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

AIBU to not understand getting marrying years after having kids and living together

380 replies

Lcats · 09/10/2020 17:47

What I really mean here is please help me understand. I just have never been exposed to this in real life. However I keep coming across such threads on mumsnet.

What I don't understand is - surely raising your child(ren) together is the ultimate commitment. So for people who marry say five years after having two children - does it nevertheless signify a new step in the relationship? Or is it merely a delayed celebration of the fact that you are already de facto married?

Among my friends those to whom being married mattered for whatever reason married before having kids, or after falling pregnant or having their first child. I have a few friends to whom being married never seemed to matter so they live together for years without. So I have no one to ask in everyday life.

OP posts:
hesaidshesaidwhat · 09/10/2020 20:43

I understand why some women feel protected by marriage but this only really holds true if the woman isn't financially independent. I am not married but have children with my partner, I don't want to get married. I have everything in place for my assets to pass to my children. I know this will possibly incur more inheritance tax however I want my assets to go directly to my children. I too think that as time goes by and women become more independent marriage will die out, although judging by the threads on here lots of women will still change their name as their's is so awful. Marriage is such a patriarchal institution.

timeforanewstart · 09/10/2020 20:43

We were engaged for 10 years as well

VinylDetective · 09/10/2020 20:47

Schemes differ @ScarMatty. Ours are MOD, NHS and local government.

CrappleUmble · 09/10/2020 20:48

@hesaidshesaidwhat

I understand why some women feel protected by marriage but this only really holds true if the woman isn't financially independent. I am not married but have children with my partner, I don't want to get married. I have everything in place for my assets to pass to my children. I know this will possibly incur more inheritance tax however I want my assets to go directly to my children. I too think that as time goes by and women become more independent marriage will die out, although judging by the threads on here lots of women will still change their name as their's is so awful. Marriage is such a patriarchal institution.
The large majority of women aren't financially independent to that level though. Neither are most men when there are dependent children either, it's a rare enough parent who could cover all household and childcare costs from their money alone. So it's not really an 'only' situation. Probably for most people the access to the full range of bereavement benefits will be the most potentially significant protection offered by marriage. It doesn't look like the McLaughlin decision is going to be written into law any time soon.
VinylDetective · 09/10/2020 20:49

Marriage is such a patriarchal institution

It’s an odd kind of patriarchy that on the whole benefits women!

Bargebill19 · 09/10/2020 20:50

@hesaidshesaidwhat

Marriage could protect your children’s inheritance if you think inheritance tax could be an issue. Do you want a proportion of your wealth to go to the government instead? A will would ensure your children got exactly what you wanted them to get.

Granted legally things could change in the future.

TheMenopausalPinkHairedWitch · 09/10/2020 20:52

Really sorry to hear that Bargebill19

Pensions are very complicated and can be an absolute minefield. You absolutely cannot assume that you will receive anything if your other half dies before you unless it is written clearly in the policy.

Lots of us think about pensions in relation to our later years but say your other half dies in their 40s or 50s. That widow's or widower's pension could mean that you can pay the mortgage without having to go back to work full time or take on a second job to cover the bills.

This stuff is important. Please check it out!

Thisbastardcomputer · 09/10/2020 20:54

Death, pensions etc

SciFiScream · 09/10/2020 20:56

@winetime89 there's also a benefit paid on the death of a married partner that you only qualify for if you have children and are married.

winetime89 · 09/10/2020 20:58

@TheMenopausalPinkHairedWitch

winetime89 No, pensions absolutely do not just take time to find the right person. If a pension scheme does not specifically and explicitly state that it will pay out to an unmarried partner it will not pay out at all if you are the unmarried partner. A will does not and cannot change this.

Sorry but yes, you are being naive. You really need to check out your financial position.

I'm very confused. Partners mother recently died and she put in her will that her pension is to be split between him and sibling so I wonder why she can do that with her two pensions?
winetime89 · 09/10/2020 20:59

[quote SciFiScream]**@winetime89* there's also a benefit paid on the death of a married partner that you only qualify for if you have children and are married*. [/quote]
Thanks. Looks like I need to get a registry office wedding booked. I thought we were pretty Finacial secure until tonight.

CrappleUmble · 09/10/2020 20:59

Pension schemes don't all have the same rules.

tinkletinklelittlestar · 09/10/2020 21:00

Not that fussed about marriage but I am engaged (a ring to stop me running away). A mix of complacency over many many years and cannot be arsed with family bollocks around who gets invited or not. Might rip the plaster off and do it at a registry office with witnesses and no kids. My OH feels the same. I love him and can’t imagine life without him. Never dreamt about the big white dress - ever.

MsVestibule · 09/10/2020 21:00

To me, marriage is more of a commitment to each other than having children together.

In my situation, I became pregnant unexpectedly after only being together a few months, even though we were on the verge of breaking up. We decided to give our relationship a proper go, moved in together and it all went well. We knew very quickly that we wanted another, so had another baby 20 months later. (I was in my late 30s so couldn't hang around.)

We got married when DC2 was 8 months old. By that time, our feelings for each other had deepened and we knew marriage was right for us.

I know a lot of people would have thought 'yeah, yeah, just doing the next step', but for us, it was absolutely the right time to make that commitment and not just a tick box exercise. On our wedding day, I was 100% sure it was the right thing to do, and 11 years later, we still feel the same way.

I was financially independent before we married (had a lot more assets than my now-DH but a similar income) so being unmarried whilst pregnant was financially the right decision. I then became a SAHM after we got married, so being married then was also right for me!!

VinylDetective · 09/10/2020 21:00

Because they could prove they were her children @winetime89. She probably had to send their birth certificates to the scheme.

Bluntness100 · 09/10/2020 21:02

There is no such thing as “de facto married”. I think you kinda made that up in your own head. You’re either married or you’re not. Just like being pregnant you are or you aren’t.

SciFiScream · 09/10/2020 21:03

@winetime89 doesn't have to be a marriage. Could also be a civil partnership! As long as you are legally connected in one of those two ways.

www.gov.uk/bereavement-support-payment?step-by-step-nav=4f1fe77d-f43b-4581-baf9-e2600e2a2b7a

Plussizejumpsuit · 09/10/2020 21:04

I'm not married but don't have children. I've been with my partner for 16 years. We own a house together. I don't want to be part of the institution of marriage. However I agree with pp's that the legal protection is important. Especially if you have children. For that reason we will get married or do a civil partnership at some point. I'd like to think that the legal protection offered by marriage would be extended to long term cohabiting couples or couples with children. As ultimately its normally women who are disadvantaged by splitting up after cohabitation without marriage.

hesaidshesaidwhat · 09/10/2020 21:04

@VinylDetective - just how does it benefit women completely? it supports lower earners who tend to be women. Men in this position are also vulnerable if not married. Not many of them give up their jobs though. Additionally many men can just bugger off and women are left to pick up the pieces, along with the tax payer who (rightly) has to give them benefits.

My children will get what I want them to get. There is zero risk of the money going to my partner and then him meeting someone else, marrying and them getting nothing. Cynical me, yes, seen it happen numerous times. My priority is my children.

Dreading2020sSeasonFinale · 09/10/2020 21:10

It's a legal document and very important in my view. I've known a couple who were together for 20+ years get NO rights when their partner took ill. An estranged sibling who'd not been around for over 30 years got everything and made all the legal/care decisions for a sibling they didn't even like over a lifelong partner of over 20 years.

I married DH after 10 years and three kids because a) it was the final step of our commitment together, b) it gave me security, c) it gave us both legal rights if anything happens to the other, c) My surname now matches my children's.

CrappleUmble · 09/10/2020 21:13

I'd like to think that the legal protection offered by marriage would be extended to long term cohabiting couples or couples with children. As ultimately its normally women who are disadvantaged by splitting up after cohabitation without marriage.

I doubt it. We live in a patriarchal society, and the patriarchy absolutely adores women taking a disproportionate share of caring labour without even the limited protections of a marriage/CP contract. Plus to be fair, marriage involves giving up rights and protections as well as gaining them, which a lot of people don't realise.

VinylDetective · 09/10/2020 21:14

just how does it benefit women completely?

It doesn’t. I was very careful to say “on the whole”.

Earache2020 · 09/10/2020 21:15

I'm one of these people with a few kids and not married. If the house and bank account is in both of our names and our pension is pretty equal, is there any other financial reason? Genuine question. I don't know that much about taxes, inheritance tax etc.

LakieLady · 09/10/2020 21:18

My colleague got married recently after nearly 40 years with her partner.

They had been reviewing their pensions etc and discovered that, if he predeceased her, she wouldn't get any of his pension if they weren't married. Their grown-up children were the witnesses.

CrappleUmble · 09/10/2020 21:18

Yes, marriage financially benefits women as a cohort, not universally. All that means is that if all women in significant relationships were to be married, as a group this would leave us better off that if all women in significant relationships were to cohabit instead. That doesn't tell any woman about her own individual situation though, and isn't a good basis for making a decision.