AIBU to not want to be an unmarried SAHM?

[EnglishMuffins]

Just wondering what people’s thoughts are on my situation.

I was married for several years and had 2 DC with my exH. I had always worked part time to be around for our young DC in a general admin job. Upon divorce , exH stayed in marital home and bought me out of my share. I took some furniture, no savings (in fact debts that needing reconciling) and no claim to his pension as he said the pot was too small to even consider sharing it 50/50 after only a few years being married.
I lived with family as I couldn’t afford to buy or rent on my PT salary, and we share custody of our DC 50/50.

Fast forward a couple of years and I met DP. He was also a divorcee. Their split was amicable, no DC involved. We bought a house together about 18 months into our relationship and soon after we unexpectedly fell pg (I said unexpectedly as there are fertility issues on both sides but a blessing all the same and we were delighted).
When our child was born we decided I would give up my job to be a full time SAHM. We also needed a bigger house so sold up and moved , but this time my name was no longer on the mortgage as my lack of income decreased our borrowing prospects. So my initial lump sum I invested into our first property (from my divorce settlement) which had also grown as property prices went up in value and the mortgage was paid off (I might add that for 18 months I contributed towards the mortgage and bills) is now tied up in a house that is in DP sole name. I feel naive but he said that we’d just have to base it on “trust”.

My issue is, I really thought that by now, DP would have proposed marriage. He’s not dead set against it, but he says things like “don’t do it!!” When we drive past weddings and things , and I just generally get the feeling he doesn’t see a second marriage in his future. Our child is almost 2, ive given up on my job, a career, paying into a pension, independence , I sold my little car.. have no savings or means to save , am solely reliant on DP wages . Meanwhile he is climbing the career ladder, paying into a pension, accruing savings and saving what I imagine would be a vast monthly sum in childcare costs.
AIBU to expect him to marry me? I just feel I’m in a vulnerable position, with nothing to fall back on. I want a secure future for my child and my DC from my previous marriage. I would even like to share a name with DP and our child and I guess rubber seal our family unit? So both financially, and romantically, I’d like to be married - but DP has no interest . Then part of me feels like a gold-digger for thinking he should marry me and give up 50:50 if we were to split.

What are the legal implications of not being married vs being married?
DP has a will, I don’t. DP has insurance through work that would pay off the mortgage - I guess this would be taxed? I have life insurance. No savings and a tiny pension from my PT job.

@ClaudiaJ1

There is no such thing as "common law marriage" in the UK *@NightfeedsandNetflix* .

Ok I didn't know that hence stated look into it. But thank you for the clarification x

There hasn't been a common law spouse in England or Wales since the Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753 that made it a requirement to have a formal ceremony of marriage in order for a marriage to be legally recognised.

That's why it means such a lot when a man will happily have a woman at home washing his pants and raising his kids, but won't legalise their relationship.

It really is very very telling.

@DrSbaitso

There hasn't been a common law spouse in England or Wales since the Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753 that made it a requirement to have a formal ceremony of marriage in order for a marriage to be legally recognised.

That's why it means such a lot when a man will happily have a woman at home washing his pants and raising his kids, but won't legalise their relationship.

It really is very very telling.

That is under the assumption OP hasn't been mentioned in his will?

@NightfeedsandNetflix wills can be changed at any time , even if there is one

That is under the assumption OP hasn't been mentioned in his will?

Wills can be changed at ... will.

20 years of unpaid labour for sight of a will which named me beneficiary 20 years ago and has likely been superseded? No thanks.

@NightfeedsandNetflix also as Graphista stated on the last page, Wills and insurance are NOT guarantees if you aren't married, the deceased persons family of origin/blood relatives can and do step in and challenge these and are more often successful than people expect them to be*

and

*my mum had a friend who lived with a chap for over 30 years, unmarried, he never bothered getting around to divorcing his ex and neither did the ex, when he died intestate (don't even get me started on the stupidity of a man in his 70's and a homeowner not having a will!) the house (which mums friend had contributed to in terms of maintenance and repairs and decor etc over the years by simply giving him the money to do so) went to his ex in its entirety and mums friend was unceremoniously turfed out of her home

She had been wrongly under the impression there was such a thing as common law marriage she even had in her head that living together 10+ years was the cut off point (no idea where she got this idea!)

She also lost savings that were in an account in his name it was a mess! In total she effectively lost £750,000 worth of assets!

The myth of common law marriage and associated benefits and rights must be debunked and refuted.*

That is under the assumption OP hasn't been mentioned in his will?

Wills can be changed at any time and do not offer all the protections of marriage, which are quite comprehensive and more than simply "gets it when he dies" (not least an inheritance tax break up to a certain threshold). If wills were the same thing, marriage would be redundant.

This situation is literally what marriage is for: to protect the lower earning, or non earning, child rearing and home making partner. Not protecting that person by marriage is very serious and there's no way he doesn't understand this, especially as a divorced man.

It is incredible how many men end up in total financial control while apparently not realising they've done it.

You are entitled to a portion of your first husband's pension. Don't take his word for it - consult a lawyer. If you don't get your name on the deeds of the new house, you will get screwed all over again.

And sorry, because this is so obvious I forgot to say it: a will won't protect you if you split up.

@DrSbaitso

That is under the assumption OP hasn't been mentioned in his will?

Wills can be changed at any time and do not offer all the protections of marriage, which are quite comprehensive and more than simply "gets it when he dies" (not least an inheritance tax break up to a certain threshold). If wills were the same thing, marriage would be redundant.

This situation is literally what marriage is for: to protect the lower earning, or non earning, child rearing and home making partner. Not protecting that person by marriage is very serious and there's no way he doesn't understand this, especially as a divorced man.

It is incredible how many men end up in total financial control while apparently not realising they've done it.

This situation is literally what marriage is for: to protect the lower earning, or non earning, child rearing and home making partner.

Exactly. If there were no security benefits to marriage, marriage wouldn't exist. Only marriage gives women real actual financial security and equality. Marriage provides security, certainty and protection as well as equality in the relationship.

I do sometimes wonder if we should change the marriage/cohabiting laws because so, so, so many women get fucked over like this. The problem is that I can't think of an alternative that doesn't involve asset sharing by stealth, or screw things up for people who actively want to cohabit without marrying (eg to protect the inheritance of children from previous relationships). A financial contract is serious and both people need to indicate clearly that they are willing to do it. It should be opt in, not opt out.

Even cohabitation agreements require two people to go to a solicitor and sign something, and my understanding of places with "de facto relationships" is that they too require some sort of formalisation. Otherwise, how do you determine when a relationship began for legal reasons?

Maybe there is a better system that we should be using, but this is the one we have, so we have to work with it. And not protecting your SAHP is serious.

@Christmas1988

My husbands the only one on the mortgage as me being a SAHM brought the amount we could borrow down too but the solicitor wrote that if we split up I get 50% of the house.

I’d get something drawn up ASAP.

Well, this was a bit daft, too. As you refer to your husband, I assume you are married. That being the case, you'd potentially be entitled to more than 50% equity. I don't see why you drew anything up at all. This is why people get married - so the situation is completely clear!

@DrSbaitso

I do sometimes wonder if we should change the marriage/cohabiting laws because so, so, so many women get fucked over like this. The problem is that I can't think of an alternative that doesn't involve asset sharing by stealth, or screw things up for people who actively want to cohabit without marrying (eg to protect the inheritance of children from previous relationships). A financial contract is serious and both people need to indicate clearly that they are willing to do it. It should be opt in, not opt out.

Even cohabitation agreements require two people to go to a solicitor and sign something, and my understanding of places with "de facto relationships" is that they too require some sort of formalisation. Otherwise, how do you determine when a relationship began for legal reasons?

Maybe there is a better system that we should be using, but this is the one we have, so we have to work with it. And not protecting your SAHP is serious.

Alternatively, people could just get married (or have a civil partnership). I got married with a couple of witnesses. The whole thing took 15 minutes. It turned out to be the most useful 15 minutes I ever spent.

Cohabiting should be left exactly as it is, precisely for the reason you mention - namely that it might be nice to share your life with someone, but if you already have children and aren't having any more, then each person keeps their own assets and can hand them on to their own children.

@DrSbaitso

I do sometimes wonder if we should change the marriage/cohabiting laws because so, so, so many women get fucked over like this. The problem is that I can't think of an alternative that doesn't involve asset sharing by stealth, or screw things up for people who actively want to cohabit without marrying (eg to protect the inheritance of children from previous relationships). A financial contract is serious and both people need to indicate clearly that they are willing to do it. It should be opt in, not opt out.

Even cohabitation agreements require two people to go to a solicitor and sign something, and my understanding of places with "de facto relationships" is that they too require some sort of formalisation. Otherwise, how do you determine when a relationship began for legal reasons?

Maybe there is a better system that we should be using, but this is the one we have, so we have to work with it. And not protecting your SAHP is serious.

You can't think of one because there's not one. It's essentially a question of who we'd rather fuck over, unmarried SAHPs or people who want to be able to have a cohabiting partner whilst keeping finances separate.

Obviously we can and should do more wrt education on the issue etc, but it just seems innately susceptible to misunderstandings.

You have to do something about this now,,,,,,Please please don't ignore
your gut feeling any more ,nice guys don't do this to people they love.
no matter what BS they tell you.
I am just finding out after 30 years with my partner i have been gaslighted ,he gradually took over everything and i own a lot of property etc .I made the mistake of listening to his words and not looking at his
actions
I have just sat for two hours with my 18 year old daughter as she cried herself to sleep ,she's devastated and only knows a little of what's gone on for years.I found out my partner had been cheating ,stealing from my
bank accounts .etc
I woke up found out I have been ripped off for years ,how on earth I didn't see the signs I have no ring on my finger ,he's christmas gift would
be a cook book or oven gloves etc
don't let this guy control your life and money.

@DrSbaitso

I do sometimes wonder if we should change the marriage/cohabiting laws because so, so, so many women get fucked over like this. The problem is that I can't think of an alternative that doesn't involve asset sharing by stealth, or screw things up for people who actively want to cohabit without marrying (eg to protect the inheritance of children from previous relationships). A financial contract is serious and both people need to indicate clearly that they are willing to do it. It should be opt in, not opt out.

Even cohabitation agreements require two people to go to a solicitor and sign something, and my understanding of places with "de facto relationships" is that they too require some sort of formalisation. Otherwise, how do you determine when a relationship began for legal reasons?

Maybe there is a better system that we should be using, but this is the one we have, so we have to work with it. And not protecting your SAHP is serious.

I've thought about this a great deal and have long thought that there ought to be a way of protecting children's financial interests which is not tied to how well their parents are getting on.

It's always seemed grotesquely unfair that children can suffer financially because their dad fancies a woman at work or because a woman gets bored of being at home and upsets the applecart. The kneejerk answer to this is always "respect the marriage vows and don't cheat then", and of course that's true. But the chastity/attractiveness/domestic biddability of two people in a sexual relationship has always seemed an horrifically blunt instrument to tie the financial wellbeing of a family to.

It made sense in the days when marriage was essentially designed to take a woman off the market and ensure she didn't have multiple children that a father had to support. Now women have increasing financial independence and contraception has made the chastity thing irrelevant, its ridiculous that the financial wellbeing of the family depends on neither spouse cheating.

In practical terms for now marriage probably is the best solution and it certainly is the best one for people who are taking time off to care for children. So for now women (mainly) need to be made to understand how much not being married can cost them.

On a more philosophical note I would love it if we could devise a system which is less archaic. As you point out, it doesn't take into account the needs of two people with independent financial wealth who don't have children. It is to be avoided like the plague if the woman is the sole breadwinner and has children. In these situations its like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Curious to hear from lawyers if there is some form of contract law which could be created to make the division of financial assets easier without the notion of it being tied to a relationship surviving. I can't think of one for now but I do think it would be a good idea.

I think one of the main problems is, even with the best will in the world, sometimes children are going to suffer financially when two incomes that previously only had to support one household now need to fund two. Even when nobody is being a dick that's going to be hard.

You need to go back to work and get yourself an income. And save as much as you can. I was left broke as a joke thanks to my ex. He left me with debts and it took me years to get on my feet. I’m now with someone who is a good guy, but I will never allow him to be the only one earning. I will always have my own money and savings. We are TTC but I won’t be a SAHM. You need that independence for yourself.

When I meet xh he had a house i was not working I became pregnant quite quick he wanted a bigger house we bought one we were not married i put no money into it and I was not working but my name was on the mortgage and deeds

If you can prove what you put into the house with a bank statement, letter or deposit slip you may be able to get back your original investment.
But it's not certain.
Go and get legal advice before you talk to him about it...then you will know by what he responds if he's trying to bamboozle you or not.
I think it's more than likely he planned this out.

Women are too keen to give men all the benefits of marriage without insisting on marriage. Once you’ve given him all your money and produced several children, you’ve rather used all your bargaining chips

When I got divorced and everything got very hard with my exH, my solicitor said I know you find it hard to fight for yourself, but this is a fight for your kids.

If your DP leaves, you will not (unless you find DP3) be able to give your three children as good a childhood as you would be able to do if you were married or working now. You may end up in a really difficult position trying to work and raise them.
It is an enormous risk and it’s not fair to them. Pleasant relationships don’t always stay that way. You must know that.
It’s up to you to find the strength to deal with this. If he doesn’t want to marry, then so be it, and I can see why after one divorce. But you then need to protect yourself to have a home and income for your children if anything happens. Hope very much you can do this 🙂

No judgement here as I gave up career, family etc for my ex with only the protection of marriage. Even with that in place it’s a real struggle to settle the legal bills that will allow me to walk away from a very wealthy partner with a settlement that will ensure a decent life for my family. If someone cares for you they will understand your need for security. Discuss the precarious nature of your situation with your partner and, if you find him dismissive, engage legal representation (but it will be expensive so you need to think about how to fund this). Best of luck 🙏

@Coffeepot72

Women are too keen to give men all the benefits of marriage without insisting on marriage. Once you’ve given him all your money and produced several children, you’ve rather used all your bargaining chips

Women are too keen to give men all the benefits of marriage without insisting on marriage. Once you’ve given him all your money and produced several children, you’ve rather used all your bargaining chips

This, absolutely, both sentences spot on. There used to also be another analogy, rather sexist, about a cow and milk for free. Horrid language but absolutely true.

@DrSbaitso

This is a good point. OP has very good reason for wanting to Marry, her DP has very good reason to not want to Marry, if one feels protected the other ones feels unprotected.

So in essence each of them is asking the other to agree to something which is in agreeable, if not insulting to them. A real impasse.

Either a more specific and flexibly made marriage contract which then couldn’t be challenged over and over legally post separation perhaps? Maybe some kind of fault built into asset division? (for instance if you cheat and leave with them less assets for you etc.)