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 don't have to get married. If you're the one in the relationship with the better job and the assets then there isn't much need for you to seek the protection it gives, although if you're planning to give up work to look after the baby then you'd be disadvantaging yourself.

Being married does not mean one party won't fuck off and leave the other. It does mean that they can't fuck off without consequences.

If you're one of the women who fall into the majority where you earn less than your partner, or if you're the one who the bulk of childrearing and housekeeping will fall on because you'll be losing or heavily curtailing your career, then you should certainly get married first.

Personally speaking, I would not have children unless I was married.

Op why not go get married at the registry and have the big wedding post-lockdown?

I earn about the same as my DH, we are married but not being married wouldn't leave me super vulnerable.
Some of my friends out earn their husbands and are hot advantaged at all

Since the majority of those who lose out financially (in terms of salary, pensions, job progression etc) are women most of this thread concerns the women. But it equally applies to the lower earner in the relationship (male or female) and while threads are usually "marry him for the security" it really should be "marry your partner for the security". It is in the less financially endowed's interest to get married, and it is not in the more financially endowed's interest not to get married. Male or female.

People who had babies first then married, had babies and never married and didn't suffer financially if their partner left, or who are still together are the lucky ones. But you never know what the future holds so if you get married, you have at least that much legal protection, even if on paper it's more benefit than the reality reflects.

@Eaststreet

I can't believe some people are so clueless on this matter..... I can't be bothered to put a new response, so am copying and pasting my post from similar thread from earlier.

----------------------------------
You'd have to have rocks in your head to have children with a man, if you're not married to him. You have NO rights whatsoever, and you can bet he will keep HIS money mostly to himself.

And, as most people have said, it's almost ALWAYS the woman in the relationship who sacrifices her career, and her income... And subsequently, it's the woman who will suffer if/when they split, or he dies...

The 'it's only a piece of paper' brigade are so clueless and obtuse. It's very much NOT only a piece of paper. It's an important legal document that gives you a lot of rights, and a lot of protection.

Any man that wanted me to have children with him, but refused to get married to me, could fuck right off.

I said this on another thread the other day. Watch FINDING ALICE on itv hub. That highlights what a shitstorm is left behind when the man you've shared your life with (and had children with.) dies, and you're not married to him.....

You have no more legal rights than the neighbour's dog.

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

Having children is a much bigger commitment than marriage. That is why marriage should come first, because if you can't commit to marrying the person how on earth will you be able to raise a child together? If you don't see yourself staying with the person for at least the next couple of decades you shouldn't be having kids with them.

It will protect you in the event of your relationship ending or your partner dying.

It's all very well saying that you plan on going back to work and your income won't be affected but you don't know what life has in store. What if you end up with twins and can't afford childcare for two babies? What if you have a child with a disability and you have to spend your life going to medical appointments and meetings with their school which makes having a job impractical? What if you have a child whose needs can't be met by non-specialist childcare? It might sound farfetched but it does happen. All of those things apply to me!

If you aren't married then you are in a much more vulnerable position. As a woman it's statistically likely that it will be your career and earning potential that are affected by having children, not your partner's. Marriage isn't all about the wedding, can you get married now but postpone the wedding until later?

My work contract is a 'piece of paper', yet how many people would want to work without one? As are the deeds to our house, our insurance polices, life insurance polices and so on. Paper is terribly important!

Laws and rights have also moved on and it was extremely important for the woman to get married other than social norms.

Remember at some point we weren't allowed to own property in our own right, hence the introduction of the women's property act. We weren't allowed independent control of our finances.

It’s not marriage before children. It’s marriage before reducing your hours/earning capability to look after kids (including maternity leave), unless your DP does the same.

@HeidiHaughton

My work contract is a 'piece of paper', yet how many people would want to work without one? As are the deeds to our house, our insurance polices, life insurance polices and so on. Paper is terribly important!

THIS! ^

There's more to marriage than just money, IMHO.

So many reasons but mainly financial. It’s usually women’s careers that take a backseat when it comes to the child rearing years. Which affects earnings, earning potential and pension contributions. All of which you’ll have zero entitlement to, should you split up without being married.

It doesn’t have to be marriage, it could be a civil partnership also. It’s just protection so for those that don’t believe in marriage, I would hope that they have factored in the fact that they wouldn’t be entitled to any maintenance, except for the children, if they split up.
Would wouldn’t you want to protect yourself.
No one who ever has children intends to split up, and yet 50% of relationships break down. 🤷‍♀️

Thanks everyone for responses! Mostly seems to be financial reasons, which is understandable. DP is the higher earner and we do have a joint account which we pay both salaries into and pay everything out of this. Child care would be included in that as I will be going back to work FT and I do have my own pension. We also pay into a joint savings account each month too. Any savings we had before we met we have kept separate (mine is considerably more from inheritance).

We have thought about getting married at the registry office and then having a wedding at a later date. We both agreed we probably wouldn’t bother with the big wedding if we were already married legally as it seemed a bit pointless. But reading the responses I think it seems like legally we should get married now and then we can decide on the ‘wedding’ part at a later date.

The thing is, you don't know what you will want to do when your baby is 9 months old, when you're ttc. You might have a horrific birth injury (sorry, but it is possible, childbirth is an existential risk to you even nowadays). You might feel bonded to your baby and no longer want your high flying career. You and DP don't know how you will each change and what you will want so you need to demonstrate commitment to the family on into future. You demonstrate it by having the baby. He has to do something more. On a population level, women seem always to "blink first" in a staring competition with partners over the child's welfare. That puts you at an innate disadvantage as ultimately you will probably care more about what happens to your child - nursery or SAH parent? Pay for their upkeep or just walk away? Your DP will hold all the cards and you will be left thinking "I hope he's nice enough not to use this advantage". Too precarious for me.

Spousal maintenance isn't applied to all divorces.
Married or not, if the other parent is a deadbeat they will walk away, and the resident parent is still left going though CMA unless they are very high earners.

Oh and maternity leave, I’ll be taking 9 months, 6 of which are on full pay. The 3 on statutory pay we will be able to cover the shortfall with savings.
DP also has 3 months paternity on 85% which he can take staggered over the first 12 months. He is happy to take this and it’s encouraged at his work.

Registry office and once restrictions are lifted have your party. That's a wedding.

Are you both clear about which savings pot will be used to cover those times?

Neither DH nor I wanted to pay inheritance tax if ether of us died. That was a big driver towards marriage. We want more to be left for the kids.

@RedskyBynight pretty much said it on the first page ‘

It's not marriage that's necessary per se but having financial security.

If you intend to keep working full time, split bills in a fair way, have your name on the mortgage/tenancy agreement, have wills naming each other as beneficiaries .... then you may well be fine.*

But on Mumsnet the prevailing thinking seems to overestimate the value of marriage and underestimate what can be done to make ANY relationship more secure in terms of finance for both parties. I haven’t heard anyone mention next of kin and medical consent yet, that’s normally (erroneously) popped up by now...

It really depends on your own situation.
Yes if you don't work and become a SAHM, you are financially dependent on your partner, you don't have to be married for that to happen either. That is the risk though.
I had a 20 year reletionship, never married, had 2 kids, who are still school age. Relationship ended last year. But I worked full time, as the main earner. Other than a few months of maternity each time, I have always worked. Our home was rented. When the relationship ended 18 months ago, I was in a much better position than he was, and still is. So it really all depends on your own personal circumstances. Not just right now but down the line years from now.

I didn't marry either of the fathers of my kids. It would disadvantage me if I did as I earn more than them both and my assets are far higher.

I'll also add, I am now actively trying to teach my teenage daughter, she must be able to rely on herself, and not be dependant on someone else.

I think it's also that if your relationship hits hard times or even just you both end up going through hard times, you will feel much more likely to try to work through it if you're married. I know that sounds really old fashioned but I do believe it. My MiL used to say it and I used to think wise up but I think she's onto something as time goes on. I think this is partially why unmarried parents are more likely to separate.