Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be p*ssed off that no option for cohabiting/long-term relationship exists on maternity notes?

341 replies

BillieBryson · 30/08/2018 21:34

I'm newly pg with DC#2, and today had my booking appointment with midwife. Perhaps it's the hormones, but I felt particularly enraged this time round when I forced to choose 'single' as my marital status as the only other option was 'married'. I've been with OH for 12 years FFS! Why, in 2018, when a considerable proportion of couples choose not to marry, is there no recognition of this? Doesn't this also artificially inflate statistics for single mothers (not that there is anything wrong with that of course)?

OP posts:
QueenofmyPrinces · 03/09/2018 08:16

The woman I spoke about in my previous post who was unmarried with children and in an 11 year long relationship who ended up with nothing was actually my sister.

Next year, me and my DH are taking her son (my nephew) on holiday and when my sister tried to apply for his passport, because her son has a different surname to her, she has had to go to her Ex, who has nothing to do with the children, to get paperwork off him with his surname on, in order for the application to be accepted.

My sister was told that because my nephew has a different surname to me then there needs to be written consent from a parent for me to take him out of the country, but because my sister doesn’t have her son’s surname she is not allowed to be the one to give consent as there’s no proof (for want of a better word) that my sister is related to the child. As a result she had to go to her Ex, who as I said, isn’t on the scene, to get his permission for his son to be taken on holiday by his Aunt because my sister, the child’s mother, can’t.

It’s crazy but a good example of how many grey areas there are when it comes to unmarried couples having children together and the issues that can be faced when they split up.

fontofnoknowledge · 03/09/2018 08:32

Agree with QueenofmyPrinces. I am 55 yrs old. 3 dcs aged 16-24 and 5 Dsc aged 13-32. I have known a lot of parents over the last 3 decades.

I have ONE friend who didn't marry. The result being so catastrophically horrific - that I would like all secondary schools to make the legal ramifications of marriage or no marriage, an essential part of the personal/sexual/Health education curriculum. - I do not believe for one moment in forcing anyone in to marriage but I do believe that EVERYONE should have the accurate knowledge of all the pros and cons of this important legal contract.

I also think we need to stop pussy footing around say the un-said ;
There are a huge amount of people (women) who have put their desire to have a child over and above their partners desire to do so. The decision to have a child is a unilateral one. A woman has all the 'decision' cards in her hand. She can decide about contraception, decide to lie, decide to be less than stringent in all of those variables. Once pregnant - again the decision is all hers. Abort or keep. This is absolutely as it should be. Our bodies our choice. Marriage however is a dual choice. You can't marry someone if they don't want to. This is where the nub of the issue is. There are a huge amount of cohabiting couples where the woman wants to marry but the man doesn't want to.
Men are much happier 'to settle' especially when advantage is all there's.
Why on earth would you marry if you didn't feel you had met 'the one' but only the 'one for now' who happens to have your children?
The VAST MAJORITY of women with children earn substantially less than their male partners. (Yes yes now a thousand posts from the high female earners who are better off not being married, - this is not about you !) however this is the case for the vast majority.. so once you have children why on earth would you marry if you were a man. ?
The only reasons are ;
Because you want to make a public declaration of love .
You WANT your partner and children to have all the legal protection that only marriage can offer.

Not offering this contract to your partner on the birth of a child says you don't want to offer any of the above. Which surely means that women should not have had children with someone who does not regard them highly enough and should have waited before making children with them.

Xenia · 03/09/2018 08:33

Although if you are married but divorced and even if you all have the same surname you still should take a letter of consent just in case (although I have never been asked to produce one) and also check local requirements - eg every parent has to have original full birth certificates in order to get their own children into South Africa.

Bluelonerose · 03/09/2018 09:12

I wouldn't get married again becaus I don't think it's worth it tbh.

I need to do what's best for me and my dc which includes not giving anyone access to half of what is mine (been there before during divorce)

AnEPleaseBob · 03/09/2018 10:18

I don’t have to look very far when all around me people are getting divorced and those of us who didn’t bother are still together

Careful, your confirmation bias is showing!

AnEPleaseBob · 03/09/2018 10:20

My sister was told that because my nephew has a different surname to me then there needs to be written consent from a parent for me to take him out of the country, but because my sister doesn’t have her son’s surname she is not allowed to be the one to give consent as there’s no proof (for want of a better word) that my sister is related to the child. As a result she had to go to her Ex, who as I said, isn’t on the scene, to get his permission for his son to be taken on holiday by his Aunt because my sister, the child’s mother, can’t

Don't know who told them that but its all complete bollocks.

littlemissalwaystired · 03/09/2018 10:22

In the notes my Trust use, we have a single, partner, and married box; it covers all of it.

Dungeondragon15 · 03/09/2018 11:40

In the notes my Trust use, we have a single, partner, and married box; it covers all of it.

They probably put "partner" in just so people don't complain. It's pretty meaningless and many (perhaps most) people will tick it whether or not they are cohabiting.

Petitprince · 03/09/2018 11:42

If you want to get married, get married. If you don't, don't. But there are only a limited number of legal statuses. It's not about who loves who or how much.

Pompom42 · 03/09/2018 11:46

I think it's to do with parental responsibility. You aren't married so legally you are solely responsible for that child.
By putting the fathers name on the birth certificate means he has parental responsibility also.
I'm assuming you name him as your next of kin on the form.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 03/09/2018 15:34

Yeah that sounds wrong about different names. If a person has PR they have PR, regardless of what their name is. That sounds like some organisation freestyling the law. Very common unfortunately.

P3onyPenny · 03/09/2018 16:21

Queen that is bollocks. I have a different sirname to my kids, sorted all their passports out without a whimper and have had no bother taking them anywhere.

Some serious scaremongering on here.

P3onyPenny · 03/09/2018 16:31

So Font women should only have children if they can get a partner to look after them. Except many don't want or need a partner to do that, some want to raise children alone and some would find dying childless the worst case scenario and aren't living a picturebook life.

I find the idea that only wealthy women (or those of us lucky enough to have supportive partners )should have kids a tad repellant.

P3onyPenny · 03/09/2018 16:34

Littlemiss sounds ideal.Why would they tick partner if they were single?Confused That trust sounds as if they have got their arse out of the dark ages. Not meaningless,just accurate.

PenelopeShitStop · 03/09/2018 16:39

Being "a boyfriend" is not a legal state. If you want the legal status and rights then get married. You can do it for about £100 and it takes 20 minutes at a registry office.

PenelopeShitStop · 03/09/2018 16:50

A very unpalatable but true post font. Some people are not going to like your for it though.

Men aren't afraid of commitment. They are just afraid of commitment to the wrong person.

Can think of so many blokes I know of who were in very long term relationships, some with DCs, who "didn't believe in marriage". Many of them have since gone on to meet someone new and be perfectly happy to get married this time (going to one such wedding this Saturday infact. He proposed after only 6 months Smile )

P3onyPenny · 03/09/2018 16:55

Who said anything about legal status and rights? Just don't like having to tick Single when I'm not. Several forms manage to include a third box as times have changed.Cohabiting couples will eventually be the majority.

And don't dismiss my life partner as boyfriend,a boyfriend is very different to a partner. But you knew that didn't you.

PenelopeShitStop · 03/09/2018 17:05

There is no legal state of 'life partner' either. In the eyes of the law the term in meaningless.

StarWarsHolidaySpecial · 03/09/2018 17:11

I've seen 14 year olds refer to their boyfriend as 'partner'.

And lots of threads on MN with DP in the title and then you read 'I've been with DP for a few weeks now..'.

A lot of people my age and beyond (40s plus) feel silly saying 'I'm seeing my boyfriend/girlfriend tonight' so use partner for someone they're dating regularly.

Partner used to mean a LTR but it's lost it's meaning.

P3onyPenny · 03/09/2018 17:11

Enough all ready re your in the eyes of the law,I'm not inheriting or splitting up. I couldn't give a shit re the law or what it thinks I'm simply filling in a form and don't wish to put Single when I'm not. Other forms managed to include a third box. The world and his wife knows the legalities of the married box,a partner box would detract zilch from it. A realisation and respect for the life choices of today are being respected elsewhere and in other trusts so there really is no reason for the op's not to do the same.

bananafish81 · 03/09/2018 17:19

If the form is for legal purposes for PR then yes there only needs to be two boxes - married / not married

If for any other reason to do with understanding the patient's personal setup beyond legal reasons then single / living with partner / married makes sense

Depends what the information is needed for!

Sunnymeg · 03/09/2018 17:34

I can understand why people are saying that they want to have a single /not single option
. Personally I take exception to forms that lump husband in with partner, especially as legally they have two separate meanings.

Pearl87 · 03/09/2018 18:11

I hate to say this, because it goes against every feminist bone in my body, but I think there's a lot of truth to font's post. MN has really opened my eyes to the number of women who are dishonest with their partner about contraception - I used to think that was rare. I now suspect the majority of "accidental" pregnancies were actually planned by the woman. I think this goes some way to explaining why couples who have children before marriage are, on average, less likely to stay together long-term.

Pearl87 · 03/09/2018 18:22

Re: the cohabitation option on forms - surely it depends on the purpose of the form? If they want to know your marital status, all that's relevant is whether you're married - that's what "marital status" means! They don't care if your baby was conceived with your boyfriend or during a one-night stand - it's none of their business, frankly. However, they do need to know if you're married in order to establish whether your partner has PR for the baby before the birth certificate has been issued.

PenelopeShitStop · 03/09/2018 18:26

Yes MN has also shown me the dingy underside of many an 'accidental' pregnancy. So often the woman is long term cohabiting with a bloke who has no intention of marrying her.