Child out of wedlock / illegitimate - does it still matter

[Bananabreadandstrawberries]

Does it still matter in any way whether your child was born within a marriage or not? Is there any stigma to being an ‘unwed mother’ or ‘illegitimate child’ (apologies no offence intended). Do you view people differently before of this status? Are there any practical implications?

For those of you who feel it doesn’t matter, would you still prefer your own daughter were married before having children?

I ask as I feel despite most people not minding this about other people, the couples ‘doing better’ in life still tend to marry before having children. I am not sure

AIBU that legitimacy doesn’t matter anymore?
YES = Makes a difference (even though it’s not PC to say so)
NO = Makes no difference about being married before children.

I had my 2 children before we married - in fact, they walked down the aisle with us! So no, I wouldn’t mind my children having children out of wedlock. Each to their own, though.

Women in the U.K. have been shafted in this respect.

Society has not caught up with household things or childcare being fully 50/50 so even if subconsciously and even if still working, in 85% of cases it's still women going part time, or taking a more flexible job while men focus on earning as much as possible.

Until that changes, women are absolutely foolish in many cases to have children without being married, and given the CMS is a mess I find it annoying that the taxpayer often picks up the pieces and then people start harping on about child poverty...

Still maintain that if a man won't marry you, he's less likely to be committed to his children

Yes. It matters in the eyes of the law.
If you die with no will, the legitimate children inherit as a priority.
But you can get their birth certificates changes retrospectively.
Lower inheritance tax limit if unmarried.
Fewer rights if you and your partner separate vs a divorce.

In my circle, to be honest, yes, you would be a bit judged for being unmarried and having children.

It makes a difference with regards to protecting the lower earning parent and that itself may affect outcomes for children.

In some circumstances it does... our eldest was born abroad and I was legally a dependent of her father DH and her British citizenship status depended on his job. Unmarried it would have depended on mine which was "lesser"... as DH was employed by the British government.

So, you know that marriage before children protects the financial status of the lower earner /more vulnerable party (usually the woman).
You also know that higher earning couples, who tend to be more highly educated and financially savvy, marry before kids.
Can you not see how the two are connected?

Of course, your question about social acceptance is legitimate. But I don't understand your confusion about why better off couples marry. It's very obvious based on what you said? Why have you leapt to the conclusion that social acceptance has anything to do with it?

Fathers can be on the birth certificate without needing to be married to the mother or to retrospectively change a birth cert. Both my children have me as the mother and my partner as the father on their birth certs. If I died intestate the children would not have any issue with inheriting.

Thank you, I didn’t know that children born in wedlock would have any difference in terms of inheritance sans a will?

If someone died without a will, with 1 child born in wedlock, and 1 child out of wedlock, what would the difference in inheritance be?

I wouldn't judge one bit. I was born to unmarried parents. My dad did leave though. So there is that! Thinking about it most of my family had their kids before getting married, or at least the 1st one. It's 50/50 with my friends

For me though, it was important to be married first.

Only if the illegitimate child is not named on the birtu certificate....

Ha! Mumsnet cracks me up.

The amount of posts/comments on MN from women berating other women who have children out of wedlock because it won't protect the mother financially if they split up and then the majority of posters on here saying "nahhh absolutely fine to have kids out of wedlock".

I've come to realise that herd behaviour is very much a thing on here.

Thank you. Sorry, I didn’t know whether the two facts were directly related. Or whether there are other factors people were taking into consideration.

I suppose I wanted to ask the hive their reasons if they preferred marriage for themselves (even though it’s normal in society either way).

Well I'm not married, never have been, and have a daughter, so it doesn't bother me!

No stigma, but as unmarried parents are much more likely to have separated by the time DC1 is 5, children are at higher risk of poverty. Single/partner men who have DC are way more likely to leave them but that’s a UK thing.

In mainland Europe both parents get 50:50 residency if they live separately; more couples stay with each other.

Marriage doesn’t make a legal difference to the DC’s status any more eg for inheritance.

Which ‘circles’ judge? Religious or financial?

Anecdotally, out of my NCT group of six, four of us were not married at the time of having first baby although one couple (DH and I) have subsequently married. Makes no difference.

We weren’t married when we started our family. We did elope last year and got married then came back from the wedding pregnant with no.5. I don’t think it makes any difference these days.

Thank you, may I ask what the judgement would be and how you would describe your circle?

Personally I would not have wanted to have children before marriage but each to their own

I don't think anyone cares at all anymore, outside of religious communities. I've been with my partner nearly 20 years, had a child, child has the same name as me because I saw absolutely no reason for him to have my partner's name. If people assume my partner isn't our child's father because of it, that's their problem.

If I had a daughter I would be encouraging/insisting that she get herself a decent job and a career track that gives independence before having a child. I would advise son or daughter to always get their name on a housing contract and pay their way, never live in someone else's house and assume everything will be ok. Never leave yourself vulnerable. Couldn't care less about marriage, but having wills and pensions sorted is sensible before you start a family. I've seen two friends divorce and be left with the bare minimum of child maintenance, ex-husband who refuses to leave the house and constant battles over contact, so there's no magic guarantee that comes with marriage.

We will probably eventually get civilly partnered when inheritance tax becomes an issue, but we're a way off yet. For context, most of my friends were married before they had kids, all professionals early/mid-40s (everyone got married in a rush around 32) but a few divorces and remarriages since. One friend is on his third marriage!

Legal and financial protection matter. But no judgement.

My first child was born before a father being on the birth certificate automatically gave him parental responsibility and we had to make a separate statutory declaration to that effect.

Because we are not married we have made wills and other legal arrangements to protect each other and our children. It's a bit of a faff, but easy enough. However, there are far too many women who don't do this- and either don't think about it at all or are under the impression that there is such a thing as common law marriage. Which there isn't. I wish this was more widely know and talked about.

You're more soundly covered legally in the event of a split, which is why I got married - not just for the children, but yourself too (if, for example, you decided to be a SAHM you'd be automatically entitled to more). That's not to say partnered people can't claim it, but it's easier to contest and the rights to things like property are fuzzier without a marriage if you're not named on deeds etc. Regardless, your children should have your maiden name somewhere in their name, as if you split exH can make travelling abroad a pain apparently.

There are multiple threads on here, daily from women who have scaled down their career to raise children, name not on mortgage who find themselves trapped. No money to leave, no home. Have a look at those....

Of course not EVERYONE benefits from marriage. If you own most assets marriage won't benefit you . Similarly, you can have both names on the house for example giving you legal protection.

Absolutely no stigma to it at all nowadays. In fact I think looking at DD's class of 30 kids more parents are unmarried than what are.

I live in a smallish town and I do think it's only the last 15ish years that this has changed though.

When I was at primary school the vast majority of parents were married and it was a bit of a talking point in class that one child didn't have the same last name as her mother.... not sure how we actually knew that mind.

Same applied with christening. I will never forget my DM marching into the school office to complain when I came home & told her a teacher had said I "wasn't really her child" because I hadn't been christened.