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

[Oakenbeach]

....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.

The next of kin stuff on here is very pervasive, but outdated. People mean well, but they dont realise how much things have changed in the last few years. Its a different world now from even the noughties.

But a quick peruse of the relationships board will show that married women are not that much better off. They get a share of the assets, but often not enough to live comfortably.

But co habitating women in the situation outlined get nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It’s all well and good saying that there’s ways for non-married women to protect themselves, but that relies on them knowing that those avenues exist and actually instigating them. Given the amount of women we see that can’t even start a conversation with their partner about getting married, I don’t hold out much hope that we’ll see a sudden culture shift where organising those protections becomes the norm.

No problem, we have all the protections that marriage offers that are important to us at this point in our lives as a couple without having to get married. So it is accurate to say that marriage won't change a single thing for us.

Jolly good. Would you say that you are unusual?

And so that other women who want to do the same as you - and you have posted several times in this thread so it must be something you wish to share - can also avoid that piece of paper, can you please explain what protections you have? And how many pieces of paper did it take to have those protections?

I think better advice would be to tell woman not to be financially dependent on men in general

I agree. The thread will move on without consideration of this though. It always does.

Of course that is the best advice, but for women or men who ARE dependent on their spouses* for money, it’s still relevant advice that being married is sometimes more sensible.

*and unless you are both on pretty decent salaries or have a lot of help with childcare from family, is going to be most couples, as many couples cannot afford for both to go to work. If I went to work right now, for example, we would be earning minus money as a family overall, as our dcs are both preschool age. Even after they start school, decent wraparound childcare here is like gold dust. So, to be realistic, one half of many couples is going to choose to stay at home. It’s not a bad thing necessarily, as it frees up jobs for people who would benefit more from it. That’s why it’s good to have some protection, (and god knows it isn’t a guarantee of anything, but it is SOME protection), by getting married. It won’t be the right choice for every couple, but I do think it’s foolish to dismiss the idea completely without even looking into it, as it’s “just a piece of paper”.

@Lunafortjest

I will conceded that there are some extreme circumstances where it may benefit to be married. I think those circumstances are getting fewer and further between.

For instance in the hospital where I work, no one would ever be stopped from being with their dying partner married or no. You can name anyone as your next of kin, I am DPs and he is mine and that is on our hospital records.
We are also the beneficiaries of each other's life insurance.

It's just not enough to make me feel that marriage is really necessary.

It didn't change a thing for me.

Yet you go on to say....

I only married because we were ready to have children and I was putting my career on hold and reducing my financial independence. I also wanted to be legal next of kin and legal spouse.

So it did change things. That's why you married because it gave you all that ^

I am financially independent. I have two kids. I would be worse off if I married their father, (pre and post a split).

So effectively, your ex-partner was in the same position that unmarried women on here are vilified for. I wonder what the advice to him would have been. Should you have been obliged to marry him for his financial protection?

@LunafortJest My financial circumstances changed months after my DS was born. My DS is, and always will be, my first priority.

Financial dependence on partners does work both ways, but men aren’t sat around saying ‘oh make sure you marry her mate or you might not get any money if you split’ we are all responsible for our own lives.

If a woman (or a man) chooses to give up their financial independence then it is a huge risk and they should be aware of the consequences. Marriage doesn’t stop you being screwed over, it will protect you more than if you weren’t but it’s not an unbreakable security blanket.

I wish I would see more people telling woman to be in control of their own finances, don’t give up work, don’t give up your independence rather than ‘get married and then you can rely on him forever’

It’s all well and good saying that there’s ways for non-married women to protect themselves, but that relies on them knowing that those avenues exist and actually instigating them. Given the amount of women we see that can’t even start a conversation with their partner about getting married, I don’t hold out much hope that we’ll see a sudden culture shift where organising those protections becomes the norm

Then this is the problem - not that they are not married!

I honestly don't know if we're unusual, certainly in my circle of friends which is why I won't be going into the ins and outs for obvious reasons.

I'd advise anyone not wanting marriage but levels of protection important to them to speak to a solicitor who will obviously facilitate the process. It's not too onerous (depending on what you want) but is more expensive than a registry office wedding, so there's that to consider. Or just wait until they can have a civil partnership.

If a woman (or a man) chooses to give up their financial independence then it is a huge risk and they should be aware of the consequences. Marriage doesn’t stop you being screwed over, it will protect you more than if you weren’t but it’s not an unbreakable security blanket

Yes, it really is a matter of degree!

englishdictionary

I think better advice would be to tell woman not to be financially dependent on men in general. - you quoted this and rightly qualified with:

1. It's not just about finances

1. It works both ways

It is just that the myth is that women need protection.
I think that if we could re-think the law about children that would solve a lot of the issues. As countrygirl99 says - it is always a different story when things go wrong - correct - but if the law could enforce responsibility for the care of children then a woman would not have to "give up everything" or would have the financial resources to compensate her if she felt that the child needed her do just that.

DippyAvocado - he is not worse off due to not being married. I take the responsibility for the kids. Long term we are both better off as we are. And there was never any expensive divorce to deal with.
But I take your point.

YetAnotherSpartacus - you are absolutely right and I would so love to see proper life skills - including legal and financial understanding - included in education at school. From primary age!!!!

@HowardSpring PoA can be legally challenged by parents. It is not the fix that people think it is.

If a woman (or a man) chooses to give up their financial independence then it is a huge risk and they should be aware of the consequences. Marriage doesn’t stop you being screwed over, it will protect you more than if you weren’t but it’s not an unbreakable security blanket.

I wish I would see more people telling woman to be in control of their own finances, don’t give up work, don’t give up your independence rather than ‘get married and then you can rely on him forever’

Yes, I agree, but people do give up work, usually after dcs. Or they work part time. It’s not always financially possible for both to work full time, as I’ve said up thread. And some people will always choose for one half of the couple to stay at home.

So, people are not saying “marry him / her and rely on them forever”. They are saying IF one of you is likely to take a step back from your career to care for children, at least look into getting married.

In our case, btw, we would be approximately £30k in childcare annually if I went to work. That is not something we can justify, seeing as my pay would probably be significantly lower than that.

It’s great that so many mumsnetters have their financial independence, but others don’t. So, in those circumstances, it makes sense to look into other ways to protect yourself financially. And marriage is one of those things.

I would say that the majority of families I know at least one person works part time or not at all to cover childcare. It isn’t always realistically a choice and I wish posters would remember that.

Even if we could afford that childcare btw, we would have to go on waiting lists to get places. It’s not as simple as “oh why didn’t you just keep your financial independence”? It’s either arrogant or naive to suggest it is

Slapping joffrey.. Things haven't changed in terms of next of kin. We lived together as man and wife for over 20 years. Our son was 12 when his dad died. This made our son the legal next of kin.. But as he's underage so it became a legal minefield.

This was less than 2 years ago.. So. The information is not out dated

A marriage certificate is just a piece of paper.

However that piece of paper entitles the married couple (and many of these are particularly pertinent if one parent reduces hours or gives up work after DC):

• married tax allowance if one party earns lower than £13000 pa
• widowed parents benefits (now bereavement support payment) should one parent die
• increased capital gains and inheritance tax allowances

I have only listed the things it is NOT POSSIBLE to emulate without marriage.

In addition marriage is often cheaper and/or easier than completing wills, powers of attorney / next of kin arrangements, reassigning death in service benefits and life assurance etc. Mirror wills can cost £200+ alone; marriage is just over half that if you do a midweek nip down to the registry office in your jeans.

Since we are both still alive and together, and don't have complex investments or assets, we have never used any of the benefits of marriage bar the tax allowance. The best benefit for us has been DH going to register DC's births alone in his lunchbreak, saving me from schlepping into town with several young children and a newborn in tow!

t's also not very nice to say, but there is still (rightly or wrongly) a social currency to marriage. The word "partner" can be ambiguous - round here, some people would use partner for a casual, live-apart boyfriend of a few months but it could also mean a lifelong significant other - while "husband" or "wife" are clear unambiguous terms.

LPA can be challenged - you are right of course - but usually fairly good evidence is needed.

My oh doesn't see the point in getting married. I'm a very strong advocate for it, the protection and the benefits it offers not only me but also for him too, especially where dc's come into it.
I'm expecting our first child in July, we are not married, but everything is tied up in each other, nothing we have is his or mine legally, we made sure it's all ours) my parents have bought me up to look out for myself)
He has never said no to marrying me, just that it's a pointless piece of paper (in his opinion) I've said to him in the past, if it's not a big deal, then why not go regestry office and just do it with close family (I'm not a big event girl) and he has said when we do it we'll do it "properly"
My parents were married a year before me, his parents had his sister and him first.
I think that has impacted how he sees doing things.

I know there are people out there who say that it's not that he doesn't want to get married, it's that he doesn't want to marry you. It might be true in a lot of casee but I don't think it's as cut and dry as that 100% of the time.

Absolutely.

Having children immediately makes you vulnerable in terms of dependency and cutting your future income. That is just the reality of the situation.

I would never get pregnant before getting married. Relying on current good intentions? Never. He has got to put his money where his -$0$£ - mouth is.

Where do you live fraser? Next of kin as a strict legal concept doesnt exist in the law of England and Wales.

It is something people get wrong a lot, and I've certainly heard of people being given wrong advice about it, but I hadn't heard of it being used to exclude unmarried partners in a medical context in the last few years. Are you saying that's what happened to you? It would be interesting to hear more. Or do you mean the intestacy provisions?

"I seriously think that the point is that some see marriage as the pinnacle of existence and the gold standard and evidence that they have 'made it' and having others not only saying that 'it's not for me' in a personal sense but also trying to change the rules so that it is no longer the norm threatens their place in the social hierarchy."

No, no YetAnother, it has nothing to do with that. It's about recognising the legal protection that marriage gives. I'm not married, don't have a boyfriend even. There's no reason why I would see it as a 'hierarchy' thing.
Sounds like you have some kind of inferiority complex.

Another option is to give cohabitees the same rights, like they do in many countries, but I suppose that takes away the option that some cohabitees want of living together without any of those things.