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?

A friend of mine had 2 children in 2 years with her partner. They owned (with mortgage) a big house and he ran his own company. He persuaded her to give up her job before becoming controlling over money and then physically and emotionally abusive and then sleeping with other women and staying away all weekend while she did the childcare, housework and covered for him socially.

She's absolutely in such a disadvantaged position not having been married. Whilst clearly marrying such a horrible person would have been a mistake, it would have given her a better chance of not being completley screwed financially.

To rally depends on your own situations. I work ft as does dp, we own our house 50/50 and both earn similar amounts and have simular pensions. I'm not bothered about getting married, it would potentially leave me worse off in the long run of we separated as my family is notibly wealthier than his. I don't see it coming to that but neither of us are particularly bothered about getting married so at the moment we are just enjoying DS together without any firm plans. I didn't want to put off children, if he walked out tomorrow I would still be happy with the choice I made.

Forming a houshold together is a type of household economy. Marriage, legally, is designed to protect the people in that economy, particularly the one who may have to give up more outside work.

That's not always predictable either. A couple may start intending to both carr on in their jobs, but all kinds of things can get in the way of that. A child with special needs, for one example, but plenty of couples simply find it doesn't work for both people to carry on in high level careers, the quality of life is shit or the kids needs aren't being met.

Marriage also protects against risk if one of the spouses dies. There are supports you won't be entitled to if your partner dies and you are unmarried. His assets won't go to you, you won't be able to make decisions about his funeral if the family don't want to involve you. (And similarly for him.)

You can make arrangements about much of this legally without getting married, but it's a lot easier to just get married - that's what the paperwork is for.

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

Not true. It's a protection by which a woman who has given up her career to raise the children to enable her husband's career/ earning capacity can leave a relationship immediately if needed, until a divorce settlement is agreed. This allows her to move on, despite probably not having a job nor the recent relevant experience that employers ask you to evidence at interview.

It happened to my sister when she came out of an abusive relationship. Thankfully she had been married and was thus entitled to support.

It's not just about spousal support, it's about splitting the marital assets. So that if one spouse (usually the woman) has taken time out of her career and the man has been using his earnings in the meantime to build up savings things while she hasn't had the opportunity to do so, the woman is entitled to 50% of these assets (or more depending on the divorce settlement).

@SmokedDuck

Forming a houshold together is a type of household economy. Marriage, legally, is designed to protect the people in that economy, particularly the one who may have to give up more outside work.

That's not always predictable either. A couple may start intending to both carr on in their jobs, but all kinds of things can get in the way of that. A child with special needs, for one example, but plenty of couples simply find it doesn't work for both people to carry on in high level careers, the quality of life is shit or the kids needs aren't being met.

Marriage also protects against risk if one of the spouses dies. There are supports you won't be entitled to if your partner dies and you are unmarried. His assets won't go to you, you won't be able to make decisions about his funeral if the family don't want to involve you. (And similarly for him.)

You can make arrangements about much of this legally without getting married, but it's a lot easier to just get married - that's what the paperwork is for.

Very much yes to the “may both intend to carry on their jobs but life gets in the way”.

Quite a few posts on here from people saying “well when I have DC I will be going back to work FT / 3 days per week / whatever so I won’t be vulnerable”.

Things change, circumstances change, opinions, emotions, energy levels change. You have no idea how you’re going to feel until the DC are a reality. I was adamant - so adamant - that I’d never be a SAHM and had a highly paid professional job prior to DC. And then nearly had a breakdown trying to juggle that highly paid but very stressful professional job plus baby. I ended up becoming a SAHM for years and now work part time in a very different job.

I know so many people like me who either stopped working completely or changed to a very PT / less well paid role once DC came along - and very often because they had massively underestimated the logistical stress of it all. Women tend to be disproportionately affected by the caring responsibilities - this shouldn’t be the case of course but so often it is.

Obviously it’s not the same for everyone - but until you are managing the reality of the actual DC then your plans are only hypothetical and could very well change.

It just makes sense to be married even if you are currently the high earner or an equal one because you never know what could happen in future.

Spousal support is becoming less and less common though and usually only happens when the husband is earning really big money.

For me it was never a choice or a decision. I always loved the idea of marriage. I've never looked at or viewed marriage as security or beneficial for financial or legal reasons. To me marriage should be about love and telling your partner how much you love them. It's the vows you make.

In fact it meant so much to me that I first met my husband end of April 2014. We became a couple 9th may 2014. We decided to start trying for a baby in July 2014, we moved in together in October 2014, I got pregnant in November 2014, we found out I was pregnant 19th December 2014. We got engaged 13th January 2015, and got married 9th April 2015. Baby was due 30th August 2015, was actually born on 5th September 2015.

So we had been together exactly 11 months the day we got married. I know it's very quick, being married and expecting a baby within less than a year of being together, but it worked for us. We had discussed marriage and both agreed it was what we wanted, but we weren't officially engaged. But when we found out I was pregnant we both knew it was important to us to be married before the baby was born, and I didn’t want to be showing if possible, so we made sure we were. It was perfect.

Some people might think we only got married because I was pregnant, but that was never the case at all. We did it because I wanted us to all have the same name on as much of the paperwork as possible and especially on the birth certificate, it meant a lot to me. In fact my first appointment after the wedding was the second scan. We made sure we had plenty of time before the appointment so I could get my name changed on the system before my appointment. I did. That was obviously the first time I’d been called by my married name, I loved hearing it and seeing it on the paperwork and especially on the scan photos.

I know for a lot of people it doesn’t matter and isn’t really that important, and I mean no judgement at all. But for me it was very important and it did mean a lot.

There are a whole host of legal protections arising upon marriage, which have evolved over a very long period of time, such as next of kin, inheritance, widows/widowers pension rights, etc. Yes, you can protect yourself in similar ways without being married, such as wills, powers of attorney, pension trust deeds, etc but all that is so much harder, especially with an unwilling/disinterested partner.

Getting married was a deal breaker for me, not only prior to having children, but prior to buying a house together (another serious commitment). I really find it difficult how two people can "commit" to eachother by having children, but shy away from what I think is a lesser commitment of marriage - after all, a married couple can get out of it by divorce, but when you have a child together, you're bound to eachother for life due to that child.

Most commonly on here what happens is:

Woman gives up work/ reduces work to look after kids
Man carries on with life and career, slowly becoming contemptuous of 'non contributing' woman - stops doing any housework, gives her tiny amounts of money, refuses to take any responsibility for childcare or nursery fees so it "doesn't make financial sense" for her to get back into work
Then she can't afford to leave, or he leaves and she loses her house, is impoverished at 45 and with a patchy career and hugely diminished earning potential (and comparatively reduced pension in later life too)

There are so many women on here this has happened to. Don't do all the work of life and end up struggling while he has a second family and decides he can't even manage the CSA minimum this month.

Half of all nonresident fathers are deadbeat dads and pay nothing at all to support their children. The average payment of those who do pay child support is £35 a week. So really the only protection you have for the security of your children is marital assets, which are divided on divorce, but not if you just split up.

Regarding joint accounts a cautionary tale

I had joint accounts with my ex Current and savings and throughout the marriage money was all treated as "one pot" and we had equal spending money, never major arguments about money all good yea?

Then we split due to his infidelity

I was a Sahm at this point for complex reasons and had no income of my own. Within 2 days of our split he emptied the accounts without a word to me. I knew nothing until in that deeply embarrassing scene of being at the supermarket with a weeks worth of groceries to pay for and...card declined!

He KNEW I had no income of my own, though some of that money he'd withdrawn had been earned by me and the money he withdrew also included child benefit and child tax credits, money intended for our daughters needs.

He left me stuck in the arse end of nowhere with a baby with no transport, no money for transport and no money for basic essentials either.

Now admittedly these days I'd have been able to access funds far more quickly and easily as I'd have been able to quickly set up a new bank account and my parents would transfer money to me.

Back then it really wasn't that easy, I had to borrow from a neighbour I hardly knew, then my parents sent me a postal order that I could cash to repay the neighbour plus a bit more to be going on with until I could open a new sole account and arrange for child benefit snd child tax credits to go into that account.

It took WEEKS to sort out and I'm very lucky my parents were able to help me out. Not everyone has family or friends able/willing to help out in such a situation and it still takes bloody ages to get child benefit etc paid into a different account and I also started a claim for income support which took nearly 3 months until I got my 1st payment by which time I had found a job!

I will NEVER have a joint account with anyone ever again. It made me far too vulnerable.

Not everyone has the choice to not be a sahm/go out to work.

Back then I was fit and healthy and frankly the economy was doing a damn sight better too!

Within 5 years of the split I was disabled and dd was showing the first major signs of what I would later learn was her own disability, within 7 years after split I was no longer able to work.

Everyone's circumstances are different and they can change drastically on you.

Another friend of mine who split from her ex around the same time her child has learning difficulties and other health issues. It's impossible for her to get childcare and even if she could she would need so much time off work for his medical appointments and assessments and therapies etc that no employer could reasonably support her.

Yes some women are higher earners, some have more assets etc but by and large it's women who's careers and prospects are most harmed by becoming parents. It's women who come off worst financially following a split.

There's also the fact that marriage isn't only protective in the event of a split but also if one party becomes incapacitated or dies. Incapacitation being by far the worst scenario financially speaking, it's incredibly expensive to be very ill/disabled and needing care and support.

Nothing protects totally but planning and preparing as much as one can is the best option.

Sorry meant to add, that money ex took was eventually returned to me BECAUSE we were married. If we'd not been married I'd have had a hell of a job proving how much of it was mine if I even could (cash wages paid by clients) and pretty much not had a leg to stand on! He also took the car and the computer without any discussion whatsoever, which I was also compensated for via the divorce. We were not rich by any stretch just a normal fairly low income family but being married made SO many things so much easier!

One thing it made easier was socially. People deny this or think it's no longer an issue but there is still a stigma to being a single mum and if you weren't married to the dad either that's magnified. It SHOULDN'T be the case but it is. I've noticed on many an occasion I've been treated better as a "Mrs" by certain people/organisations than friends/family have been as "miss" totally outrageous, shouldn't happen, but I'm afraid it does. I've experienced and witnessed it in terms of medical staff, school staff, council staff, dwp staff...

On one occasion you'd have thought I went from "commoner" to "royalty" based on how one particular dwp staff members treatment of me totally changed once she realised I was married! Utterly ridiculous but still happens. I have friends and family now who are still reporting such treatment. One has not taken her husbands name and like the incident above has noticed a marked change in how she is treated when it becomes known to the snob that she is married but has kept her own name. Idiots!

Depends on your financial circumstances, if you are the high earner it won't disadvantage you. If you don't have your own house yet also won't.

Also depends on your romantic relationship. A partner who you plan to marry but there have been delays is very different to a partner who refuses to marry you. Personally I wouldn't put off a wanted baby for this, but only you know.

There's a good thread on a similar subject, lots of good advice on there on the legal implications of being an unmarried couple.
Search for it under this title:
What would happen to my partners money if he dies and we weren't married

@GreenWillow

Unmarried couples are significantly more likely to split up than married ones.

Outcomes for DC of separated parents are significantly worse across the board than those for the DC of married parents.

Therefore, taken at population level, DC are going to be worse off if you are unmarried, than if you are married.

Obviously life gets in the way, and there are always families that buck this trend, but the trend nevertheless exists.

So what are the guarantees of child maintenance if you are married and divorce?

It depeneds on your situation. There is recourse if a non marital relationship fails - men still have to pay towards the upkeep of their children (assuming they are on their birth certificate)! All purely based the rather narrow view of of women being SAHMs or only working part time and often a way for MNetters to feel superior.

@canigooutyet

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.

🙏 Yes this is what I was waiting for someone else to say!

@Hannahusky

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.

So if you are being abused good old marriage tells you, you must keep cracking at it 🙄

@SpringisSpinning

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..

Thankgod for that! If it had been my exP and I'd passed away, he would of taken the lot!

I think the issue is one of commitment. It's easy for men to say they're committed to you. Much harder for them to demonstrate it. Marriage is a demonstration that he means it, that he's taken active steps to make it happen. Having a child with a man who hasn't taken any steps... you have a much higher chance that he's just not that into being properly committed.

One foot in is the same as one foot out, in my opinion.

@HappyAsASandboy

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.

This is true. And thankfully we have a safety net in this country to help, not like it was years ago though where you could be on Income Support and kids in school. I think it is very unfair that as single parent if you claim anything they are nagging at you to go to work, so you really do end up doing it all, it's so unfair. Especially as like as has already been mentioned, there are men who have even paid for fertility treatment etc and you think they are so keen, and look what happens 😳 I was pushed in to having a child, literally, done for a few of his own reasons and all the things that flashed before my eyes/went through my mind at that moment, have all come true. He knew he had already manipulated and abused me enough, plus that I was worth ten of him, and would step up, so either way, lumbered, I've been told not to say that, but I don't get why we are made to feel we need to dress every situation up.

Won’t rehash the many good answers above.

Will add that it is dependant on circumstances pertaining to the woman’s financial position.

I am the higher earner, not massively so atm as took a slight demotion to grow my skill set but I have been a much higher earner and have the potential for future higher earnings.

I also had a house when we met, DP did not. I put down the deposit on our joint home from equity.

I also have fairly decent savings and assets.

I stand to gain absolutely nothing in terms of financial security from DP and actually have a lot of risk to my financial position - and that of our young children.

So it does make me hesitant on some level, although we are engaged and planning a wedding post covid for all of the legal reasons PPs have talked about.

On the whole women are more vulnerable but not always, it feels awful to question if i shouldn’t get married to protect my security when we are usually slagging off men who think along those lines

@HappyAsASandboy

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.

Sorry also I forgot to add, yeah why is it some men find it easy to walk away?! I've never understood it, but it must be to do with our make up that women have a different side to them and not just because we carried the child, I think it's much more than that

I've always worked but went to 0.8 FTE for about 11 years so I could fit work in around nursery/school drop off and pick up. I'm happy with where I am in my career now but I spent a long time at the same pay band and had reduced pension contributions during the years I was part time, if we hadn't been married when we split up I wouldn't have received a share of my exH's pension to bridge the gap and I would also have only got 50% of the equity in the house despite having dd full time and exH not having to provide any accommodation for her.

@Cam2020

It depeneds on your situation. There is recourse if a non marital relationship fails - men still have to pay towards the upkeep of their children (assuming they are on their birth certificate)! All purely based the rather narrow view of of women being SAHMs or only working part time and often a way for MNetters to feel superior.

If only it were that simple! I am going through the CMS at the moment, I have been told they are still doing checks on exP's address, and that if they can't get good proper evidence that he lives where stated, they would drop the case 🤦‍♀️ I am a bit devastated about this, but then think why was it not possible for that person to come to me with a financial plan. As he's on bail but 'allowed' to contact me about our son, he wanted to see him, but not have to pay for him it seems, quite happy throughout, letting the coper and more able one just carry on with what they have always done, cope!