Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

He still has his ex as next of kin on all paperwork, including pensions - AIBU he should change it?

90 replies

Monochromepink · 09/05/2023 19:08

Hello,

this is my first time dating a man who is separated. They have 3 children together, youngest is 4.

They split 2 years ago and it’s a strained split, don’t get on well at all. I have noticed all his paperwork still has all her details as his next of kin, in passports, and named as a beneficiary in life insurance documents and pension documents etc.

We’ve been together just under a year, am I being unreasonable thinking to myself he should be changing all these things?

In future he knows I want to have my own children and has agreed to this, wouldn’t that become very messy if she is still named on documents?

OP posts:
2chocolateoranges · 09/05/2023 19:20

A bit premature! I wouldn’t be expecting him to change it all over a relationship that’s less than a year old . She is the mother of his children if anything happens to him , his children need more help and support than you do.

GoodChat · 09/05/2023 19:20

Unless you've bought a house together, or are having a child, there's no reason at all you should get anything.

She's the mother of his children.

MouseTime · 09/05/2023 19:23

How do you know this after only dating a year? He's had one failed relationship already. He should be taking his time with any new relationship. Promising you a future and kids so soon in the relationship is silly.

Lapland123 · 09/05/2023 19:23

Think she will need to be at least part beneficiary until their kids are financially independent?

if you have two kids also, it could be 50:50

Or whatever is proportionate. It’s all about providing for the kids.

Cantthinkofaname2203 · 09/05/2023 19:27

titchy · 09/05/2023 19:19

His current circumstances re that he is a parent to three small children and is being responsible.

Show quote history

No he isn’t.

he should change it so his children are the beneficiaries. Then they directly get the benefit- yes their mum will be able to control to an extent, but will be obliged to spend in their best interest.

if he leaves it to her, she could spend it all on things that would benefit her, invest in her own name, a buy to let, for example, or a holiday home, and they would never see any real benefit.

put it in the children’s names either for when they’re 18 or into trust with their mum as administrator.

LisaD1 · 09/05/2023 19:27

I left my ex when our child was 2. He remained my beneficiary and vice versa until I remarried and had another child. If anything had happened to either of us we still would have wanted our child to be covered financially. I would be unimpressed with a partner of a year having any opinion on that!

notteallyme · 09/05/2023 19:28

How do you expect things to work in a practical and financial sense going forward? Have you talked about these things? He had three kids with ex and will always have those kids even if the two of you have kids. His finances and time will always need to be split. If you want two kids then he is a dad of 5. Is this a road you really want to travel?

I have two children and if I separated I would want them to benefit before any new partner. If that means leaving to ex then so be it unless he were untrustworthy with money.

VikingVolva · 09/05/2023 19:29

He should not change things until financial negotiations are concluded.

It's also entirely appropriate, as they have minor DC, for his assets to go to them/their primary caregiver should something happen before the divorce settlements are sorted out.

Even if it's a non-marital split, working out how to provide for his DC in the event of his death/incapacitation still requires planning, and leaving assets via their mother is one way of achieving this.

I think it would be rather premature for him to be thinking of having any more DC. Affording four (or more) DC is pretty challenging, and best not attempted until the strain of the separation has ebbed and financial arrangements are sorted.

Roundandnour · 09/05/2023 19:29

At this stage in a relationship I would tell you to buggar off. Who gets my money is entirely up to me.

I’m not going to give a relative stranger next of kin.

If in several years time I decided I wanted more children, I would adjust my will to reflect this.

tikkanaan · 09/05/2023 19:30

BordoisAgain · 09/05/2023 19:11

As she is the mother of his children it is only right all his assets go to them via their mother. I don't think it unreasonable for this to remain the case until your relationship is more established - i.e. you get a place together or have children, etc.

No they should go to his children via them

Original poster
Monochromepink · 09/05/2023 19:30

Hiya, just to update I’m not saying it should be me! It’s just the fact it’s been 2 years and nothings been updated

OP posts:
LittleOwl153 · 09/05/2023 19:32

I think the Ex is a bit iffy yes. I would expect it to be his parents (assuming they are still alive and there is a reasonable relationship) his siblings (if there are any) or his kids as beneficiaries not next of kin though unless they are adults.

Sissynova · 09/05/2023 19:32

Monochromepink · 09/05/2023 19:30

Hiya, just to update I’m not saying it should be me! It’s just the fact it’s been 2 years and nothings been updated

Who do you think it should be updated to though? Why wouldn’t be want funds to go to his children?

mischlerischler · 09/05/2023 19:32

I don't see an issue with this. He has 3 kids with her, it's up to him to decide who will be his beneficiary.

If you were about to get married or pregnant with his child, that would be completely different.

FloweryName · 09/05/2023 19:33

If he’s still technically married, and he still has three children to provide for, it makes sense that the mother of his children is named on these things.

You have no business interfering until that choose to get divorced. It would be incredibly unwise to plan children with a man who has already made that commitment to three other children, especially when you’ve known him less than a year.

Ponderingwindow · 09/05/2023 19:34

He should possibly change his emergency contact, but keeping his ex as the beneficiary for his pension and life insurance is completely logical. If something happens to him, she will need the money to help with the children.

In my country, it can even be written into the divorce agreement that these have to stay that way until the children turn 18 or even finish university. otherwise if he dies and child maintenance disappears the children will suffer. If he wants a life insurance policy with a new wife as the beneficiary, he has to take out a second policy.

wildinthecountry · 09/05/2023 19:34

I can't understand why you think you need to benefit from his death or whatever , why do you think he needs to change it ? Under a year together is no time at all .I've got cheese in my fridge older than that .🙄

Roundandnour · 09/05/2023 19:34

Monochromepink · 09/05/2023 19:30

Hiya, just to update I’m not saying it should be me! It’s just the fact it’s been 2 years and nothings been updated

Who should the beneficiaries be if not his children via their mum?

BonnieLisbon · 09/05/2023 19:34

OhmygodDont · 09/05/2023 19:17

It should be her/their children unless he had children with someone else and then it should be split equally between the families/children.

Your getting way ahead of your self as his year long gf

Agree with this. Even if you have kids in future he should still make provisions for his other kids in the event of his death. They don't cease to be his responsibility because he's with another woman

ScatteredShattered · 09/05/2023 19:34

A fair solution might be for him to write a will sharing everything equally across all his current and future children, in trust of their mother(s) until 21.

But then if there’s a big disparity between you and the other mum’s assets/earnings, or if she remarries, that could mean he needs to rebalance things. Sounds like a minefield for everyone concerned tbh.

Kangarude · 09/05/2023 19:35

How did you see the insurance and pension documents? You say that you are 'thinking to myself' which may suggest he doesn't know you've seen them, or certainly didn't want to discuss it with you. I think you should mind your own business

titchy · 09/05/2023 19:35

he should change it so his children are the beneficiaries. Then they directly get the benefit- yes their mum will be able to control to an extent, but will be obliged to spend in their best interest.

He is required to ensure that maintenance is continued in the event of his death otherwise his will could be challenged by his ex. I assume he currently pays maintenance to her and not direct to them, given that I assume she pays the rent/mortgage? So keeping her as beneficiary while the children are minors simply ensures that continuity.

Cantthinkofaname2203 · 09/05/2023 19:35

Sissynova · 09/05/2023 19:32

Who do you think it should be updated to though? Why wouldn’t be want funds to go to his children?

Show quote history

It’s not going to his children though, it’s going to his ex.

ok so they will get benefit via her, but if id’s a significant sum over what they need until their 18 she’s not obliged to give them anything.

MoggyP · 09/05/2023 19:37

Did he show you his paperwork or did you snoop?

I'd be pretty unimpressed with a new boyfriend going through my papers

Cantthinkofaname2203 · 09/05/2023 19:37

titchy · 09/05/2023 19:35

he should change it so his children are the beneficiaries. Then they directly get the benefit- yes their mum will be able to control to an extent, but will be obliged to spend in their best interest.

He is required to ensure that maintenance is continued in the event of his death otherwise his will could be challenged by his ex. I assume he currently pays maintenance to her and not direct to them, given that I assume she pays the rent/mortgage? So keeping her as beneficiary while the children are minors simply ensures that continuity.

Isn’t that only in scotland?