To ask why marriage before children is so important?

[Eaststreet]

Excuse my ignorance on this but time and time again I see comments from people on MN’s telling people not to have a child with somebody before marriage - comments I see are along the lines of ‘it’s so risky’ , ‘leaving yourself open’ ‘asking for disaster’

I might just be really naive but can somebody please explain the risks involved?

Myself and DP are TTC now, and all these comments are making me really uneasy, should I genuinely be worried?
We were due to get married this year and then the plan was to start ttc but we have postpone the wedding due to COVID and didn’t want to postpone having a baby too. Should I genuinely get be worried about this? And get married first?

you’ll only be entitled to a share of the family home if you’re married

I meant to say IF you’re not on the deeds.

Marriage affords some degree of financial security and a cushion against the blow your earning potential may take due to maternity leave/being the main carer etc.

No, that won’t be a problem for some women, but for many it will.

Equally important is to make sure you are both on the mortgage if you own a property and to keep your foot in the world of work.

I have seen SO many women I know left in vulnerable positions through not being married (especially when they’ve been SAHM or had low paid, part time jobs) when they break up with their ‘lovely’ DP years down the line and realise they don’t have any rights to property, pensions, assets etc.

If not married then protect yourself legally. Make sure you have name on deeds of a house. Dont share bank accounts - I'm not a fan anyway of this even after 18 years married. Make sure you have a private pension if not working or working pt that has decent contributions going in each months. Get wills written. Have clear plans if one or both of you pass away.

A lot of the above doesn't apply to you. You're not slipping into cohabitation and parenting without talking about plans, commitment, a shared sense of the future. You're planning to get a legal contract securing your rights as soon as restrictions allow a celebration at the same time.

For me it was that dad died when I was a kid and them not being married made probate and getting his medical records harder as they weren't married. I m going to be a stay at home mum once my mat leaves over and us being married means we can get marriage tax allowance and our will covers most things but it would make it easier if something happened although I would say you need a will and life insurance regardless of being married or not.

Having as baby together is, or should be, a huge mutual commitment . That for the next 20 years, you will both be parenting and emotionally and financially supporting that child. To take that on you need to know the other person inside out, know what their values and ambitions are, trust them.

 "The wedding" has nothing whatever to do with what marriage (and parenthood) is really about.

Having grown up around carnage (mum had me very young and subsequently got into a DV relationship with someone else for many years) I swore I'd be married before having kids. This is an extra level of security for me and shows me that my partner has no commitment issues before taking the biggest step there is and having a baby. Without marriage, there's no real security there with you and your child and as harsh as this is, relationships are a lot easier to get out of than marriages. I wanted to be 100% sure that I had done everything within my power to give my child the most secure possible start as that's what I craved as a kid. I don't understand why women are so blasé about getting pregnant without marriage/a serious long term relationship first. A child is the biggest commitment there is and should be absolutely considered as such.

I would never have children unmarried.
All you can do is know the differences and make decision that best fits you.
There’s a good link about differences on CAB website.
A married woman’s husband is assumed to be father and has parental rights from birth. Your boyfriend won’t have parental responsibility for baby unless you name him on birth certificate. Not usually an issue but if you die in childbirth or before birth registered he’d have to go to court to be child’s father. I personally wouldn’t like not to be legal parent of my child with no right to consent to treatment for them etc but lots of men seem happy with this.
You die or become ill you are not each other’s next of kin. Families can be odd - you’d have no recourse if next of kin wanted to arrange funeral, exclude you etc.
No entitlement to bereavement support payments - not a huge amount but would pay for funeral and give you income whilst you get back on your feet (only widows/widowers qualify)
Unmarried partners are best viewed as a flat mate - so no obligation to support each other financially. That obviously suits some people. Where is usually goes wrong is woman gives up job/goes part time, lives in his house and then when split up is entitled to nothing.

Maybe if we were like France, with one standard secular state mandated ceremony for all to get married, people would be more willing to do it? And then the expectation of a 'big day' would be reduced as everyone would be married rather than having 'a wedding' no matter what they did after the ceremony. Only people who really wanted a church fuss would have it.

It's an interesting question because we're in a similar position (wedding cancelled / probably need to try and see if we can have children in the meantime as I'm not young). However in our scenario I'm the higher owner, own more of the house and have more savings so potentially it's in my interest not to get married!

I'm about to have a baby, and we aren't married. Partner wants to marry. I don't.

I am financially secure by myself, and have large equity in my house. I don't want to give this up at this stage. In another 5 years or so when he is in a different financial position, we want to buy together, and at this point I might change my mind about marriage as I know it is improper at to him. As it stands he contributes towards bills and food, but I carry the bulk of the financial responsibility, including a car loan we both pay for but in my name. It comes with risks and benefits - if I kicked him out he could technically have no claim on the car, but equally if he walked away, I have a car I cannot afford on my own and would have to surrender.

I don't think anything is ever as black and white as "you are better if you are married"

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7334313/amp/I-never-felt-marriage-important-day-Paolo-died.html

Daily mail link but explains reality of situation for lady who was engaged when her boyfriend died leaving her with a toddler.

@Dixiechickonhols

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7334313/amp/I-never-felt-marriage-important-day-Paolo-died.html

Daily mail link but explains reality of situation for lady who was engaged when her boyfriend died leaving her with a toddler.

My goodness. How do two adults have a child and assume they are 'as good as' married. One is either married or not. A cautionary tale.

but I used to work with someone who’s partner decided he didn’t want to be a dad, and left while she was 8 months pregnant. They weren’t married, so she couldn’t put his name on the birth certificate. In order to claim child support she had to go to the courts to get ‘assumed parentage’. He refused a DNA test, and was eventually forced to pay (the minimum) in child support

This is not how it works in England. Any woman can name any man the father of her child as far as the CMS is concerned. It would be up to the man to prove he wasn't the father by denying it in the first instance and then taking a DNA test which he would also be expected to pay for. If he refuses to take a test, then paternity is assumed and the person concerned assessed for maintenance as they would be if they were on the birth certificate.

I am unmarried. Eldest child is 11. Been with DP for 19 years. I don't want to get married. Nothing I have read on Mumsnet has made me feel I should (and there are many people with very strong views on it.) Suits us fine.

I'm sure this won't go down well, but...

When me and my DP (now DH) decided we wanted children, we decided to go for it. From my point of view, if there was fertility issues, I wanted them flagged up before we got married. And then we both would then have the choice as to whether to stick with each other or find someone where it would work. Sounds dispassionate, I know.

My DP became my DH after our first child was born. Because of the reasons stated above.

We love each other a lot, but we are also both rational people.

I am happily married but just the briefest of glances on here shows that lots of marriages end. And some of them end acrimoniously. Also unfortunately sometimes partners die sadly before their time.

So I think it makes sense to ensure you're protected financially, but I would always give that advice to any mother or woman planning to become a mother, regardless of whether she's married or single or maybe planning marriage in the future but not right now, or adament she'll never get married, etc etc.

A previous poster summed up best how to protect yourself financially: pay into a pension, ensure your career isn't downplayed in favour of his (especially important if there's a perception that he's the 'breadwinner'), ensure any assets are joint with your name on deeds as well as his, etc.

Good luck ttc OP

I was told by a school teacher that traditionally marriage was for the protection of women. If a marriage ends it doesn't guarantee that he'll do the right thing by providing care or financial help for the children but the law is there to help. The wedding doesn't have to be expensive. Modern expectations are to have a champagne wedding even if you've got a beer income.

In the 1960s 'let it all hang out/marriage is just a piece of paper' etc came along. My mum used to say that it was 'all right for the rich and intellectual' but it wasn't really the case for ordinary folk.

It can work both ways. My sister divorced her lazy arse of a husband and she lost half her stuff to him even though she'd contributed more so the 50/50 thing went against her but in a way it was worth it to be rid of him. We could argue the toss all day about this subject but both sides will never agree.

It's mainly if you're planning to become a SAHM or work part time. If you will carry on working full time, it's less of an issue.

It's down to individuals.

If you're daft enough to give up your financial freedom to become a skivvy, marriage or not you will be impacted both long and short term. Yes should you seperate you might get a chunk of their pension, why put yourself in a situation of being financially reliant on another person?

Married people can still individually change their wills and screw over their significant other. Happened to a mate and fighting it was very long and expensive, they'd been married over 30 years. She'd even changed things like who the pension would be paid to directly with her employer, and things like this were clarified in that will.

They can still walk away from their child. Mine did and trying to track him was impossible.

Property, if you invest your money into something with another person, you protect your ass legally and ensure you are on all documents. Relationship dissolves, either sell or buy the other person out. Being married to someone doesn't alter this, if there's not enough money to pay the mortgage it has to go. If you already own property, you never add them on anything, buy somewhere together if you must. Just because you are married doesn't mean you keep the house.

I would say living with someone first is more important. If things aren't equal a piece of paper isn't going to magically solve this. What are the expectations of both when it comes to raising any children and proper chats about finances. You read on here many mums in relationships and are both working, yet all the child expenses are paid for by her and never discussed as a joint expense.

Inheritance and financial assistance if one of you dies are two big reasons.

If your DH or DW dies, under pension age, and you have children then the government will give you a £3500 lump sum and £350 a month for 18 months. This is not means tested.

You'll also have automatic inheritance rights and inheritance tax benefits.

While everything is going well marriage makes no difference at all. However, when if the shit hits the fan marriage can offer massive protection.

Heidi What stuck me and there’s a similar Daily Mail one I can’t just find where she was a teacher, that these were older educated women and they were so ignorant about their legal position.
Your idea about one type of legal wedding for all then anything else ‘ceremony/celebration’ optional is an interesting one would certainly stop a registry office wedding being seen as poor relation.

I think that if you are going to have a child with someone you should be happy to give the security of marriage also. Situations can change so fast.

When DH and I got married he was earning minimum wage in a call centre and I was on a prestigious graduate management programme. I also had wealthy parents so likelihood of a big inheritance at some point.

However 7 years along and one DC later DH is earning £110000 a year and I am a SAHM because of a mental health breakdown. No chance of inheritance anymore as went NC with parents as they were causing the mental health issues.

I gave financial security to DH when we first married and now he gives it to me.

Wills.

Make sure you are both on the deeds of any property

If you go part time/ become a SAHM, make sure you have some sort of provision in place to compensate you for the fact that your career has gone down the pan in the event of a split.

Medical power of attorney for each other to cover the medical decision making issues.

Most of the protections marriage affords can be replicated with enough time and effort. There may even be situations where you wouldn't want the financial implications of marriage (my situation as a house owner in my 50s).

The one big thing you can't replicate any other way than through marriage is avoiding inheritance tax.

I personally think some of these reasons are a load of shit, like ‘leaving the woman vulnerable’.

My DP pays for DC to go to nursery three days a week whilst I study full time on maternity leave.. I am actively improving my life prospects whilst ‘off on maternity leave’.

We’re not married.
Both have equal personal assets in addition to an equal share of the equity in the property.
If we split we’d have DC 50/50 so the time for study/work does not change.

When I return to work I’d have graduated and will be looking for a nice swanky grad job with both experience and education under my belt.

If you’re vulnerable then quite frankly that’s on you and the dynamic in your relationship.

If you have babies without savings, without a plan then that makes you vulnerable. Not the lack of marriage. You can’t then turn around after falling pregnant and choosing to go ahead with it without a safety net and blame the man for not putting a ring on it.