at home or low earnings mums don’t have any of these protections either, because their partner doesn’t want to burden himself in this way. He isn’t sharing all his income with you or paying into a pension for you for the same reason that he hasn’t proposed.

I'm a financial advisor in a niche environment. I advise on this day in day out. Yes you can protect against some things without the legal contract of marriage signed, but not everything. I think, as I have said many times, education is key.

I was exquisitely happy before getting married. We'd been together for 12 years

The difference before and after our marriage was that we had entered into a legal arrangement

Our happiness comes from our loving commitment to each other

The only point of getting married was to start TTC (turns out I'm infertile but life doesn't always turn out how you planned)

Our relationship isn't any more or less happy as a result of having signed a legal agreement. Our commitment was for a lifetime relationship with or without a marriage certificate. But it changes our relationship status in the eyes of the law

It was 35 years ago, I said I wanted marriage, he said he didn’t. I said jog on then. We got married. It seems wrong though, as If I forced him.

Marriage is a serious legal contract that needs to be entered into willingly by both parties.

You just cannot force something like that onto a couple automatically because they've lived together for an arbitrary length of time.

People wouldn't risk living together if it meant that six months down the line the boyfriend or girlfriend they're shacked up with them became legally bound to them.

These PP saying 'it's terrible cohabiting couples don't have the same rights as married ones!' Really, really haven't actually thought their argument through.

Marriage is available and cheap at a registry office if you just want the legal contract, if you want the rights and protections of marriage then get married.

I often think this argument is usually trotted out by women whose partners won't marry them so they want they don't see any other way to get what they want (everything that comes from marriage) than from this de factor cohabitation into marriage rights thing. If someone won't marry you and it's important to you, move on. Don't try and make it so it happens by stealth! If somebody wants to be married they will.

Anyway, to the original point, in my experience it's a lot to do with timing. Nobody i know has gotten married before their thirties, twenties would be too young, and once you hit thirties you also have to consider time left to have kids. So it makes sense practically to have kids first then marry, and marriage doesn't have an expiration date and having children does. Add into that only meeting your partner in your late twenties or thirties and you basically have to go for kids first unless you want to rush a proposal and wedding and delay your fertility even further.

Women who consciously decide when and if they have children should make an informed decision on the financial impact this will have on them. The whole romantic cutesy view of motherhood needs be replaced with cold hard facts.

If you choose not to get married but have children, you need another insurance policy for your security be it a full time job and pension, or a legal agreement between you and your dp.

Simply becoming pregnant and hoping for the best is not good enough, and definitely not in the mother’s interests unless it is planned or she is independently wealthy preferably both.

It is our future and living on a prayer without security should not be a first choice for anyone. Get a job, insist on commitment or prepare a plan B but don’t sit and hope for the best

Dusty The man is usually no worse off if they separate.

He is the higher earner with a pension, the house in his name. He will not have the children if they split up.

She is left homeless, unable to get a good job, looking after the children.

People wouldn't risk living together if it meant that six months down the line the boyfriend or girlfriend they're shacked up with them became legally bound to them.

Sigh... that’s why legal protections don’t normally kick in for a substantial period, eg several years of cohabitation, and they also contain the right to mutually agree to contract out. They’re a safety net so that vulnerable people aren’t unduly penalized by the end of a substantial non-marriage relationship.

Having said that, if you're a low earner or worried you'll be unable to support yourself and the kids in the event that your partner leaves, it would make sense to delay children and marry first. I think lots of people I know are much happier having kids before marriage as they have professional jobs and can earn alright, plus they would never consider giving up work. So there's no concern about however many years down the line being left high and dry, they are self sufficient.

Marriage is a serious legal contract that needs to be entered into willingly by both parties.

You just cannot force something like that onto a couple automatically because they've lived together for an arbitrary length of time.

Couldn't agree more.

But I know from reading this thread and the many previous ones about this topic that nobody on either side ever changes their mind about this.

In Ontario it's one year if you have a child, three years if you don't.

In British Columbia it's two years.

I used six months as I thought I'd read of a place where that was the time frame used, but even so, would you really want the financial implications of living with a boyfriend for a few years, then breaking up being the same as a divorce with all of the rights and responsibilities towards each other (debt, savings, potential alimony, fair division of assets)?

I sure as hell wouldn't. There is no good reason not to marry if you want that. Plenty of people choose not to marry as they don't want that. Should they have it thrust upon them unless they move out?

True, badlad. I just think most people who are outraged at the lack of common law in this county don't generally have an answer for why it is needed when marriage is available to all.

But are her choices so bad that in her early 50s she deserves to be turfed out with nothing? No. This is why legal protections exist. He profited substantially from their relationship and left her with nothing. That’s not okay.

Surely she should have just insisted on the houses being owned in joint names? No need for marriage or formal rights - basic common sense really.

And for people who say you could have an opt out built in, for those with partners who are unwilling to marry, surely they would also insist on opting out of the common law rights?

I'm speaking as an unmarried co habitee btw, lest posters think I'm being a smug married 😂

I intend to have kids before marriage with my OH, knowing the implications. I can't then in ten years time if the relationship hits the rocks and we didn't end up marrhing try and claim the rights and responsibilities of the legal contract I had the opportunity to enter into and chose otherwise.

Marriage is a serious legal contract that needs to be entered into willingly by both parties.

Surely bringing children into the world is more serious?

You can walk away from a marriage but you cant walk away from children.