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?

Zolrets It’s potentially less straightforward though if not married. MIL’s boyfriend has just died and she would have found it far easier as wife to see him in hospital - his adult children did not want her there compounded by covid restrictions limiting visitors. Arguing with his daughter and having to explain situation to hospital staff caused MIL extra distress. Whilst English hospitals may take a more practical view people die abroad on holiday etc you cannot assume your partner will be treated as NOK.

All sorts of reasons why it's better and easier, if you or your partner died you mean nothing in legal terms.. At all.
He dies or even falls seriously ill, your not next of kin

You can't get personal info, do this or that... Nothing.. Because legally you are nothing.

It's not something people think about until its too late
His parents would have the say on where he is buried and how, what happens to ashes.. You can't access any bank accounts in his sole name..

I'm from the opposite, I don't want to get married because I don't want my rented house to automatically become half his or my inheritance. I am financially better off not being married to him. Especially when 50% of marriages end in divorce

@Streamlinerose

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.

You’re assuming that if you split your partner would have the DC 50% of the time.

Many, many women discover that things change when they split.

My ex wanted kids. To the point he funded IVF to have our girls. Then when they were 6 months old he changed his mind.

He was the kind of guy everyone would have said would have his kids 50/50, play fair with finances etc. He changed. Barely saw them. Childcare is only the responsibility of the RP and I was left with the entire bill or changing my entire career plan.

Your plan is entirely reliant on another person

Because it takes more effort to get married than it does to ejaculate!

Ok, that's a bit crude. But I wanted to marry my husband and have a relationship with him first and foremost. It's nice to have that commitment and marriage means a lot to me/ us.

But it's not the be all and end all. My aunty and uncle got married after 20 years together, it was a brilliant wedding and they're a lovely couple with 3 kids they're proud of and lot of grandkids.

Many couples try to have kids first and get married later - a lot do split up but a lot also tie the knot.

I was going to post on similar lines to NYCDreaming When pregnant with first child I did same job and earnt same as DH. She was born with a serious disability undetected on scans then I developed a serious health condition triggered by pregnancy which resulted in me being disabled. My earning capacity was impacted as a result of both of these. I am married but if I hadn’t been I can easily see how it wouldn’t have got done while we reeled from what life had dealt us leaving me at a disadvantage if we split.

A not uncommon scenario I've seen on here: woman fully intends on returning to work. However, child turns out to have SEN or physical health problems and cannot go to childcare. One partner is effectively forced to give up work. Which one is it likely to be, unless the mother outearns the man by a lot? Becoming a SAHP is not always a choice, and any workplace penalty is 99% guaranteed to be paid by the woman regardless of who earns more beforehand. The studies show consistently that becoming a father benefits men's careers and hurts women's.

I wanted to be married for both financial and emotional reasons. I didn't want to have children other than with someone who was willing to stand in front of an officiant with me and pledge in a formal, legally binding way that he'd stick with me and be a team with me for life.

Also, you know, you could look up all the reasons that LGBT people campaigned for years to be able to marry their loved ones, and all the things that people suffered because they were unable to.

The “Less financially well off” of the two is helped by marriage.

Looking at it with cold hard reality, an awful lot of relationships founder, especially with children added.
Even married couples who spent a fortune on fertility treatments end up divorced.

Marriage protects the lesser earner.

You can have your nok as anyone you chose.
Mine is still a trusted friend.
When I have been in relationships, including a marriage, this never changed on my medical and work details. Same with my wishes in terms of dnr

@Dixie Sadly end of life family arguments happen even when there is a marriage. Second family’s bring a whole other set of issues. I know of one person who married a terminally ill partner and had the upset of being referred to as ‘the wife of 6 months’ by the extended family. Sharing a name, rather than the fact of being married, can be what helps a bit - I found it easier when my Dad died and I handled the estate as I had the same name, compared to my married sister who does not. As I said, it’s not black and white - don’t marry and assume it’s all sorted, don’t live with someone and assume the same. Best protection is financial independence.

Scarface Yes that’s an upsetting scene in the recent TV Programme it’s a sin where man has died and his mother (NOK) has arranged a religious funeral excluding his long term boyfriend.
Unmarried you could be excluded from or have no say in any funeral arrangements. There were several examples of this given by mumsnetters on a similar recent thread.

People posting here come from a place of privilege in regards to marriage.

A lot of people are actually in private rented accommodation and claim some element of tax credits or are entitled too if they become a single parent with housing benefits on top.

Therefore realistically marriage is neither here nor there for a large portion of the population.

The financial element is only if assets and large sums of money are involved.

If your not a home owner or don't have any large sums of cash then marriage is neither here nor there.

I myself own my own home and a great salary, so my dp would benefit from marrying me and I would be the one taking all the risks..

It was never going to be easy scenario but wife but have definitely got her in more easily without a shadow of a doubt. His daughter couldn’t have told nurse she was only his friend for a start. A wife would have got one of the 2 end of life visitors slots (covid made situation worse)

I think the simple answer is money,

Neither of have any (to get married with or that we need to protect) so we've never bothered.

We have a joint tenancy (we are renters as well as unmarried parents!! I can imagine the sharp intake of breath) but separate finances.
Oh and my 3 kids all have my DP's surname !!

Yes amazing however love can fly out then door when impacted by something unexpected like partner illness or child disability.

[quote user1654236589623652]www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/[/quote]
Finally someone posted this!

This is all you need OP. You can decide whether you actually will benefit from marriage or not. Not everyone does. But it’s not just about you.

Being married before baby arrived was important for us, because it protects the lower earner if something goes wrong.

And the thing is, we wanted both of us to be protected. If we divorced. DH is the higher earner, but if I’d been the higher earned I’d have wanted to make sure he was protected if we separated too.

We’re in love, it’s not just about what’s best for one person, it’s what’s best for both. I wouldn’t want it where for example we had a baby, broke up, and DH had taken a hit to his earnings and career to care for our baby and wound up with no legal protection and right to support from me.

Imo you should get married to ensure the lower earner has some legal rights to support from the higher earner, whether that higher earner is you or your partner. We’re a team and even if we separate I want the law to back up that as family we still have a responsibility to one another, even if emotions turn sour.

There are plenty of other reasons, but it’s a legal contract that makes you family and a team in the eyes of the law and state. If you’re in a good position and want to bet you’ll stay that way then sure, don’t marry. But that’s no better than a guy who earns loads not wanting to marry his girlfriend in case they break up and he loses money imo.

I was going to say it’s beneficial for a child to grow up seeing a stable and committed relationship, but apparently it’s all about money.

Marriage is all about money. That's literally what it is. It's a financial contract that essentially indemnifies the financially weaker partner (usually the woman). Marriage has no bearing whatsoever on whether its a stable or committed relationship. Stable and committed relationships happen outside of marriage and marriages break down.

If you are planning to be the primary caregiver for a child or children for any period of time and don't have private income you should get married: your financial independence and earning power will probably be compromised by having children.

If you earn more than your partner you would be advised not to get married as you may find yourself having to pay out to him in the event of a divorce.

It never ceases to amaze me how poor women's understanding of this is.

Marriage is something that everyone should evaluate if it is beneficial for them. There are tons of cases where marriage is not a smart move. A lot marriage is beneficial for the other party but disadvantage for the other.

Talking from woman's perspective. Marriage might not make sense if you are planning on working full time, have more assets, have same or higher income as your partner. It does offer financial protection in case of divorce if you are planning on working part-time, be a sahm, become the default parent stopping career progression, Live in partners house etc. Cause then you are legally entitled for half of everything (ok. Not that simple but you get the gist)

I also thought the statistics say that children from married couple do better than children from cohabiting couples.

@JustLyra marriage doesn’t change that fact, separation whether through divorce or otherwise doesn’t change access after the fact. So that isn’t a ‘for marriage’ point.

Yes, DP and his family, would spend 50:50 with DC. That isn’t for me to explain how I’m certain of this to an anon online, only that it is.

The biological realities of carrying, birthing & (if you choose it) breastfeeding a child fall solely upon women, and can be disadvantageous to your career and earning prospects.

I used to earn exactly the same as my husband. 4 years and two children on, he now earns half again more. I've had two maternity leaves, I reduced to 4 days a week as my career had already been paused due to the maternity leave & it didnt make sense to damage both our prospects. I'm lucky I'm a high earner in a decent company but many women never recover from it, particularly those who earn less than their childrens father and find the family is better off financially if they stop work before children start school.

Marriage gives a woman in that position far greater financial security's - in a divorce, the courts recognise and recompense women's sacrifice financially. In an informal separation this does not happen.

Organising a wedding is a good stress test for a relationship that is reversible unlike having a child which will mean they will forever be in your life in some form.

A trip to IKEA is also a good stress test.

Marriage didn't help when one of mine was born with a disability. Nor did it help dealing with the aftermath of separating.
He wouldn't leave our home and of course had legal rights because we were married. 3 dc and myself had to go through the homeless system to get help.
After running up thousands and thousands of debt he ran. The house repossessed.
Bank account in joint names, whilst I was in A&E he was emptying them and nothing I could do.
He opted out of paying for a pension, so a share in what?
Cars would be bought in other people's, insurance to drive any car.
Property and land brought abroad but again not in his name.
Never mind all the liquid assets that he deliberately had undervalued.
And with the help of an accountant on paper he was broke.

Had I been financially dependent on him we would have been truly screwed. The joint money all gone but at least I did have some income whilst wtc claim went through.

Because he wanted to dodge his commitments I knew he would never divorce me. I was financially better off on paper and wasn't in any rush to give him anything.

DEspite still legally married, his gf and his family didn't seem to have any problems arranging his funeral.

For me it's because I'm a gypsy and it's not the done thing in my culture