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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
CylindraceousNicholas · 30/04/2019 15:00

Ridiculous. My uncle and his wife were never planning on getting married. They lived together, had a child together (and he adopted her young one from previous relationship).

They only decided to get married because one of their sons said they would like them to. If they hadn't, they probably wouldn't of done.

CylindraceousNicholas · 30/04/2019 15:24

fact his cousins, aunts, and uncles probably have more rights and say in legal things than you. That includes any inheritances or the right to switch off (or leave on) your partner's life support.

I don't mind if I'm not the one to make the decision about his life-support.
Mine isn't likely to inherit anything tbh, but if he did receive money, he wouldn't keep it to himself.

CylindraceousNicholas · 30/04/2019 15:27

doesn't cost much to get married, only like 2 hundred dollars/pounds. If you can't afford to get married, how can you afford you 4 month old? Strange that you planned to have a baby when you couldn't afford $200.00.

If I'm getting married, I want a wedding. So does DP. We are agreed on that. Likely we will only have this one child we have now, so can save all we like to have a wedding later, and DD can come along too.

calpop · 30/04/2019 15:44

"No one is entitled to give consent to medical treatment for another adult unless they are unconscious or unable to give consent through mental incapacity. However, in practice, doctors do usually discuss decisions with the patient's family and this will normally include your partner."

"If a person does not have the capacity to make a decision about their treatment and they have not appointed a lasting power of attorney (LPA), the healthcare professionals treating them can go ahead and give treatment if they believe it's in the person's best interests. But clinicians must take reasonable steps to discuss the situation with the person's friends or relatives before making these decisions."

So for the Life Support thing, it actually makes bugger all difference if you are married or not. And anyone can be appointed a Power of Attorney.

And just because you haven't seen anyone disadvantaged by having been married, doesn't make it bullshit. I have a close family member and 6 female friends who are in a far, far worse position today that they would have been if they hadn't been married.

BertrandRussell · 30/04/2019 15:44

It’s very strange that the idea of just not wanting to get married is so difficult for some people to grasp!

Alsohuman · 30/04/2019 15:51

It is odd, I suppose it's because those people replicate marriage in every way apart from legalising it. I find it difficult to grasp why some people find signing a legal document so problematic. Doesn't affect me one way or the other, though.

GoosetheCat · 30/04/2019 15:53

"doesn't cost much to get married, only like 2 hundred dollars/pounds. If you can't afford to get married, how can you afford you 4 month old? Strange that you planned to have a baby when you couldn't afford $200.00."

Can't believe how judgemental some people are on here. It's not like I was financially unstable and thought 'hey, I know! I'll bring a baby into this world!' I was financially stable when planning DS, financially stable when he was born. But due to unforeseen circumstances (which I won't go into as very outing) we find ourselves in the position that right now, our savings took a bit of a hit to the point it was lower than I was comfortable with, £120 is a lot and I would rather spend it on the essentials and put bits in savings for a rainy day.

I'm not about to run to the registry office just because a bunch of people look down on me for my situation.

booknow · 30/04/2019 16:17

It's all rather judgemental really. This topic. Whatever way you look at it.

Is it really so wrong to be married?
Is it really wrong to choose not to marry?

As with any life decision, you cannot future proof relationships - whether married or not. And it isnt just women in marriage who can get shafted, so to speak, by their husbands. By steadfastly choosing not to marry does that make you the better and a smarter person out of your social circle?

multivac · 30/04/2019 16:29

By steadfastly choosing not to marry does that make you the better and a smarter person out of your social circle?

Er, no (it's other qualities I have that do that). But I'm not the one suggesting that marriage and commitment are synonymous.

BertrandRussell · 30/04/2019 16:48

“By steadfastly choosing not to marry does that make you the better and a smarter person out of your social circle?”

What a very strange question! Of course not.

Meandmetoo · 30/04/2019 16:53

"It is odd, I suppose it's because those people replicate marriage in every way apart from legalising it. I find it difficult to grasp why some people find signing a legal document so problematic. Doesn't affect me one way or the other, though."

I find it difficult to grasp why some people can't understand that some of us don't. Want. To. Marry.

Ive no problem signing a legal document, I've signed a fair few in my time. Not ones that disadvantage me though, that would be silly!

Graphista · 30/04/2019 21:14

My opinion and attitude to marriage and female security is based on experience, not only my own but friends and family in real life AND reading experiences of people who've posted on mn and elsewhere online.

Those experiences are largely a result of the FACT the laws and culture of this country still greatly disadvantage women and especially women with children and even more especially women who are separated from the father of those children. Marriage goes some way to assuaging those inequalities in the event of a split.

YES we need the laws and culture to change which is happening very gradually - and I would say under this tory govt have in many ways been reversed unfortunately.

But until there IS real equality for women and particularly mothers we need on an individual basis to act in a way that protects ourselves and our children.

And yes, I do think under current circumstances it's irresponsible to do otherwise.

SOME women are better off than their male partners, but it's absolutely nowhere near the majority - most recent figures suggest around 1/3 of women earn more than their partner/spouse, but that research doesn't give a breakdown of how many of those women are mothers. Other research goes further and says that even this marginal improvement largely only applies until women are around 35 and after age 35 their earnings decline even further. Given this is roughly the point at which most women who want to, have their children, certainly 2nd/3rd children and due to the many demands that makes on a family reduce their hours/move to a more family friendly but lower paid job/become a sahm, that could explain it for many. But also employers assuming women of this age will likely soon be having children has an effect too. Then add in women who are starting to take on caring responsibilities for elderly parents/relatives around this point too and we can see why it can be difficult for women to maintain their earning potential.

Thatmustbenigel - the thread really is concerned with people who are NOT child free though. Because having children is what most disadvantages women financially. There are a few potential issues you may face as an unmarried partner, mainly to do with critical illness or bereavement but you're nowhere near as vulnerable as a mother, especially sahm.

There are some women who are better off due to their personal circumstances not marrying, but in my experience they tend to be in the minority. And to be fair that usually means the man in that relationship is the one at a disadvantage.

Lou12124 please don't patronise me! I'm not your dear.

My EX husband, at the time we married and while we were married I did respect and love him - his actions at the end of the marriage are what destroyed that, something which you'll find is true for many divorcees.

I DID marry for love, the legal and financial benefits of having done so became apparent when we divorced. But no not JUST for love I was never that naive.

It's precisely BECAUSE of going through a divorce and seeing/learning of others experiences post split that I now so strongly hold the views I do that women especially mothers need to carefully consider their position and give serious thought to where they would stand in the event of a split BEFORE having children.

"I get on better with my MIL than my partner does" that again smacks of over defensiveness.

"and she adores her grandchildren and she is not that childish to not look after them because me and my partner have split." She may well adore her gc but ultimately her loyalty lies with her child. In the event of a split if there is any acrimony (which is usually the case) she will far more likely side with her son.

"She looks after them because she loves them. That's what families do. Your family can not be as close knit as some others are." I got along with my now ex in laws and indeed for the most part we still do, but their loyalty lies with their son, even though they don't agree with how he's behaved. THAT is what families do.

In my case my ex in laws were older parents and therefore older grandparents and so weren't physically up to providing childcare, nothing to do with not being close.

But I've also witnessed many situations like yours and withdrawal of childcare arrangements is usually the first thing to happen.

"Me and my kids are not vulnerable at all" except you are, your denial doesn't make it any less so.

"And I'm getting defensive because people like you are so quick to jump on what other people are doing/ how they SHOULD be doing it and slating peoples ways of doing it. Instead of looking at your own life and maybe fixing alot of what needs fixing in your own!" Wow! Charming! If you're feeling defensive I would suggest that's because the thread has raised genuine concerns for you about your situation.

As for my life, in terms of this particular debate is concerned I did protect myself and dd as far as I was able and I'm glad I did.

I am active in discussing with my MP and campaign where possible to improve things for women and children generally and in particular with regard to how absent fathers behave following a split.

I haven't claimed to know everything at all, but I have responded based on my own experience, that of others close to me, those I've read about and by checking certain legal facts & research. My opinion is formed by all of that.

The venom spilling from your post is quite shocking actually. But I suspect is from fear upon realising how vulnerable you and your children are.

There's no need to be so rude in disagreeing with someone.

My intention in posting what I have - as I said before - is actually in hopes that any woman who is in a vulnerable position becomes better informed and does all they can to reduce that vulnerability.

I don't think claiming wrongly that accepting the word of a partner without any contingency planning or legal backup because "my partner cares far more about his children than any legal shit that would come in to it. He would always put their happiness first" is at all helpful or sensible.

No my life isn't perfect, but I've done the best I could for my dd and I and considering the challenges I've faced all my life I'm very proud of dd who I've raised alone since she was almost 3. She's now 18, working full time in an industry she loves and likely at the start of a promising career, with a lovely boyfriend and good loyal friends some of whom she's had since primary.

"Most men value their assets over children. They know that if their relationship breaks down the mother will have to take responsibility for the children and he can easily avoid paying child support.

However, if he gets married he'll be expected to share the assets in the event of a divorce." Exactly!

I'm struggling to find the stat but I know there is one about most dads X years after separation are no longer in their kids lives.

Half of absent fathers pay no child maintenance.

"Enabled by the system to do so I might add!" Definitely - not surprising when you consider who writes and enforces (ha!) the laws.

multivac · 30/04/2019 23:24

But until there IS real equality for women and particularly mothers we need on an individual basis to act in a way that protects ourselves and our children

So to clarify - it's definitely about protection/insurance? Which can be managed in a variety of ways? I mean, sure, getting married is the easiest one - but it doesn't confer some kind of commitment guarantee, from either side.

Graphista · 30/04/2019 23:50

There are no guarantees in life. But we act and make decisions based on the info we have at the time.

Definites are an illusion, they don't exist.

Nobody knows how they're going to feel or how they're going to act in X y z unfamiliar situation until they're in it.

Nobody knows if they'll still be in love with someone in 10, 15, 20 years or if that person will still be in love with them they just don't.

Bignosenobum · 01/05/2019 01:52

Have you four ďc's none of which were planned. Getting married had nothing to with the children. However, I think life. was different. If you met someone it was assumed that children would come alone.

Kiwiinkits · 01/05/2019 03:43

You can't change what people do. There will always be a large proportion who have kids and who won't opt in to marriage.

  • The poor don't get married because they have no assets to protect, and they quite often see marriage as a costly big affair (when its not)

  • The feckless don't get married because they tend to not make plans in advance (they are 'victims' in their own life rather than setting their own agenda)

  • There is another subset of people who don't feel able to assert their worth, they don't feel they have the bargaining power to ask their partner to marry them

  • There are some (a very few) children who are conceived as genuine accidents

So if marriage is valuable as a means of protecting the vulnerable party in a relationship after kids come along, then the law should have a default assumption of protection rather than being based on an 'opt in'. In NZ you are assumed to have all the same protections as marriage after 3 years of living together, and earlier if there are children involved. You can also opt in to marriage or civil unions (either option is available for same-sex couples).

Kiwiinkits · 01/05/2019 03:48

“I think it’s utterly tragic that posters are pushing marriage as the answer to female security.”

It's the answer to CHILD security. Look at the stats. The most disadvantaged children come from unmarried mothers. Consistent, everywhere.

Meandmetoo · 01/05/2019 06:06

So just unmarried mother's? No other factors such as no male partner in the child's life or other correlations? All studies show quite literally that unmarried, whether in a ltr or not = disadvantaged.

Absolute bollocks.

CrumpetyTea · 01/05/2019 06:23

The reason that the most disadvantaged children come from unmarried mothers is poverty - its not a direct result of marriage or non marriage as fathers should pay regardless of whether they are married or not. Unmarried mothers covers a huge range and not just people in a settled partnership who chose to have babies and not get married.
I have a child and am not married and I'm neither feckless or stupid. Although being unmarried is a financial/security advantage to me it isn't the reason I haven't got married- marriage means nothing to me and I don't like the idea of standing up and lying

Blackbi2d · 01/05/2019 06:27

Absolute bollocks.

We have 3 degrees between us, are now higher tax payers with high achieving children in Outstanding schools living in a detached 4 bedroom house and parents who have been together 30 years. Both our siblings have children in similar circumstances. We have a fair few friends in a similar situation and I’d say all children involved are some of the least disadvantaged children you can get with a huge amount of security. They’ve all seen kids with married parents split and face a lot of upheaval.

Links please.

The lowest achieving group are white poor boys and children living in poverty are the most disadvantaged. I’d say kids stuck in toxic relationships with parents together that shouldn’t be,which marriage doesn’t save you from, are pretty disadvantaged too.Being unmarried does not equal poverty, lack of education or lack of security.

BertrandRussell · 01/05/2019 07:48

“The most disadvantaged children come from unmarried mothers.“
So it’s marriage that’s the key? Not absent fathers, poverty, poor housing.........

Gwenhwyfar · 01/05/2019 08:14

"In NZ you are assumed to have all the same protections as marriage after 3 years of living together, and earlier if there are children involved."

I suggested this as an option, but pp said they didn't want that either. The problem then is that some unmarried people do afterwards come out and complain that they've been treated unfairly e.g. the man who didn't get widower's benefit.

BertrandRussell · 01/05/2019 08:37

“I suggested this as an option, but pp said they didn't want that either.“

Married people hate this idea! How dare we expect the same legal protection as people who’ve done things ^properly”!

Alsohuman · 01/05/2019 09:21

Presumably women who choose not to marry because it would make them worse off in the event of separation would also hate this.

multivac · 01/05/2019 09:34

Nobody knows if they'll still be in love with someone in 10, 15, 20 years or if that person will still be in love with them they just don't

Again, so all the talk of being "committed enough to marry" is utter, utter nonsense - right? That's all I'm saying. I don't deny the handy insurance benefits of marriage (although I do insist they can be replicated without it)... but I do wish people would be honest about what discussions like this are really about.

Swipe left for the next trending thread