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?

@ThatDoesntBelongInAIBU

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.

You can be stable and committed without being married you know

Equally, some marriages can be extremely unstable. That piece of paper doesn't magically change how couples behave towards one another.

You’re not entitled to spousal support if you split unmarried.

Afaik spousal support is almost unheard of anyway, married or not.

1. If he dies you won’t automatically inherit.

1. You are not automatically considered next if kin although this varies place to place. A hospital for example may not be willing to listen to you or advise you of his care if necessary. This can vary greatly as next of kin is not defined in law, like I said but is a risk.

1. If you become a SAHM you will rely on him financially and your pension and NI contributions will pause, therefore being lower than they would overall, whilst his won’t be affected.

1. In the event you break up, you will be treated less fairly and with less rights than a wife would.

1. Sometimes, house etc get put only in the mans name due to mortgage deals and not taking the woman into account if she’s not working. This means in theory that he owns the house. If applicable.

1. Ultimately it’s all about death or breakup. If he dies you are not protected or entitled to the same as you would be if married. If you split up it can be a legal nightmare and subject to how you’ve balanced finances, you could be out of the house without access to any money or rights to any financial gain accrued whilst together.

Of course you can remain unmarried - you just need to consider all these risk factors and mitigate against them. No matter how much you love each other now, people can and do change.

We married before I was pregnant, and I'm definitely glad. He's a good dad, but he puts his work first, and I'm primary carer for the little one.

How "equal" a parent do you expect him to be? Will he take shared parental leave/go part time to reduce your childcare bills/take unpaid leave if your toddler is sick?

Usually all the career cost of babies is borne by the woman, who ends up as default parent.

He then gets to pay the breadwinner role, earning more, and paying more into a mortgage and pension. Which is fine, if those are shared assets of a marriage and he respects the unpaid work of parenting as an equal contribution.

If I were you, I'd separate the marriage from the wedding. Get married at a registry office before baby comes along, have a lovely wedding once covid permits.

Because you are more likely to have thought through being committed and staying together.bpeople with children by multiple partners or single parents are more likely to have not been married in the first place.

It makes me quite angry that people talk about protecting the women. It should be about protecting the children. .

The other interesting element to this as has been touched on is that growing numbers of women out-earn their partners and have larger asset pools and if you're in this position it makes less sense to be married.

It's certainly true that in a scenario with a youngish woman with no assets who plans to be a SAHM and be financially dependent on a partner it is foolish to have children without the protection of marriage.

But when older women with grown children and more financial independence want to establish the same set up without jeopardising their own assets the picture is much cloudier. The attraction of marriage is diminished when you have property in your name, a steady income and children whose inheritance could be jeopardised by your getting married (speaking from personal experience).

So much of the mythology and culture around marriage and the horrific Disneyfication of it in recent decades centres around the idea that it allows a woman to achieve her personal goals: children, financial security and a secure home.

As that picture changes and women are able to achieve those goals without marriage: and particularly as marriage actually risks jeopardising that financial security, I wonder how the perception of it in popular culture will change. I would really hope for one thing that women become savvier about it and start seeing it as it actually is a financial contract other than a load of bollocks about rings and table displays and white meringues.

It makes me quite angry that people talk about protecting the women. It should be about protecting the children

But in the vast majority of cases protecting the women does protect the children.

How often do you see children forced to move into cramped accommodation or move schools etc because the woman has decided she can't be arsed and run off with her secretary?

That's the whole point of marriage. Marriage doesn't wave a wand and guarantee that a couple will continue to love each other or remain together. It guarantees that whichever partner has less financial security (usually the woman) will get some protection in the event of a split.

It isn't always op. Me and dp aren't married. We have 2 dc. I could pay the bills on my own if I had to. Fair enough if you're planning on not working it would be a different story, but if you are and earn around the same it makes no difference.

canigooutyet You’d think that about but lots are really stupid as you put it eg move into boyfriend’s house. House is his name/mortgage. He pays mortgage she pays bills. Plan is we’ll buy a joint family house in x years time. They have a baby and plans get put on hold. They split before move happens. She has to leave immediately and gets nothing even if house has increased in value.
Married version of above living in house solely owned by husband is she can at least register property rights to stay/house can’t be sold without her knowledge to give her some time to get sorted. Even if it’s ultimately sold or repossessed she will be entitled to share of any equity possibly more than 50%.
I assumed most couples bought jointly bought these days was surprised how many don’t - often property predates relationship or due to mortgage position eg woman not earning can’t get mortgage.

A friend of mine lost her DP in an accident. She had a young child and another on the way.

The house was in his name, so she got nothing.
She wasn't named on his pension (admittedly not a marriage issue), so she got nothing.
They weren't married, so she wasn't entitled to widowed parent benefits.
She couldn't access any of his finances or bank accounts as she wasn't his legal NoK.

At a time of immense grief and stress, she found herself homeless, pregnant and with a toddler. She had to move area, move house, get a new job and basically start over again. Had they been married, she could have stayed in the house, claimed widows' benefits and kept her job.

A very sad situation all-round. She wishes more than anything that she'd insisted on marriage before having children.

If you earn more than your partner and won't be a SAHM then do not get married.

@VinylDetective

Marriage is something that doesn’t matter in the slightest until a relationship ends either by death or separation.

If your spouse dies you automatically inherit their assets tax free and qualify for any death in service benefits. If you separate, marriage means a more or less fair division of assets. It’s a very cheap and easy way of providing financial security.

In England and Wales it is not the case that you automatically inherit your spouse's assets. Assets do pass between spouses without attracting IHT and then the deceased's allowance can 'roll-over' to any children effectively doubling it at that point. BUT, without a will, intestacy laws kick in. And they do not mean automatic transfer to the spouse.

If you are not going to marry for whatever reason (eg. higher earner, don't want to etc) at least get your financial matters in order; proper Wills, hold property in a way which allows you to pass it to your partner, insurance policies etc. That was the main issue with the Daily Mail article mentioned earlier.

@sunflowersandbuttercups

A friend of mine lost her DP in an accident. She had a young child and another on the way.

The house was in his name, so she got nothing.
She wasn't named on his pension (admittedly not a marriage issue), so she got nothing.
They weren't married, so she wasn't entitled to widowed parent benefits.
She couldn't access any of his finances or bank accounts as she wasn't his legal NoK.

At a time of immense grief and stress, she found herself homeless, pregnant and with a toddler. She had to move area, move house, get a new job and basically start over again. Had they been married, she could have stayed in the house, claimed widows' benefits and kept her job.

A very sad situation all-round. She wishes more than anything that she'd insisted on marriage before having children.

That's very sad, but unfortunately, not uncommon.

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

@sunflowersandbuttercups

A friend of mine lost her DP in an accident. She had a young child and another on the way.

The house was in his name, so she got nothing.
She wasn't named on his pension (admittedly not a marriage issue), so she got nothing.
They weren't married, so she wasn't entitled to widowed parent benefits.
She couldn't access any of his finances or bank accounts as she wasn't his legal NoK.

At a time of immense grief and stress, she found herself homeless, pregnant and with a toddler. She had to move area, move house, get a new job and basically start over again. Had they been married, she could have stayed in the house, claimed widows' benefits and kept her job.

A very sad situation all-round. She wishes more than anything that she'd insisted on marriage before having children.

So who was his NoK? Would it not be his children? Assuming it went to his family given what you have said but why on Earth would they kick her and his children out of the house?

Lots of people don't give a damn about doing the decent thing when there's money to be gained. Why on earth do people think gay people wanted the full protection of marriage and not the inferior arrangements of civil partnerships.

So who was his NoK? Would it not be his children? Assuming it went to his family given what you have said but why on Earth would they kick her and his children out of the house?

I don't know the details.

If you actually want to get married then I'd do this before having dc. Life gets in the way. Children cost money and after mat leave you aren't going to want to have expensive wedding. Suggest getting married now then having a family party later.

@sunflowersandbuttercups

A friend of mine lost her DP in an accident. She had a young child and another on the way.

The house was in his name, so she got nothing.
She wasn't named on his pension (admittedly not a marriage issue), so she got nothing.
They weren't married, so she wasn't entitled to widowed parent benefits.
She couldn't access any of his finances or bank accounts as she wasn't his legal NoK.

At a time of immense grief and stress, she found herself homeless, pregnant and with a toddler. She had to move area, move house, get a new job and basically start over again. Had they been married, she could have stayed in the house, claimed widows' benefits and kept her job.

A very sad situation all-round. She wishes more than anything that she'd insisted on marriage before having children.

Wouldn't the children have inherited in that case. Might not help in the immediate situation, but the assets shouldn't go to another relative in that case. It would be in trust for the children.

@ThatDoesntBelongInAIBU

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.

Sorry, had to butt in, immediately after reading my Quote:

Yes, yes, it is all about 'the money'.

Marriage is a legal transactional arrangement that far more times than not, protects women, particularly mothers.

Wouldn't the children have inherited in that case. Might not help in the immediate situation, but the assets shouldn't go to another relative in that case. It would be in trust for the children.

Yes, AFAIK the house was sold (as obviously the DC couldn't pay the mortgage) and the money put in trust for them as adults.

I’m quite traditional myself, so always wanted to be married before having children like my parents and in laws. I couldn’t imagine taking on such a commitment without that stability. Irrespective of my beliefs though (which shouldn’t really matter to you), statistically, couples who are married tend to stay together for longer periods of a child’s life - including those born to parents who subsequently get married. I’m sure there are lots of socio-economic reasons as to why this might be though.

As an aside, this episode of the moral maze may be of interest to you: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09ghmgj

^ Apologies, I meant to write that statistically, parents who are married before a child is born tend to stay together longer than other (unmarried) couples or couples who get married after the birth.

For us it was the biggest form of commitment we could take and meant our children were born into a very stable and loving environment.

Of course for many, being married provides neither of those, but that's what we wanted both for us and our future children.

Latterly, the financials etc make complete sense.