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

[Lcats]

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.

@earache2020

Death benefits, inheritance tax to name two good reasons. Also makes dealing with the aftermath of the death of your spouse much easier when dealing with institutions such as banks.

All of these things are covered by power of attorney. My understanding that even if you are married, if you don't have poe decisions can be made by authorities without any input. Happy to be corrected however having it is imperative if you aren't married.

We're raised with stories that marriage all about romance and feelings, so many call it 'just a piece of paper', very modern ideals that the law has nothing to do with our relationships -- until it very much does. Many people are unaware of the legal implications of marriage until something happens - or the law looks to change, as with the previously mentioned Brexit. Yes, some things can be covered in others ways, but few go through cohabitation agreements or any of the other things either.

There are also those trying to save a failing relationship (kids aren't the ultimate commitment or relationship saver that many hope for them to be, many toss aside their partners and kid(s), it's just more expensive for some), some who just wanted to save up for a big party, some are blended families that other legal issues to deal with.

France's civil solidarity pact I think is really interesting, though I've only read about it, I think that if the UK had similar (civil partnerships aren't quite the same) that it would have high take up. Personally, I'm not big on 'defacto' laws as I think it should be something to actively enter into rather than based on time or living situation, but those can be useful too in situations like today where the legal meaning of marriage seems to be rarely covered in schools.

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.

My maiden name was beautiful thank you
Why would you lose your independence by getting married? I certainly didn't.

People against the concept of marriage and banging on the patriarchy always sound so bitter, why is that.

@hesaidshesaidwhat

No they are NOT covered by power of attorney. All powers of attorney cease to exist on the point of death.
Powers of attorney are for the living only.

If they are unable to communicate the clinicians will deal with the closest blood relative if you are not a spouse or civil partner.

No, not so, @TheMenopausalPinkHairedWitch: clinicians - in the UK at least - will make decisions in the best interest of the patient, and, while they will consult with whoever is most reasonably considered the NOK, that person doesn't actually get to make decisions on behalf of the patient. Further, the idea that a longstanding cohabiting partner with whom the patient has children would somehow be excluded from discussions while their ILs turn off the life support machine or refuse consent for organ donation is purely the stuff of TV drama. I think you may not have read the link you posted properly tbh. In practice, the most appropriate person to deal with will usually be a legal or blood relation, but no UK doctor would sideline someone who was clearly a stakeholder. An absence of parental responsibility in respect of a child is a different matter, but that's an example of one of the things that can be sorted out outwith marriage.

You may well be right about pensions and spouses, although the law is being overhauled with regard to civil partners. However, I wouldn't know as my DP and I have made different retirement arrangements.

I love him, but can’t be asked with the fuss and cost of a wedding. I’d rather do a loft conversion. Practical to a fault. Who said romance was dead confused

You’ll save the cost of a wedding when one of you dies and the other inherits inheritance tax free. Practical to a fault

OK understand that post death it's not covered, not pre-death though.

@ZezetteEpouseX - never said women loose their independence, I said as they become more independent i.e. earn equally, realise that 'having it all' literally means in many cases 'doing it all' (see threads on here), realise that marriage has always been and still is a patriarchal instituion. I'm not against marriage at all however this thread is about women being protected by marriage, women should not need marriage to be protected. I'll be making sure my DD and DS get married for the right reasons not so they are 'protected' although will ensure their assets are protected!

Yeah, that's really bad advice. Of course a power of attorney does bugger all once someone's dead.

Re the pacte civil, it's interesting but I doubt it would be particularly popular here. Especially as we now have universally available CP for those wanting some kind of state recognition that isn't marriage. There are probably some people for whom it fits the exact legal definition of what they prefer, but it would still incorporate a lot of the reasons people don't marry now. It's involving the state in your relationship, it requires active involvement in a process that not everyone is going to get round to, some people will still believe they don't need anything in order to be in the same legal position as a couple who have undergone the process, some people just prefer a lesser commitment.

You can't just leave the impact of marriage post death out of it though, because that's where it can be most significant. Especially as the majority of marriages in the UK end in death rather than splitting during life.

Having Power of Attorney makes absolutely no difference if your unmarried partner’s pension scheme states they will not pay a widower’s/widow’s pension to an unmarried/not in a legal civil partnership partner. None. If you aren’t married or in a civil partnership you won’t receive anything.

There is no way round this other than being married or in a civil partnership.

DH nan and grandad split up years ago like 50 years ago. He had a new partner, had a child with her, they owned a house and a business that his Nan had never had anything to do with yet when he died because they hadn’t divorced it all went her. Luckily because DH family are lovely she renounced all claim to it and his share of everything was divided between all of his children but I could see in a different family the old wife might have just taken everything!!

Genuine question, does the UK not have de facto laws?

In Australia, if you have been in a genuine domestic relationship for two years or more and/or have children you're entitled to the same as if you were married.

I'll be making sure my DD and DS get married for the right reasons not so they are 'protected' although will ensure their assets are protected!

What are “the right reasons”? And how will you make sure of anything when they’re independent adults?

You use the phrase "de facto married" in your OP which perpetuates a myth. In England (many places in fact) there is no such thing as a de facto marriage. We married to protect our children in terms of inheritance and guardianship. Marriage is an unromantic legal contract.

@pashola

Genuine question, does the UK not have de facto laws?

In Australia, if you have been in a genuine domestic relationship for two years or more and/or have children you're entitled to the same as if you were married.

No. Scotland had a very limited version of something like it but it's closed to new relationships now.

Also is it just me or is talking about how you'll make sure your kids marry for what you deem the right reasons weirdly controlling? Your adult children's legal contracts won't be up to you...

Pretty straight forward Vinyl, they will understand the implications, it's not difficult. Marriage is a contract, pure and simple, when you view it like that you go in with your eyes open. You call it bitter, in 21st century I call it being practical and prepared!

@hesaidshesaidwhat

Pretty straight forward Vinyl, they will understand the implications, it's not difficult. Marriage is a contract, pure and simple, when you view it like that you go in with your eyes open. You call it bitter, in 21st century I call it being practical and prepared!

I didn’t call it bitter. Of course marriage is a contract, it even says so in the ceremony.

It's not a new step, necessarily, it's getting all the legal stuff tied up when you realise how fucked your kids or the unexpectedly pre deceased partner might be if you don't

ConquestEmpireHungerPlague That has absolutely happened to a friend of mine. The estranged daughter of her partner came in when he was in ICU and as ‘official’ NOK got my friend banned from visiting. She wasn’t allowed to get updates on his condition and couldn’t be with him when he died because his NOK was able to make those decisions.

She wasn’t the OW or anything like that. It was baffling. But it broke my friend’s heart and probably didn’t do her partner any good being separated from the woman he loved.

I’m sure these situations are rare but please think about whether your family might have these issues and try to prevent them.

As others have said - it's the legal side. Things that don't seem important initially even with children and a mortgage, when younger, but once you start hitting 50, the implications feel a bit bigger of not having that contractural relationship (romantic!). Those were our reasons for getting married later. Had tiny marriage ceremony (with children plus 2 witnesses). Not a wedding as such.

@Lcats

I understand there are legal protections.

But if the couple finds this fact important then why delay the marriage for years?

Because they want to save up for a big fancy do but they don't realise that once you've have kids, the time for a big fancy do has passed and it's a bit embarrassing trying to have one!

We got married 11 years after having our second dc. My now DH had an accident last year and was literally hours if not minutes away from death. We suddenly realised it was very important to get married as had we lost him I would have been nothing to him and he would have died single in the eyes of the law. Not very romantic but true.

For us personally, it's because we're Church of England and the C of E doesn't celebrate same-sex marriage.

It's about the law. Never to be underestimated.