to think spreading the myth that marriage is just a piece of paper is irresponsible?

[Lagobel]

I've never heard anyone say, "Driving lessons are a waste of money, a driving license is just a piece of paper." I've never heard anyone say, "Studying is a waste of time, exam results are just a piece of paper." I've never heard anyone say, "I'm just going to keep renting, a mortgage is just a piece of paper." Yet almost every time the differences between marriage and cohabitation is brought up, the "piece of paper" line gets trotted out.

Why do so many people fall for it? It's so obvious that it's just a line that people (mostly men) sell their partner when they don't want to share their assets with them! "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love" is just a way of making "I don't want to marry you" sound romantic.

Even more frustrating is when they refer to it as a "very expensive piece of paper". It doesn't have to be! A couple who get married in a register office in front of two witnesses during their lunch break are no less married than a couple who have a white wedding at a castle. The legal document is the same either way. I don't understand how people aren't aware of this – even if they don't know anyone in real life who had a £100 wedding, surely they've seen it on TV? Elopements are quite a common sitcom trope.

Before anyone says, "Just because someone isn't married to their partner it doesn't mean they don't understand the legal side of things – I don't want to get married because I'm the higher earner/I don't meet the inheritance tax threshold/I don't care whether or not I get bereavement allowance" – I'm not criticising that decision at all. There are definitely good reasons why someone may not want to get married, especially if they have children from a previous relationship and want to protect their inheritance. But in those cases, people are choosing not to marry BECAUSE they know it's not just a piece of paper. They're aware of the legal implications, and they've made an informed decision.

I'm frustrated by this because I have a friend who's upset that her son's father has just told her he doesn't want to get engaged in the next five years (and he wants the subsequent engagement to last at least two years). They're in their thirties and she's a SAHM. The rest of our friendship group is telling her that she's being silly, of course he's committed to her, marriage is unnecessary nowadays, a piece of paper and a ring won't change their relationship. I don't want to be a downer, but it annoys me that they're giving her a false sense of security, yet if I say anything I'll probably get shit for being the one to tell her what she doesn't want to hear.

Every behaviour there you have described is what a dad should do

Paying above the minimum CMS payment is what non resident parents should do. It's the minimum payment. Paying for extra stuff and having then during the holidays....again what a dad should do.

Besides which, it doesnt matter if he was the worlds best father. He was a terrible partner. He had kids with her (which automatically impacts a woman's career) but wouldnt share his assets with her?

But shared them with you within months? Now I get that, that must make you feel good. That you are some how better then for him. But honestly, all you have done is make sound like a shit

I just understand men that are willing to have children and share a life with someone, but keep all their assets to themseleves.

Especially, when they go and share them with someone else they barely know.

Doing about what is the legal minimum for the kids, doesnt cancel that out

*Bar the legitimate reasons you've stated, of course, and it is a personal decision but it is more than paper

@Alsohuman

I got divorced a few years ago, so the law might have changed, but when I divorced it was made clear by my solicitor that the decree absolute was not the final word on financial claims, unless a financial settlement (I.e via consent order) had been arranged. I've seen multiple high profile cases, such as the one against the founder of Ecotricity by his ex-wife of 20 years, for financial support after divorce, so I don't believe the position has changed.

Agree with everything @Pinktinker said. It's financial independence and a career which really protect women. I despair when I see the line "as his wife you are entitled to half his assets" trotted out. It isn't true! Marriage isn't considered a partnership by law - the assets are shared according to the needs of the parties at the time of divorce and are affected by a range of factors, including the length of the marriage, assets accumulated prior to marriage, any kids etc. There is a reason that women get poorer after divorce and it's because regardless of the financial settlement awarded (and contrary to the myths it's very unusual for a woman to be awarded spousal maintenance these days) most women who have the kids as the resident parent don't recover the earnings and career progression that their ex-husband does. I wish there was more transparency around this issue.

@Sosayi what you say about your do hardly paints him in glory. He did the minimum any decent father would do and was happy to have kids with a woman and let her shoulder the financial burden for bringing them up but wouldn't share any of his considerable assets with her. I couldn't respect a man like that.

*DH obvs

I got divorced a few years ago, so the law might have changed, but when I divorced it was made clear by my solicitor that the decree absolute was not the final word on financial claims, unless a financial settlement (I.e via consent order) had been arranged. I've seen multiple high profile cases, such as the one against the founder of Ecotricity by his ex-wife of 20 years, for financial support after divorce, so I don't believe the position has changed.

For this to happen there has to be substantial evidence and a very compelling reason. Such as the ex shown to have hidden assets.

Ecotricity case is a red herring. He actually settled. She wanted 1.9m and got 300k. He decides to settle out of court. So no verdict was actually reached. The crux of that case was that he was still legally married to when he started the business that would become Ecotricity. So she should have been entitled to own half that business at their original divorce. And it never went to verdict, so he may have lost.

It's very unusual for assets to be revisited in most divorce cases, unless someone has lied or hidden money or assets

@Graphista I was the higher earner but I didn’t make a decision which disadvantages my family. It disadvantaged my ex but not my children. Notbeingrobbed on the other hand got married and has had to give away more than half of her assets to the ex and support the children. I know what position I’d rather be in (it mine in case you need me to point it out).

I really have little time for people who want money they haven’t earned. I think child maintenance should better reflect the costs and sacrifice of raising children. But I see no need for people to get someone else’s property just because they are married. I worked hard for my financial security and get no maintenance from my ex while I raise our children. It would make my blood boil if I had ended up having to give him a chunk of my assets too like poor notbeingrobbed.

Also we have loads of these threads on mn but I still have to meet someone in rl or on mn who didn’t know being married was not the same as not being married. I suppose some people need to educate themselves.

Also you can leave money in pensions and life insurance to anyone you like. I chose to leave mine to my children when I was with my ex and now when I’m not. Would make no difference if I was married.

Also you can leave money in pensions and life insurance to anyone you like

Not always - see my post above.

What happens to this when you die. - whatever you want it to. I’m named on dp’s pensions and policies and he is on mine. Really not hard

Yes. I know it's "really not hard". It's actually mind blowingly easy and no hassle at all but you'd be amazed at the number of couples who do sweet FA about it and then come to grief when one partner dies.

Can I make it clear I am NOT saying marriage/civil partnership is the only basis for a relationship. What I AM saying is that marriage/civil partnership solves a hell of a lot of issues with just one piece of paper. If you don't want to get married or enter into a civil partnership - fine but FFS be aware that you will then need to get some serious paperwork done to protect yourself and your assets if one partner dies.

People keep talking about all these different seperate protections that they have.
Are they just pieces of paper as well

As well they might be but try and get out of that bit of paper without spending £1000s and in some cases tens of thousands

Friend who has been married 20+ years will walk away from her marriage with exactly the same amount as she put in minus a £30,000 solicitors bill after a few years of stress and court dates.

When I see that sort of thing I wonder why people get married

You can absolutely divorce without spending tens of thousands or even one thousand on it, if you're amicable. Very easy. Used to do the cheap ones as a trainee all the time.

Conversely, when divorce is expensive, it's almost always because of arguments over property and/or kids. The divorce itself is the easy and cheap part, as very few are defended. I understand being wary of legal fees but frankly the only way to avoid that risk is not have children or own property with a partner. Do either of those and you're giving someone licence to play silly buggers with the courts at their leisure. Particularly kids.

There can be many good reasons for a couple choosing long term cohabitation as an alternative to marriage, but the legal fees argument is not one of them.

I think that it should be discussed either when someone is pregnant or registering a birth. Yes for some people it is not advantageous, although it is not just about money but also next of kin etc.

A five minute explanation with a registrar, outlining the pros and the cons. Warning against either party becoming a SAHP without marriage would mean that people were informed. I don't think it will change people's reluctance to get married but it might make people consider their position before having more children or giving up a job.

Honestly, I don't think this would go down well. Even if the registrar tried to present the information as neutrally as possible, many people would take offence. They'd interpret it as the registrar judging and lecturing them for being unmarried.

If some of the responses to accurate descriptions of the legal reality on MN are anything to go by, probably.

@RodGallowglass - what sort of “serious paperwork” are you talking about to “protect yourself”? Wouldn’t a will do it? IHT isn’t an issue for most. Also what are you “protecting yourself” from? I didn’t get married to my ex and I had a will leaving my assets to my dds and was sure to leave them my life insurance and pension. It’s not really that hard.

@zsazsajuju A Will not only leaving everything to surviving DP but also dealing with who will look after any children if surviving DP is not their parent. Power of attorney to act for the other should one of you become incapacitated including making decisions re medical treatment. House in joint names. Nomination form for pension and life assurance with DP's name on it. Evidence that DP guardian of any step-children so they are empowered to act on behalf of DSCs should the parent become incapacitated. None of it is that complicated or expensive but so few people do it.

Good points, @RodGallowglass.