Page 3 | AIBU to think why did this couple just get married

isabellerossignol · 03/03/2020 08:04

This is more about children's rights than parents rights. Does the child deserve to lose out and live in absolute poverty because of what their parents did or didn't do?

No, but the choice for them to lose out wasn't made by the government it was made by their parents.

And I believe that children would probably miss out, in other ways, if the government made co-habiting equal to marriage, because then their parents (or more likely, one parent) would then choose to not live together at all. Is that scenario any more fair?

ImFreeToDoWhatIWant · 03/03/2020 08:04

There is a certain type of contact that parties can engage into receive order to receive a series of legal and financial benefits. There are also certain legal and financial costs to that contract once it is entered. None of this information is hidden from either party before entering the contract. Entering the contract has a very small obligatory financial cost but either party is free to increase that cost at will, though it will not change the legal nor financial benefits to the contract.

Should people who make a free choice not to enter the contract be able to access the legal and financial benefits of the contract?

Kateplaysrugbyinmydreams · 03/03/2020 08:09

YANBU. I've seen this reported locally too. It's really annoyed me, lots of 'it's terrible hun' on Facebook etc and absolutely no comprehension that these facts aren't hidden anywhere, marriage exists for a purpose and a failure to plan on their part does not constitute a national disgrace.

I think we will end up with benefits being paid in trust for the child because I cannot see how else you can police the length of relationship etc. Or perhaps a nomination system? You'll still end up with somebody complaining they didn't know though. And what if a person has two families, married to neither partner?

wafflyversatile · 03/03/2020 08:10

If funds are designed to support a child who has lost a parent it shouldn't matter if the parents are married or not. If the dead parent was contributing with childcare or finances then that support is lost upon their death. The surviving parent is left trying to plug that gap regardless of marital status so the funds should be available regardless of marital status.

LittleSweet · 03/03/2020 08:10

They needed life insurance. Then they would be covered without the need of getting married.

TryingToBeBold · 03/03/2020 08:12

The couple had recently bought a house together and Ms Rudd now faces paying the mortgage alone while juggling childcare for her son
But someone said they did have life insurance?

I dont understand. Normally life insurance would be in place to cover the value of the mortgage? Or at least most of it?

leckford · 03/03/2020 08:12

Non married people don’t get state pensions, may have problem continuing to live in a property, etc. However when people say on here ‘partners’ should be entitled to this and that - which partner, the one the man left with a child 2 years ago, or the current one he met 2 months ago?

Genderfreezone · 03/03/2020 08:13

No, but the choice for them to lose out wasn't made by the government it was made by their parents

Seeing as we have a duty to protect children, regardless of an adults actions, then this isnt any different.

FenellaVelour · 03/03/2020 08:13

I'm married, with kids, if my husband died the government gives me 10 grand?

Sounds like this thread has given you food for thought, KenDodd 😂

Nearlyalmost50 · 03/03/2020 08:14

Yes, they needed life insurance, but a quick google tells me less than a 1/3 of the population have it.

And, predictably, poorer families or people are less likely to have it (making ends meet) than richer people (for whom it's just another bill).

Not everyone can get it either, if you are already ill with exclusions/if you are really ill you cannot get it at all.

Genderfreezone · 03/03/2020 08:15

And I believe that children would probably miss out, in other ways, if the government made co-habiting equal to marriage, because then their parents (or more likely, one parent) would then choose to not live together at all. Is that scenario any more fair?

If a couple do not want to live together anymore, or marry, then it certainly isn't fair to force them to, which will have a knock on negative impact on the child.

Babybel90 · 03/03/2020 08:17

Perhaps when you go to register the birth of a child, if you are unmarried the registrar should give a leaflet explaining that as you are not married if either parent dies you will not be entitled to bereavement payments, spousal inheritance tax exemption, some pension payments and you will not be able to arrange the funeral as you are not legally next of kin etc... that way they couldn’t claim they didn’t know.

diddl · 03/03/2020 08:18

So is the payment meant to benefit the child(ren) or the bereaved partner?

If the child(ren) then why would marriage be an issue?

If the spouse, then yes only to married people?

Why should those unwilling to commit to marriage receive benefits as if they did?

GladAllOver · 03/03/2020 08:19

If unmarried couples are going to be treated as married then marriage has just been made redundant.

Kateplaysrugbyinmydreams · 03/03/2020 08:19

There has been a go fund me which has raised over 3 grand btw. So the funeral costs should be largely met now.

isabellerossignol · 03/03/2020 08:19

If a couple do not want to live together anymore, or marry, then it certainly isn't fair to force them to, which will have a knock on negative impact on the child.

But if the reason they refuse to live together is because they don't want the government forcing 'marriage' on them, then those children lose out so that other children gain. So who is more deserving? That's all I'm arguing. It's not that I don't feel sympathy for this family, and others like them, on a personal level. It's simply that I think that when people have chosen not to marry, you can't force a form of legal contract on them without it having negative consequences elsewhere.

Genderfreezone · 03/03/2020 08:21

Perhaps when you go to register the birth of a child, if you are unmarried the registrar should give a leaflet explaining that as you are not married if either parent dies you will not be entitled to bereavement payments, spousal inheritance tax exemption, some pension payments and you will not be able to arrange the funeral as you are not legally next of kin etc

Actually that's not a bad idea. It might help some people in the future anyway. Unless of course this archaic ruling does get overturned. Then it won't matter.

LividLaughLovely · 03/03/2020 08:22

People need to be more informed.

I’m ancient, newly-wed and very pregnant. It was important to me to be legally married before the baby, for all the reasons above. I’ve also checked that my life insurance policy is up-to-date, will automatically pay mortgage and confers critical illness cover to the baby.

I don’t LIKE thinking about these things but it’s part of making sure the people I care about are legally and financially protected, as am I. Husband took out his own life insurance policy to do same.

Autumnsloth · 03/03/2020 08:23

It's hard though, many couples can't afford the wedding they want and so put it off until after mortgage and baby. It's not a lack of commitment, it's giving yourselves time to save.

littleblackdress04 · 03/03/2020 08:27

I’m not married to my partner & we rent. But I have 200k of life insurance and my death in service is 150k plus my kids would get my pension. My OH isn’t quite so well protected but has 100k of life insurance which is all we could afford due to his age. I don’t want to be married as my parents got divorced & it was shit

LividLaughLovely · 03/03/2020 08:29

@Autumnsloth I know, which is why I’d agree with a PP that people need to REALLY understand what marriage means.

We need to have it reframed away from canapés and DJs and back to a legal protection, so at least people understand what they’re deferring. We did it with nine weeks between deciding and marrying, for a small budget, and frankly I would’ve insisted on doing it in my jeans with nobody there if that was the only way to afford it.

But, I’ve been married before and so had he: we both understood that the wedding is merely the decorative part of marriage.

Genderfreezone · 03/03/2020 08:30

But if the reason they refuse to live together is because they don't want the government forcing 'marriage' on them, then those children lose out so that other children gain. So who is more deserving? That's all I'm arguing

I get that. And if the only reason is that, that they otherwise love eachother and would be together anyway, then yes in the interests of the child they need to do that. I don't think it's right, as people pay into the system married or not, but obviously with the current system, a parent does need to consider this in the best interest of their child. I'm not including the relationships where people really shouldn't be married or forced to be together, and I still think it's unacceptable that those children potentially lose out. I still think this needs changing overall for this reason.

Blondeshavemorefun · 03/03/2020 08:31

@Babybel90 that’s a good idea.

TryingToBeBold · 03/03/2020 08:35

I understand not everyone can get life insurance but.. if you can then you should. Part of the process of purchasing a house was to get life insurance (I only purchased mine 6 years back and it was part of it all then)

KenDodd · 03/03/2020 08:37

Rubbish about not being able to afford to get married. You don't need a fancy wedding, a marriage is much much more than just a party and people shouldn't lose sight of what's really important.