Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that if you are committed enough to decide to have children....

611 replies

Oakenbeach · 27/04/2019 09:29

....you should also be committed enough to each other to get married (assuming that you don’t have any objections to marriage in principle), and that it makes no sense at all for couples to plan to have children (and I stress ‘plan’) before deciding whether to get married.

OP posts:
Jaxhog · 27/04/2019 22:09

Anyone who has children without seeking that commitment from the other parent is negligent.
This sin't a simply private matter. Unstable families cause huge problems for thousands of children and we all end up paying the financial and social price

You might not like it, but statistically, you are 3 and a half times more likely to break up before your child's 5th birtthday when you are unmarried. By all means go into it with your eyes open and take financial precautions, but is it fair on your children and the rest of society?

lozster · 27/04/2019 22:20

Imagine losing the person you love most and then finding that you have to leave your home because either you can't afford to stay there, or because it's automatically been willed to someone else who wants to kick you out so they can take ownership of 'their property'.

Confused you make a will; you make your OH the beneficiary of your pension?

Oh yeah, and remember that your Husband can make a will and leave his estate to whoever the hell he likes?

This is exactly what I mean by people overestimating the ‘protection’ of marriage.

Graphista · 27/04/2019 22:26

LunaFortJest excellent point I missed that one. You are of course right that posters partner could well face an absolute nightmare trying to remain in the family home in the event of her death.

GentleBen
"We love each other. Surely that's enough?" 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Do you REALLY think that all those posting on the relationships board who've been screwed over post split, left homeless and destitute by partners dying intestate DIDN'T at one point love each other? Or at least think their partner loved them?

Love doesn't mean squat when you split, when you or he or your child becomes disabled, he dies leaving an administrative shit storm!

Seriously - consider the possible scenarios and properly investigate where you would stand legally and financially and THEN try and claim "love is enough"

"Other than having the same surname as my partner and son, what would marriage give me?" Perhaps actually read the full thread or even just the NUMEROUS online articles by cab and similar outlining the differences.

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

In summary (hopefully others will fill in any gaps)

Greater rights upon splitting (assets assessed properly and divided fairly, more likely to be able to stay in family home if you're primary carer, easier to deal with cms, tax credits, dwp, council..., dependent on full circumstances but a wife is far more likely to get spousal support than a partner)

Housing - if you're not on the tenancy or mortgage and you're not married you have no more right to stay in your home than if you were a lodger

Banking - if you have a joint account if you're not married and your partner dies they'll likely freeze the account until probate settled. If you're married it immediately becomes the surviving spouses. If there are other accounts in your partners name they're usually frozen until probate done when they die, banks tend to be more flexible if you're married in this situation.

inheritance - rules are clear if you're married. If you're not even if there's a will other relatives can challenge and delay payouts. You could even lose your home - a cautionary tale I usually give on these threads is of a relative who upon her partners sudden death his family took the house and all assets. She'd previously got along well with her in laws no previous bad blood or anything but true colours came out when he died. She had to find a new home for her and 2 dc and go back to work full time to support them.

next of kin - as had been rightly pointed out there's no strict legal definition of this BUT if there's doubt most hospitals, funeral directors etc to cover their own backs will go with the most easily recognised legal relative of the patient/deceased

Pensions, insurance, death in service benefits - there are differences per the exact contract but generally speaking it's far more common that these automatically are conferred on a spouse whereas a partner would need to be specifically named to stand a chance of being recognised.

Welfare benefits - while most now allow for cohabiting couples to be treated as married couples (to the govts benefit of course) there are still a few - mainly relating to bereavement - that don't recognise and aren't available to unmarried partners

inheritance tax not my area of expertise but it's my understanding that if this is likely to apply to you in the death of your partner you're much better off being married (I think there's an exception or something?)

lozster · 27/04/2019 22:27

scrabbling around to find the inheritance tax they would have to pay in order to remain in the home we shared

You need a pretty big estate to fall in to that category assuming that a house is held as joint tenants, 50:50. If you do then sure, do a Ken Dodd. But this is about being aware of your personal circumstances. It’s really insulting to claim that unmarried couple aren’t aware of their circumstances whilst married couples are. I’d say these threads really reveal how the legal implications of marriage are not understood (overestimated mainly) just as much as the legal implications of not being married may be misunderstood.

Moraxella · 27/04/2019 22:28

Hypothetically if you find yourself pregnant and have a long term partner and aren’t married as haven’t got there yet, but are financially secure; would mumsnet generally like you to have a termination?

multivac · 27/04/2019 22:28

statistically, you are 3 and a half times more likely to break up before your child's 5th birtthday when you are unmarried

Ah, bless you - like statistics are a prescription! A relationship is what it is; it doesn't get less likely to break up, between those particular two people, with marriage. You're confusing correlation with causality.

LunafortJest · 27/04/2019 22:29

@GoosetheCat I just don't understand why you would actively plan to TTC if not married? If it were an accident, yeah. But I just find it odd that someone would intentionally TTC when they aren't married. An accident I can understand but actually deliberately trying to conceive when you aren't married, I mean actually making that decision to get pregnant? I will admit I just don't get it. But good luck to you, your DP and little one.

Graphista · 27/04/2019 22:33

•you make a will; you make your OH the beneficiary of your pension?" Which can be challenged by other relatives with a possible claim which at the very least can delay everything being sorted.

"Oh yeah, and remember that your Husband can make a will and leave his estate to whoever the hell he likes?" But if you're married you have a legal claim to his estate and can challenge such a will.

"This is exactly what I mean by people overestimating the ‘protection’ of marriage." Except didn't quite take account of all the facts did you? It's not complete protection none of us advocating marriage have said this - we've rightly said your more protected than if you're not married.

multivac · 27/04/2019 22:34

Can I have some of that good luck, lunafort? I mean, 28 years into a relationship and 14 years into parenthood, having watched literally dozens of marriages where we were at the wedding as - gasp - partners - dissolve, both pleasantly and horribly, I'm not entirely sure we need it... but if it's on offer...

lozster · 27/04/2019 22:36

Graphista - I never said ‘complete protection’, I said ‘overestimate’ and I stand by that.

lozster · 27/04/2019 22:38

... and anyone can challenge a will. Once you are in that territory it’s an almighty mess no matter what.

Alsohuman · 27/04/2019 22:40

It’s not any kind of mess if you’re married.

lozster · 27/04/2019 22:41

Lunafortgest - scores of people try to conceive whilst unmarried. Fortunately for me the NHS doesn’t discriminate and the IVF that conceived my child did not come conditional to having a wedding ring on.

multivac · 27/04/2019 22:47

Again, alsohuman, bless you. D'you think no one who was married has ever contested a spouse's will?

Dixiechickonhols · 27/04/2019 22:47

Agree with poster who said why isn't this taught in schools. Then people can make an informed decision.
I remember as a trainee solicitor a woman coming in. She had read in local paper a man had died in accident at work. She had been married to him over 20 years ago and only together a short time. Everyone thought they had divorced but never had. He'd lived with a partner of 20 plus years. No will/nomination of death in service so wife inherited. I can remember all the secretaries being horrified.

Alsohuman · 27/04/2019 22:50

If you challenged your spouse’s will because they left marital property elsewhere. Ah bless you too.

Alsohuman · 27/04/2019 22:50

You’d win, obviously.

multivac · 27/04/2019 22:54

...and it wouldn't be remotely messy, of course. For the spouse, or anyone else.

Captaindobbin · 27/04/2019 22:54

I personally know couples who met later on in life and wanted marriage and kids however chose to have a baby first then a big wedding later because of biological clocks ticking. Not that they weren’t committed to marriage.

ZippyBungleandGeorge · 27/04/2019 22:57

I refused to have children before marriage, I got lots of connects such as 'oh didn't realise you were so traditional'. I'm not just bloody sensible

lozster · 27/04/2019 22:57

Absolutely Multivac. There was a thread on here recently where a woman stumbled across her husbands will, changed unbeknownst to her, to leave his assets, including share of the house, to his children but held in trust by his sister until they were of age. Nothing illegal in the UK. Patently clear what his wishes were. Marriage did not protect her. Sure she could fight in court using up her money as she went...

DeeCeeCherry · 27/04/2019 23:00

lozter he could try to dis-inherit his wife but it wouldn't work. The law is the law you can't just change it to suit by making up silly caveats. His wife would get what she is entitled to and she wouldn't have to fight through the courts either. She is his wife. That's it.

Original poster
Oakenbeach · 27/04/2019 23:03

Having read everything on here, i still strongly believe that if you are comfortable with the concept of marriage, and you aren’t committed enough to each other to get married, and you plan to have children, you are irresponsible, feckless and selfish.

OP posts:
lozster · 27/04/2019 23:05

Dixiechick - you are absolutely correct. Marriage can have unintended consequences. I know of a lady who died just weeks after her husband moved out of the marital home to live with another woman he had been having an affair with. He gained her entire estate including a significant death in service payment that could have gone to her grown up children if she had changed her beneficiary. The lesson is to keep documents up to date and think through your personal circumstances whether married or not.

lozster · 27/04/2019 23:12

DeeCeeCherry there is testamentary freedom in the Uk. You can leave what you want to who you want. Yes, there would be an expectation to make reasonable financial provision for a spouse (and equally you can argue in court a partner) but the definition of that could be varied. It is not straightforward.