Not married parent, am I bonkers to be part time?

[Daisygivemeyouranswerdo]

I am hoping for some advice regarding finances and future planning as an unmarried but partnered mum.

Currently, I’m working PT since returning from mat leave last year. My partner and I of 10+ years own a home together but are not married and likely will never be (he doesn’t want to get married, has said he basically wants to protect his own assets. This isn’t a guess. He has said this but I think instantly regretted letting me know it)

He’s a lovely man and a great dad but I know I am in a tricky situation financially both short and long term. He is the higher earner and likely will be as his industry prints money.

I don’t want to be FT again until my LO is in school, a couple of years away. I know lots of people will say to go FT again immediately (or LTB, having cake and eating cake etc) but I won’t give up this short time with my LO when school is only a few years away and I have many years ahead until I’ll need to pull a pension, if we can afford it. I plan to head up the career ladder and possibly retrain into a higher paying industry to boost my income and essentially (DP has suggested I do this and will support me financially doing it) be able to provide for myself and my child long term. Could I hear any positive stories about this if this is your experience please?

Am I being unreasonable to be panicking about this now? I have a long career ahead of me right? to help boost my own savings? I can enjoy these few years with LO without financial worry (all being well…)?

Currently DP pays for most things for our household which allows me to save. So does he but think £300 (mine) compared to 3k (his) so we are totally out of balance in that. I know I cannot rely on him aside from this and the marriage thing has been an eye opener of course and that he wants all the benefits of a wife without any of the risk of a wife. He knows about the inheritance tax issue and does not see this as a reason to protect either of us by getting married. I would not want a wedding but would be happy to be legally married - not so much for romance (I do love him very much) but the financial security and avoidance of IT. I now know that no matter what, I need to plan for my child and I to be left high and dry. Day to day this isn’t his character (generous generally but a saver) but clearly, it’s something my DP thinks about and I need to, too.

An ultimatum not an option, I’ve no interest in marrying a reluctant husband 😂

I think you're mad not to take the jobs or at least try and negotiate 80-90% hours over 4 days.

I bet he does 🙄

Surprised, is he aye? What do you reckon would happen if you wanted to go back FT now, would he take his equal share of sick days, pick ups and drop offs etc?

I get marriage protects the lower financial contributor but in death rather than divorce what is to stop him leaving his pension, savings and assets directly to his child?

It's easier for a spouse to challenge a decision not to provide for them in death than it is a cohabitant.

People have romanticised marriage but at its core it's a legal contract to protect the most financially insecure person in the relationship.

He has made clear that in the event of a relationship breakdown he intends to keep as much of the assets you have enabled him to gain as possible.

Stop enabling it and make sure that if the relationship breaks down you won't be up shits creek without a paddle.

I also can't understand how you're not concerned that you working pt is enabling him to have 60K in savings that you will never have any entitlement to.

60k x 5 years is massive. You will come out of the next 5 years with a huge disparity in wealth.

Of COURSE he likes you part time!

BTW OP do you actually own the house 50/50? People have mentioned that, I can only see a reference to joint ownership though. Is it a joint tenancy or tenants in common?

This in spades. OP, listen to this.

Yes, if they're not married then there's no way that he can be ordered to give her any of his assets (or vice versa) if they split up. He has no obligations to her, just to their child. That doesn't change however long the relationship.

Caveat - of course in many countries (e.g. New Zealand) then couples who split in this scenario would have a claim, whether or not they were married, but this is mainly a UK site and most posters are coming from that perspective.

I find his attitude really odd given he has decided to have a child with you. He has chosen to create a new person with half the dna of someone that he doesn't trust. If you split, he doesn't seem bothered that his child would have a much lower standard of living with the other parent. The pension thing is big, yes it's not many years but the years at the beginning of your career count a lot more at the end, due to accumulated interest etc.

He does actually sound fairly supportive at the moment and I can understand his position to an extent (if this was the other way around, mumsnet would be saying don't marry) but yes your future security is at risk, if he left you, you would be in the shit. So you need to either accept that risk, which may lead to an imbalance in your relationship (given he has all the power and you may end up accepting things you otherwise wouldn't due to fear of splitting) or take steps to protect yourself

Your post sounds like a bunch of excuses. What you describe has not happened in my case and other women that I know.

Becoming a mother stalls you for as long as you want to be stalled. Yes, you take a year or so out of the workplace but are these conversations not had before having DC?

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule such as illness/disability etc but for the most part these things should be thought about prior to having DC.

Oh, a combination of all sorts. I had two children in an unmarried relationship - where I chose to remain unmarried once I realised my partner had massive secret debts. He wanted me to give up my job after DC but I refused and continued PT. Then he died and I went back FT... it's hard to say what would have happened if he had not become ill, but I suspect I would have left him and gone back FT. Because of the debts, mind you... this is obviously not the case for you!

Now I am married with another DC and am the main earner while DH is a SAHD. I am aware that by being married, I am in essence 'protecting' him while he isn't earning, and I think that is only fair as he is looking after our baby.

Sorry, you did ask so there is my life story!

Thank you. I’m in Australia where our laws sound more like what you describe in New Zealand.

Your post is a load of bollocks.

You and the women you know are not the default, even if we charitably assume your guess that none of them have ever experienced any disadvantage on the grounds of maternity or perceived possibility of maternity. We live in a society where lots of women experience disadvantage that men don't, purely because of being the sex who go through pregnancy and birth. This is not a matter of opinion, and it's immaterial whether you're willing to accept the reality of it or not.

This is not something that can be opted out of, particularly as some of the downsides that women face are because of the physical impacts they experience. Which you even acknowledge yourself! Thinking about these things ahead of time has precisely fuck all impact on whether they happen. It can achieve putting some protections in place ahead of time (like marriage...) but that is all.

For this reason, the shoe will never be able to go on the other foot.

Yes, you’re bonkers!

I couldn’t live with someone who didn’t treat me as an equal partner, let alone have a child together.

Why are you letting him get away with this? Why do you think so little of yourself?

Men who selfishly put their needs first are usually the type to ditch the current partner for a younger model because they're driven by their ego.

At least if you’re married, you will protect yourself financially when you’re older.

Yes there's an ongoing debate here as to whether we should move to something closer to a system like yours. Currently there's no way that separating partners can make any claim for transfer of assets or maintenance payments for the adults. The system for maintenance for children doesn't depend on whether the parents are married.

disagree with this.
@TrashedSofa is on the money.

And I am the high earner in my marriage by a significant gap and work at a mid/senior level for a woke D&I heavy employer.

I had the audacity to take a full year mat leave, return FT and then get pregnant again. I’m planning to take a full year…again. (what an arsehole)

it has 100% stalled and impacted my career, I have been passed over for a promotion that I 100% deserved and actually want to laugh at how stupidly naive I was blithely thinking motherhood penalty wouldn’t affect me as I did all the right things and am in a naice middle class upper management job.
i haven’t switched off but If I was my DH I’d be making an extra £50 pa right now.

I hate this shitty rhetoric that if women just bucked up their ideas there wouldn’t be a problem.
there is a problem… And part of that problem is other women pedalling this drivel.

Daisy, of course it won't be catastrophic.

You are prioritising your child.
We seem to have lost that in recent times.

However without a doubt I would be negotiating with him more money so you can save more and contribute to a sipp at the very least.

Well, I'm sorry but I think it's a little too late to start worrying now.

Yes you're vulnerable.

And what's more is he absolutely knows it and is happy for that to be the case.

There should have atleast been a financial agreement in place where he topped up your pension, and whatever he could save would be halved so half could go into your savings, whilst you are sacrificing your earning potential and financial stability during maternity.

I know a woman who, when she was pregnant she gave her now husband an ultimatum, marriage affords me certain rights, as would you being on the birth certificate of our child. If you don't want to afford me rights that relate to the stability of me being the mother of your child, how can you consider that I should afford you rights, that relate to your stability of being a father?

They were married a few months before baby was born. It isn't romantic, but they both wanted some stability that marriage afforded them.

Obviously you don't want that, and he won't marry you either, but you need to get back to work. He's made it clear he wants to protect his assets, he doesn't care about your financial stability of ability to support yourself a d his child. No matter how much he talks about supporting you to train into a different role where you'll have more money.

Of course you're entitled to your own opinion @TrashedSofa - just like I am mine.

Not ALL women are disadvantaged by having DC - for some it's quite the opposite but I'm not naive enough to think this is the same for everyone.

There is no post maternity crystal ball but neither is there for the future health of men.

The OP isn't keen to consider working or retraining at the moment. I don't see her lack of pension contributions to be the responsibility of her DP when she could do this herself through different choices.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Nobody said all women are disadvantaged by having DC. All women, including those who don't ever have any, are potentially disadvantaged in a way that men aren't, though. Women of childbearing age do get passed over in the workplace if they're seen as a risk of maternity leave, it happens, and the idea that you'd definitely be aware if it happened to a woman you know is laughable.

As for there being no crystal ball for the health of men, the point is that their health complications won't relate to the physical experience of pregnancy and birth. And women experience health problems not relating to maternity too, just like men.

The two are not directly comparable, and that is why even a more comprehensive attempt at a shoe on the other foot would've failed. There is no shoe on the other foot when only one sex ever does the childbearing. It will always be a hard fail of an approach.

In this case it is comparable when one parent is working full time and other would rather not.

To expect the other partner to plug the gap in pension contributions my opinion is unreasonable, regardless of sex.

Different folks, different strokes I guess.

It isn't comparable, specifically because of sex. It might perhaps be comparable in a lesbian couple where both had given birth to the same number of DC, but otherwise, it's simply impossible.

Its up to you what conclusions you choose to draw from the inalienable, indisputable, accept them or be wrong facts about the impact of femaleness here, of course. But the boot will never be able to go on the other foot until men give birth too.

You want to work part time for five years and then retrain into another job? So we are talking 7 or 8 years in total before you start a new job, which while better paying, you will be starting at the bottom?

In the mean time , you won't have accrued any pension or savings contributions.

After 7 years of you being the default parent, your partner almost certainly won't be minded to suddenly start doing half the drop off/pick ups/sick days/holiday cover required so you will be starting a new career while also still juggling all child care related responsibilities. So most likely your career progression will be slower than other colleagues. (Harsh but likely true).

At the very least, if you aren't married, you need to:

1. Be sure if you are tenants in common or joint tenants on your home. Are you legally entitled tro 50pc of the value when it sells given he has been paying the mortgage? Or just 50pc of the value when you originally bought it....
2. He needs to start paying the same amount into your personal pension as he pays into his. You really really need to be paying into a pension now - it is the magic of compounding that your contributions now are much more valuable than the ones you make in ten years time.
3. He also needs to paying voluntary National Insurance pension contributions so you are definitely entitled to a full state pension https://www.gov.uk/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions
4. Half the money he is saving (non pension related) should be put into an ISA in your name.
5. Take legal advice on your wills and on lasting power of attorney. If he has an accident and is in a coma, you have zero rights over his medical treatment and also won't be able to access his money in order to pay the mortgage/bills/food. This did happen to a friend's parents - the father was in a coma for three years before he died. It was extremely difficult - his will was sorted and left everything to his partner but that didn't help until he actually died and in the mean time, her grandmother was legally next of kin for medical decisions.

The brutal truth is likely to be that he doesn't really value the work you are doing to raise the child and look after the home so he will not want to pay into your pension or putting savings in your name.

If he really loves you, he will want to value the work you do for your family and to ensure you have a financial comfortable future in all circumstances, also because this benefits his child.