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?

I have heard lots of people say that they don't need marriage because they earn the same as their partner and the care and child bills will be split evenly. This is all very well if if actually happens, but it rarely does. Almost always one person becomes the "default" for child care emergencies/organising children's stuff etc, and that leaves less time for career work.

More importantly is what happens if you split up. Most women find it harder to walk away from their responsibilities to their children, and quite a lot of men find it easy. That means the mother is often left with the lions share of the child-rearing to do. If you're married, you're far far more likely to get a bigger proportion of assets during the split, could be awarded the right to stay in the home after the split in order to accommodate the kids etc etc. If you're not married, then you walk away with whatever you can prove you own in your own name.

Unless you own vastly more or earn vastly more than your partner, marriage is almost always a good idea. If you own everything and earn the most then you may be in a stronger position remaining unmarried.

@Eaststreet if I were you, I’d do a quick registry office wedding and sort the rest letter. It really does make everything less complicated having a baby when you’re already married.

Also, check your maternity policy- I’m also entitled to 6 months full pay, and am planning to take 9 months with 3 months statutory, but the small print states that the pay I would have received over the final 3 months is incorporated into the first six. This means that I will get no pay for the thank 3, as I’ve already been paid it. Check if it’s the same for you, as it’s very common and means you’d have zero income.

Good point @Nocares. I am not married and in a relationship of 21 years. I think people are partly driven by emotion and morality when they overestimate the protection of marriage. Overall, I agree that there are some benefits to marriage to some people. But it’s not a universal panacea - you can still be left high and dry if you are the vulnerable one in a relationship. Best not to let that happen to begin with if that is within your control.

Nocares

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.

I'll give you a true scenario that is close to home.

Together 11years.
Married 7 years.
2 small children.
House bought during relationship and they both lived in it from the start.
House deeds and mortgage in husband's name.
Abusive relationship.
Wife left the home with her children.

If they hadn't been married she would have received:
Child maintenance.

As she was married she received:
Child maintenance.
70% share of equity in the house.
50% share of her ex husband's pension.

Because they were married the wife could register her home rights with the land registry and prevent the ex from selling the house and pocketing the money. Marriage helps to protect the rights of the more vulnerable partner and I would always advise my daughters to get married before they have children.

It depends! If you earn less and want to take extended time off then it's in your best interest to marry for protection but if you are the stronger economic partner then it's probably not in your interest. Wills etc can get around most issues.

The downside to marriage is getting divorced is a pain, the paperwork I mean - both dp and I are still processing our respective divorces years on despite everything being amicable due to the adversarial nature of the British system. I'm almost tempted not to bother but that in its self causes different headaches.

Whether to marry or not is a personal decision, I kind of do want to marry again, but not for protection, more because I want to stand in front of family and friends with one of my best friends conducting the service and we all deserve an amazing party after the year we have had! (so 2023 maybe )

I think there's often an element of judgment on those posts. Yes people should be informed about the potential risks but there's often an assumption on here that a woman who has DC outside of marriage is some sort of reckless idiot and that her relationship isn't a "proper" one.

It absolutely isn't risky for everyone. I'm not married - by choice. I don't want to be married, I don't like the concept and it doesn't offer me any legal protections that I deem "worth" it. However, I'm not in the UK. Where I live there are legal protections for cohabiting couples so being a SAHM wasn't risky for me. The only tangible benefit of marriage is not paying inheritance tax - that still isn't enough to make me want to be contractually committed to another person. Once you're aware of how it impacts your personal financial situation and use your head and sort out wills, life insurance etc. then it needn't be a disaster.

@FanSpamTastic

The issue is not so much marriage as the financial imbalance that arises if you give up your career after having a baby and do not have a partner that values the contribution of a stay at home parent.

Many couples choose jointly to have a family but then do not consider how family finances will work afterwards. Childcare is very expensive and it often happens that the woman stays home to bring up young children or if she returns to work that the cost of childcare comes out of her salary. A woman may be expected to continue to pay half of household costs while having reduced income and to deplete her savings to do this.

Years out of the workplace impact career prospects and pension savings for a woman. Men tend not to have the same impact.

Unmarried couples have no automatic rights to receive any financial provision from a partner if they split up. A divorce has at least some financial provisions and things like pensions etc need to be taken into account.

Have you and your partner discussed how things would work eg who pays what while you are on maternity leave? Does he see childcare as a joint cost or only your cost? How will household bills be split when you are not working? Are savings joint or do you have yours and he has his? How much life insurance do you each need to maintain your lifestyle if something happens to you or to him? Many guys would be shocked at how much it would cost them to have a full time nanny, cleaner and PA but expect their partners to do it all for love!

This.

If you are by far the higher earner and/or have assets in your name etc, then its not such a problem.

If you are not independently financially secure and plan to make career sacrifices to bring up joint children, you are putting a your financial future at risk of your partners future generosity / whims and wishes.

Generally you are more protected legally and financially if you are married when you have children. But. I wasn’t when I had mine and being unmarried made things a lot easier for me when I left my abusive ex and moved into a refuge with our kids. I had no financial ties to him that interfered with claiming benefits (which you need to do when taking a refuge space), I wasn’t saddled with his debts (and vice versa) and I didn’t have a long painful and costly process of divorcing him on top of all the other trauma. He is legally obligated to pay child maintenance whether he was married to me or not and from what I can tell it makes no difference enforcing that if the parents were ever married or not.

Personally I'd be fucking ecstatic as long as everyone involved were at least making an informed decision on the subject of marriage Vs remaining unmarried. If you're informed as to the difference and better off unmarried or simply prefer it, jobs a goodun, truly happy for you. We're still some way off that though, as any read of this site will reveal.

I don't love the whole "actually I have all the assets so I won't be getting married" angle though, any more than I'd love it from a man refusing to marry the mother of his DC. I think at least when it's the female partner who has the assets you don't have the ingrained sexism of society disadvantaging the other partner, but in general I think that if you're going to commit to having DC with someone and thus having a powerful tie to them for decades, you do have to be willing to share and should want to see your child's other parent appropriately provided for, and the wheel of fortune often does turn over a long period. If you don't trust them enough to share assets with them, that doesn't sound like the ideal basis for a childrearing partnership. Obviously none of this applies if we're talking a second "marriage" or long relationship in which you don't intend to have DC and want to protect your assets for the DC of your first relationship.

@Eaststreet sorry, I didn’t answer your particular conundrum. You don’t say how old you are and how important having children is to you in the very near future. As someone who experienced fertility problems at 35, I have to admit that trying earlier would have been better in my case. Sure, women conceive naturally at 40 even 48 but bear in mind that seeking and undergoing fertility tests and treatment can take years. My IVF child was conceived at 40 born .when I was 41. I first tried ttc at 35 so you get an idea of what can happen and the timelines. Of course you can also get lucky first time so remember that too!

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.

To some extent, yes. I wouldn't want any children of mine to have a dad who wasn't prepared to marry their mother "till death do us part, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others" etc etc. So I wouldn't choose a man like that to have children with, I'd think less of them if that's how they felt as it's easier for a man to walk a way if not married, even if there are children. I don't think many young unmarried men nowadays see having a child with someone as a big deal to be honest, which is terribly sad for the children involved. When there's Z-listers popping out babies with their boyfriends every 5 mins, then splitting up from them 18 months later it just gives people the impression that that's what you do as a man - donate your sperm and then be Disney Dad at weekends and holidays till you make another blended family with someone else who did the same.

There have been so many threads on here where the man has promised to get married "at some point" and keeps putting it off. The relationship ends and 6 months later he's engaged to someone else and the wedding's booked, with plans for kids soon after. I just don't think that some people are 100% convinced that they want to spend the rest of their lives with their other half, and not marrying means they have an easy get-out clause.

No, getting married doesn't mean that you have a guarantee that your husband won't turn out to be a lying cheating shit a few years down the line. But it does guarantee you and your children some protection if he does and if you have an expectation that the man you're with must marry you before you will have children with them then that must filter out a large proportion of irresponsible fickle ones who see you as "good enough for now."

House deeds and mortgage in husband's name

That sort of proves the point about partially self inflicted vulnerability though imo, why did this happen if she were contributing? I don’t just mean financially but taking care of children is (at the absolute bare minimum) equivalent to the cost of full time child care which is extortionate. Therefore, she is contributing.

The deeds should have been in both names, if not, that’s of course a red flag far before everything goes tits up.

A friend of mine who I hadn't heard from for years popped up at Christmas. She had three children with her partner, now ex, not married. Didn't work all the time they were together, but enjoyed a very high standard of living with him as he owned his own business which he started after they met. Children all went to private school, huge multi million pound house, loads of holidays, race horse owner. Everyone around her was telling her to get married. Her partner was willing but she'd had a very short, disastrous first marriage and was put off.

Turns out the relationship has broken down, partner cut off the money and she has left to 'work' for a new partner. Seven years and counting waiting for a 'pay out' from ex partner. Unlikely to see a penny because they weren't married. Now mid fifties, starting again, no assets or pension to her name.

@HazelWong

Everyone on here assumes that the woman earns very little and/or will give up work for years. In that scenario, marriage offers a great deal of protection. Divorce settlement will divide all assets, otherwise it's just child maintenance.

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

THIS.

I think whether marriage is a good idea or not depends on your own personal situation and your relationship.

I totally agree that women who do not earn a lot / give up career to raise kids need the protection of marriage. My mum did this without marriage and it has left her VERY financially vulnerable.

For me, I am a high earner, own house, savings and pension. If we were to divorce, I'd be the one who would lose a lot, so I do not want to marry.

I plan to work 3 days a week once I have had a baby. I would work 3 days a week whether I was a single parent or a parent with a partner. This is my personal choice so I would not feel bitter if we were to split due to 'loss of earnings' etc.

My partner is very straight forward and I have discussed that we should make wills once a baby is on the way. I trust he will do this. If not, it is more his loss than mine as I own our family home.

Like I said, it depends on your own financial / personal situation really.

I think when a man wants to and is ready to get married he'll get engaged and married in short order.
It's like their light goes on and the next suitable women they meet will be the one.
I'm wary of long relationships with no sign of marriage, when one of the partner wants to be married but is 'compromising' ie letting the other person decide unilaterally when or if marriage will happen. These men invariably leave after several years, meet someone and need no persuasion to marry with the next woman.

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

This ^ It’s not just about SAHMs, it’s also about the fact that it’s incredibly common for the woman to be the one who works reduced hours or at a lower level job to fit in school pick ups, school holidays, children’s illness etc. This doesn’t change when a couple splits up. Most couples don’t end up with a 50:50 custody split and (usually) the mother will have the children most weekdays. It’s going to effect their earning potential and/or leave them with childcare costs. If you’re married the court can balance this by eg giving the mother a greater share of the equity in the house. If you’re not married you get child maintenance (based on what your ex earns) and nothing else.

[quote Streamlinerose]@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.[/quote]
You have much more financial protection if you are married and the shit hits the fan.

Nothing is certain in life.

I have told all my dc’s before they have children ensure they can support themselves and not be reliant on another person. After-all if you want things in life you have to work for them. If you want the luxury lifestyle nothing stopping you from working to achieve that.

And don’t be fooled that the other person is too important/busy to do normal everyday things like washing, shopping, sorting their relatives presents out etc.

After ending a relationship one of mine said I should have warned them about the Whats for dinner types 😂

It isn’t, just another way for women to be judged

You only get the house or a share of it if it exists to begin with..

Married couple buy a house. Few years down the line one gives up work. As a couple they can afford mortgage etc.
They split.
The house is a unaffordable, marriage isn’t going to change this. After its sold there’s nothing to split.
Unmarried couple buy a house and both names on the deed. I mean you’d have to really stupid to hand over cash without protecting it. Same outcome as the married couple.

End up with a feckless with money type and as married that’s your problem as well.
Partners yea good luck with your issues.

What Heidi wrote. Never seen so many people foolishly put their financial security at stake over a bloody wedding. It's not important, it's the marriage that is.

@ItsJackieWeaverBitch

Generally you are more protected legally and financially if you are married when you have children. But. I wasn’t when I had mine and being unmarried made things a lot easier for me when I left my abusive ex and moved into a refuge with our kids. I had no financial ties to him that interfered with claiming benefits (which you need to do when taking a refuge space), I wasn’t saddled with his debts (and vice versa) and I didn’t have a long painful and costly process of divorcing him on top of all the other trauma. He is legally obligated to pay child maintenance whether he was married to me or not and from what I can tell it makes no difference enforcing that if the parents were ever married or not.

The person I spoke about it my earlier post was in a similar position to yours, but was married. It made no difference to her finances either. She left with £10 and no joint bank account and no joint debts, no property in her name (due to financial control. The refuge and the benefits people had no problem with her claiming benefits in her own name. She even got legal aid because she had no assets.

Couples who are not married could easily be more financially enmeshed than my relative was. In your situation it matters more how you organise your finances than whether you are married or not.

Not read the thread but WILLs and stuff. If not married and he dies, you are not his next of kin. If he is a car accident then you are not in charge, his family are.

Get married from a legal point of view, then have a big wedding later. Seriously this is important stuff.

Having kids puts pressure on even the very strongest relationships. First it's a real proof of commitment. Secondly, you get financial protection if it ever goes wrong. Even if you work full time you will undoubtedly still do the bulk of childcare and will presumably be on maternity leave, so your work will probably suffer more than dh. If you go part time or are a sahm definitely!

If married, you are entitled to half his wealth and will be supported longterm. If not there is nothing and lack of pension. Also very depressing considering how much you will have given up.

Saying all this you know your relationship and this is real life. I have a friend who is similar and just wanted to get cracking. She has a very wealthy family to support her and she wasn't going to wait to ttc because of the pandemic so I get it!