He doesn’t want to marry

[StandingMirror]

Hi
I’ve been with my partner for nearly 18 years and have three children together. In the beginning of our relationship, marriage wasn’t that important to me, however now we have children and we’ve been together this long it’s something that I want.
I’ve mentioned it several times over the years, however nothing ever changed.
I don’t want a big wedding, registry office would be just fine.
Yesterday we were watching Bridgerton and I jokingly said it’s an insult you don’t want to marry me haha. But then I thought about it more and thought actually yes it is kind of an insult we’ve been together this long, we have children and I want to marry but I’m clearly not good enough for you. Partner kind of got in a huff and said oh not this again. This is his standard answer but never gives me a reason why he won’t marry. This morning I’m getting the silent treatment and when I commented on it he’s saying well I’m always getting that treatment.
I’m a SAHM, house ( mortgage free) in his name and all savings in his name (inheritance) . Some financial arrangements made in case of his death.
Am I really this unreasonable to expect better?

I've got a bad feeling about this.

@MaskingForIt I have heard that too, and I do remember children I knew growing up having their (unmarried) mother's surname, and this changing to the father's surname if the parents later married.

However, I've been reading a bit of Victorian social history recently, and have come across several examples of unmarried partnerships where the children were known by the dad's name - and the mothers sometimes seem to have used
his name too and been known as Mrs. (I don't know how the children were officially registered, though).

I wonder if the difference is that these were what's commonly known as "common-law" unions (I know, there is no such law), i.e. considered reasonably settled and permanent, with marriage sometimes following. Different to a girl who gets pregnant and the father washes his hands of her.

Of course, in Victorian times there were often good reasons why a couple couldn't legally marry - like if one of them was already married to somebody else. Not really the case nowadays (with divorce).

Actually many working class couples didn’t marry it was more an issue if you had assets. Men and women would informally link up for a few years for mutual survival often not legally formalised.

@MsTSwift

Actually many working class couples didn’t marry it was more an issue if you had assets. Men and women would informally link up for a few years for mutual survival often not legally formalised.

It's so interesting, isn't it? I think there's a fair bit of this nowadays too actually - but then that's a world away from today's man with a good salary and home of his own who's too cool and modern to marry the mother of his children. I wonder if there's any historical precursor to that - a morganatic marriage?!

This is not a straightforward case, in my opinion. Op is in a precarious position, but by her own choices. In her partners position I would not be keen to get married either. And I might be wondering “why now?” and if there could be some ulterior motive (get hands on house and cash, then kick me out, for example). He has put things in place to safeguard OP and his children should he die prematurely (though admittedly, he could change his will/death in service and/or pension beneficiary).

1. OP has not ever said that marriage was a dealbreaker for her, as far as I can tell. In fact, until relatively recently she hasn’t been that bothered one way or the other. It is, therefore, something her partner may quite reasonably have assumed was not something on the cards. It’s not as though her partner has “trapped” her with false promises of marriage on which he has then backtracked. OP chose to have children before marriage.

2. Her partner had already bought the property (with a mortgage) when he met OP. She moved in with him. He has used part of an inheritance to pay off the mortgage. It is not clear how long into their relationship/OP moving in/children being born that he paid off the outstanding mortgage. So, unless OP had been contributing directly to the mortgage during the period of their relationship when she was working (as opposed to only contributing to the bills, which has no bearing on the mortgage), then why should she get 50% AND the right to live their until the youngest child reaches adulthood? If she has contributed to the mortgage directly, then she should be entitled to the equivalent percentage she contributed if they were to split.

3. OP has no right to any of the inheritance. She has not contributed to the earning of it in any way and was not left it. My DH dies not feel he has equal entitlement to money I inherited from my grandparents- though I have chosen to use some of it for things which benefit the whole family. My choice though, not his- because it is not his inheritance.

4. Op appears to have chosen not to return to work- she says her partner has said he would contribute to childcare costs should OP want to return to work. It would seem that he is happy for OP to work and contribute to childcare costs, but has also been willing to support the family as the sole earner. It’s not clear to me that he has demanded she stay at home to facilitate his career, it seems OP has chosen this too. Her youngest is 8, she really could be back at work quite easily.

In my experience where one partner becomes a SAHP, it is usually where there is a disparity in earnings/earning potential. Most (not all) women with a good wage/pension/career do not give it up- because the childcare costs are a relatively short-lived burden for long-term gain. I’m not saying it never happens, but happens less (and often when the working partner is a very high earner). I also find that whilst the decision can be joint, I know a fair few cases where the SAHP has not wanted to return, even when that has been the original plan.

On a wider note, I think the idea that being a SAHP being the only reason the working parent has progressed in their career is flawed. The SAHP has undoubtedly contributed to the family, and if that is what both parties wanted then it is all fine- and the non-earner should have access to funds. The contributions both make need to be recognised. But I do think sometimes people overstate the importance of the whole thing. Lots of parents go back to work aware that childcare costs in early years will be expensive, but long term gain will pay off. Lots of single parents work and have successful careers, so SAHP are not a necessity for a parent to work. More difficult and complicated, certainly, but not impossible. The working parent is not, in my opinion, the only one benefitting from the arrangement.

@jacks11
Excellent post 👏

I am meant to be married dance 2006 but I believe my marriage may be invalid as got married abroad.
Someone just told me that because we never registered our marriage in here, it could be invalid.

So that would be 15 yrs ..

I'm aware that I can nominate anyone as NOK and that in the event of me being incapacitated or worse the law may not agree with what I wanted. Which is awkward because my ex is of no use. Hence me not nominating him. But I guess legally until the decree absolute he has rights in that kind of scenario.

@Washingmyself

I am meant to be married dance 2006 but I believe my marriage may be invalid as got married abroad. Someone just told me that because we never registered our marriage in here, it could be invalid. So that would be 15 yrs ..

I don’t think that’s correct.

If your marriage was a a legal marriage in the country where the ceremony was held, then that’s recognised here too. No need to register the marriage here.

Where you might hit problems is if it was a non-legal ceremony according to that country’s own laws (such as in the case of Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall).

Do you have a marriage certificate?

@Washingmyself, I think you’ve been wrongly advised, see the link I’ve posted

There is no obligation to register an overseas marriage in the uk. Broadly speaking following criteria must be met
It was legal in the country it was undertaken in and all documentation and process was correct

You both have capacity and that your marriage is legal in your domiciled country eg a fifteen year could not marry oversea and return to uk with married status

There is a getting married abroad guide here, select your country where marriage ceremony happened

@DrCoconut

I'm aware that I can nominate anyone as NOK and that in the event of me being incapacitated or worse the law may not agree with what I wanted. Which is awkward because my ex is of no use. Hence me not nominating him. But I guess legally until the decree absolute he has rights in that kind of scenario.

Next of kin has no legal significance in most scenarios. No adult can make medical decisions for another adult unless a Lasting Power of Attorney has been signed, or a court has appointed a deputy/advocate to make decisions.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee
Thank you.
Yes it was properly legal in EU country, the city Mayor was doing the ceremony.
All rules was properly
followed .
It was a friend who told me my marriage is invalid.
She got married abroad too few years after us and had it registered in UK. She said our is defo not valid as we never registered it jn here.

That’s hopefully reassuring for you @Washingmyselfeverything appears to be ok
your friend has laboured under a common misapprehension

Some of the destination "weddings" require you to get married properly somewhere afterwards, @Washingmyself - perhaps that's what your friend did? Proper EU weddings are valid everywhere.

This is the problem when people see marriage as a romantic gesture and not a legal/financial commitment to another person, they leave themselves open and vulnerable waiting for the big grand gesture of love that they think a proposal/getting married is. In reality there is nothing in marriage that would benefit the DP here sadly and everything that would benefit OP so he doesn't want to do it.

I also wonder when people say 'you should demand X or Y, tell him he has to look after the kids 100% so you can find work etc etc...' why do people think OP is the one who has any bargaining power here? So she could make these demands, he decides no and leaves and where does she end up? It's a very vulnerable situation. I don't even know what to suggest. Yes you need to get a job but be careful making demands etc... Of a partner who could up and leave you in the shit tomorrow if they wanted.

I know a few women who aren’t married and are not married but in long term relationships but in every case they have their names on everything from the mortgage, to their partners pension etc

I wouldn’t have said anything to him at all but I would have played the longer game.
Gone back to work. Then with your income suggested moving to a bigger house with a mortgage which you have your name on as well as him.
It would have given yourself some security.
I didn’t think people got themselves into this sort of problems anymore.
As an aside to those who think marriage is some sort of protection though. I am married. I have my name on the mortgage, the deeds to the house, my husbands pension etc.
If we split I would be in a worse financial position than my friends who just live together with their partners as I would have to pay out for a divorce. Over the years the pension and savings have gone because of circumstances beyond our control. The only thing left is the house and that would be split 50/50 anyway whether I was married or divorced

I don’t think girls should be taught at school to only have children if they are married, or tell them how precarious their situation is if they are not married.

The laws in your country should be updated to the 21st century to recognise de facto partnerships & common law marriages after a Certain number of years cohabitating together.

I think women feeling forced to marry because they want to keep their baby is not a great situation. Feeling like they shouldn’t have kids when they want to because they are unmarried. It seems very old fashioned ?

Am honestly surprised England seems to be so behind other countries in this aspect.

@bourbonne has already said it but just in case it gets lost. He might not know that if he was to die you would have to pay inheritance tax on anything he leaves you over 325k. So you might not be able to stay in the house because you would have a big tax to pay. Married couples are exempt. I would lead with this as a concern.

Other differences are here: www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

I don’t think girls should be taught at school to only have children if they are married, or tell them how precarious their situation is if they are not married.
The laws in your country should be updated to the 21st century to recognise de facto partnerships & common law marriages after a Certain number of years cohabitating together.*
I think women feeling forced to marry because they want to keep their baby is not a great situation. Feeling like they shouldn’t have kids when they want to because they are unmarried. It seems very old fashioned ?*

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested they don't have babies if they're not married. I think they are suggesting that the reality of having a baby without the backing of marriage or similar financial security is something that girls should seriously think about. Certainly nobody on this thread is suggesting they should get married to keep their baby - the planning and realisation of the facts of life (not just the birds and the bees part) is vital in the education of young people now, especially girls

I think women feeling forced to marry because they want to keep their baby is not a great situation. Feeling like they shouldn’t have kids when they want to because they are unmarried. It seems very old fashioned ?

As for the law, well after years and years of campaigns to have marriage between people beyond the "man and woman" model has succeed so at least people in homosexual partnerships can have the benefits, rights and responsibilities conferred by this. (ie the right not to be thrown out on their ear with no financial security in the case of a break-up)

Civil partnerships are now also possible which confer similar but not identical rights/responsibilities.

Given this, there is at least some provision in law for people in a partnership. But, unfortunately, what the OP finds herself in is not de facto a partnership of that type. And we don't really know from this thread if that is a conscious decision by her DP or just one of those things that people drift into.

So again: think long and hard about entering this type of relationship and keep reviewing your needs (more than 5 years together and paying into a mortgage for a house that doesn't have your name on the deeds? have a couple of kids? Getting middle aged and worried DP will look for a younger replacement? etc etc)

That would mean those living with someone forced to give them rights 🙄. Daft idea. Many adults want to be in a relationship but not confer rights say both self supporting and have their own children. There is a perfectly good opt in protection system if adults choose not to use it sorry but that’s on them. This “solution” creates more issues than it purports to solve.

This thread is so vicious! I hope you are ok OP, I have no idea why you’re are receiving such nasty replies, you don’t deserve it at all.

The laws in your country should be updated to the 21st century to recognise de facto partnerships & common law marriages after a Certain number of years cohabitating together

Absolutely not! The protection of marriage/civil partnership is provided through those structures. Not everyone wants a legal commitment - especially when it’s a second long term relationship that doesn’t produce children. The state should not compel a contract where it’s unnecessary.

I really am starting to wonder if the laws do need to be changed because I just can't get over the never ending tidal wave of women getting fucked over in this way. I've read a bit about de facto relationships, but my concern is that you still have to go and register them, as with a marriage, so once men clock that it's no different in that sense, they can still refuse. And they should be able to refuse, because nobody should have their assets and income committed to someone else by stealth. Somewhere along the line, these people have to declare their wish to commit to each other legally; I don't want to see a system whereby it happens by itself. You need to be able to live with someone without marrying if that's what you want; there are plenty of cases where that is preferable, eg to protect inheritance for children of a previous relationship.

Legal and financial commitments like that need to be opt in. Plus, to give proper protection, they need not to be too short term; the long term impact on the lower or non earner need to be taken into account.

I don't know what the answer is but maybe a change of law in some sense would help.

@GeordieGreigsButtButtZoom

"I really am starting to wonder if the laws do need to be changed because I just can't get over the never ending tidal wave of women getting fucked over in this way. "

There,are also,threads on here of women that have been asset stripped by husbands who brought nothing to the marriage. It works both ways.

To reform the law is just another way of saying a person can be a set stripped without their consent just because they live with someone. There is already a perfectly acceptable provision called marriage /civil partnerships and if a person wants to enter such a contract they can.

My advice to any friend in a settled relationship is "no ring...no babies"