Won't marry or commit financially

[Charlotte778]

My partner and I have been together almost 10 years. We have a child together and I have an older child from a previous relationship.
I moved into his home after a year of dating.
Hes a good man and a good father, but doesn't accept my older child as his own.
The main issue is him denying marrying me.
When I get down to the nitty gritty, it's purely financial. He doesn't want to share or lose the home he has bought and paid off. He makes silly excuses like he doesn't want a party with a load of my family he barely knows etc. He shouts that women get everything in a divorce!!!
I've offered to sign a contract, a pre nup or whatever, but he gets angry and defensive about it. I want to marry for love and our future...
So nowI have no husband and zero financial security and he holds all the cards. This attitude has caused me so much unhappiness and it's changed how I feel about him.
I don't want his house, I want the father of my child to want me to feel loved and secure.
I work hard and earn a decent income. I buy everything for the kids and contribute to household maintenence.
Have I wasted 10 years auditioning for a role he was never going to give me?
Should I move on with my life as marriage is something I've always wanted and now I'm in my late forties....
I feel he's busy feathering his own nest and lost sight of what is actually important....
AIBU? Should I just be grateful for my family?

Beautiful drip feed. I'm glad your adult child isn't suffering.
Get on with it, then.
😊

I might have missed a post but the OP and everyone here would do well to read the thread yesterday by the sister of a lady left with nothing after her long term partner and father of her 4 kids left her with nothing. This is happening to women so much :-(

I'm another one that feels very sorry for the older child in this case too, fair enough to an extent if they had a father that was part of their life, but not to be treated as well as your sibling when your "step father" is literally the only faher you have.. shame on that man.

What's the reason that it come to head now. You've been with him 10 years. What changed to make you want to get married now.

That's a lot of drip feed. Not sure why you mentioned you OP didn't accept your first son as his if it was t a problem -

Massive drip feed...

How old is the son you share with this man?
Does your boyfriend pay any money towards your shared son's upkeep?

Have you considered 'buying out' your boyfriend of his share of the joint buy to let flat you own together? Getting a bigger mortgage for it?

At least that way, you would have an asset solely on your own name, so you could move into that flat/sole asset, if he decides to break up with you/meets another woman, in the future.

Also, since you're living mortgage/rent free in his house, squirrel money away as much as possible, into your pension, try to make that flat mortgage free (after you've bought him out.

If he refuses the buy out for the flat, sell it. Then use the equity to buy something solely on your name.

If he refuses the buy out for the flat, sell it. Then use the equity to buy something solely on your name.

I agree that’s a good idea, but what if he doesn’t want to sell?

So he did originally want to get married but has changed his mind, purely due to the financial implications? Why is he now imagining the financial fallout from a divorce when he wasn’t before? If he intends to stay with you for life he should know that marriage will protect you if he dies. I’m sure he doesn’t want to imagine that but if he genuinely cared for you and both of your children he would want to make sure you were ok.

He could buy her out, as an alternative.

After all he is mortgage free, presumably in good health and working a well paid job, so he should have plenty of money. Especially since it seems OP is paying for everything to do with his child and he doesn't have to pay for a cleaner or childcare, since OP probably does that. Or pay for expensive dates with women to get sex, because presumably OP provides that.

He should be able to buy her out easily. If he refuses separating their joint asset (flat), then she should consult a solicitor on her options.

The thing is, he has shown his hand. He's not a nice man.

Even if he didn't want to get married because he's asset rich and she's asset poor, he should take steps to make sure she's not missing out, e.g. jointly paying for childcare and child expenses, jointly taking time off for child, paying into her pension if she was SAHP/part time work to look after their child, life insurance should he die, will leaving things to her should he die, once he was mortgage free he should have paid for most of the child and household stuff and said to her to save her income and buy a flat in her own name ASAP, etc etc.

But I bet he hasn't done half those things because he just doesn't care about her. He once loved her, but now she's a placeholder, until someone he really likes comes along. Then she'll be kicked out. He will marry the next one, probably within a year or two. Seen it happen too many times.

At least if she separates their joint asset now, she has a place to go to once he kicks her out.

At least if she uses his mortgage free place to live rent and mortgage free for now, whilst he's using her as a placeholder for sex, cleaning, cooking, childcare etc, she can save her money and pay off her own mortgage.

I would hope that the OP is having sec because she wants to and not as some transaction. And she really shouldn't be a domestic appliance either. If either of those things are happening there are bigger problems in the relationship and marriage would be an insane thing to want on her part.

Find it hilarious how these posts always start with hes a good father and a good man" lol no he isn't. Silly excuses? He doesn't want to share his home and he doesn't accept your eldest child? Wow what a catch.

@Concannon88 I don't think that's strictly true. He's happy to share his home in return for housework, sex, child-minding and share of the bills. He's just not willing to share the equity/security of his home with OP.

Anyway, I've concluded it's not really a big issue because things, apparently, work out perfectly in the OPs world.

After all, her child who was, by OPs own admission, hurt by their poor treatment within this man's house, is now this man's Biggest Cheerleader.

I'm pretty confident if she has some words with him, and threatens to leave, he'll step up to the plate in the most romantic way possible .... perhaps even whisking her off to Rome for a surprise wedding?

To my mind, a surprise Roman wedding is much more likely than the (now) adult child having emerged entirely emotionally unscathed by their mother's prioritisation of her wants over the (now) adult's needs. And, that's before we examine whatever behaviour caused the (now) adult's childhood hurt.

Ohh, this story is the absolute closest to my own of any I've read on here.

What I ultimately did? I sat him down in year 9, told him, calmly and nicely after dropping hints for many years, that I wanted to be married (mine had been married before so I had tried to be understanding, but also hadnt given a firm no). I said, it was fine if he didn't want to be married, but I'm not getting any younger, so if he didn't ask soon, I would be leaving (and I meant it). I got a proposal 3 months later.

That was 8 months ago. He is being a pain in the ass with wedding planning but insists he is happy with the decision to get married, comes to view venues, etc. I think he is in no rush and leaves most of it to me to drive.

I guess my advice is, if you REALLY want this man, you can probably talk him into it... But, know it won't be a fairy tale romance, because you forced the issue. Its probably easier to work out whether it's a dealbreaker or not for you to get married now, and if it is, you know what to do.

I can't think of anything worse than this - what a stupid rule. The sheer fact that by living with someone for 2 years means you're as good as married, without actually signing a contract is just bizarre beyond reason.

Marriage is a serious business's and should not be entered into lightly, or by laziness

The reality is that most long term cohabitation does evolve into traditional marriage like structures, especially after children.
This means women become primary caregivers, which frees up the fathers of these children to focus on income and wealth creation, building up pensions etc. This is possible for them because the woman usually does the unpaid domestic duties. This is the logic behind it.

The UK situation suits men best and I find it interesting that many women in such relationships are “engaged” for many years, with men putting off the marriage. After a period of time it is difficult for women to extricate themselves away from a long term relationship where there is a refusal to marry by one party. Emotional attachments are formed and children born. Also many people do not have the financial acumen to think through what if separation scenarios that might happen in the future.

Laws exist to protect people. And the woman in the OP would have been protected and with less reliance on the government to rescue such people from destitution.

Actually, the law suits more and more women. As more and more women earn more.

You can choose to have your relationship recognised in law or not. It's a choice. Its shouldn't happen by default.

People make choices. And the choice not to have a legally recognised relationship is just as valid as choosing to have a legally recognised relationship.

The relationship doesn't just evolve into marriage like situation. The people involved make choices every step of the way. Both of them make choices. If you want the protection of the law in your relationship choose to make it a legal relationship.

What about where women have assets? You think they should either not be able to live with a partner or forced to share assets if they do? How is that protecting women? Or do those women, have to have their choices curtailed because other people make choices not in their best interest?

They’ve just published the gender pay gap data in Australia. Women may be narrowing it, but it’s very much still a gap. Common law marriage would protect more women than it harms, and the higher earning women are far better placed to decide if they want to stay a relationship or establish some legal boundaries, or even if they do get fleeced they have the skills to support themselves afterwards.

It’s not about the gender pay gap. The increase in women earning more than a partner, wouldn’t impact the gender pay gap.

Because that’s measured between colleagues. Not romantic partners. A woman can earn more than her partner but less than equivalent male colleagues. Or is it different in Australia?

In the UK people have the option of having their relationship legally recognised, in several ways, and therefore get all the legal protection and obligation that comes with it.

People can also choose to not make their romantic relationship a legal one.

Why should one group lose their right to choose the because other people make bad choices? It’s not even bad choices. It’s choices they are happy with and will even defend. Until it’s not. The law has no place in romantic relationships, unless the couple make the conscious act to do so.

Op has assets, she is a person that has choices and can support herself after. She had the choice to not live in. Or not have a baby before she got married. Or tackle the fact that the wedding wasn’t getting rebooked, despite it’s been years since Covid cancellations could be rebooked. Those choices are available to all.

The option of marriage is available. If you want to share assets with a partner, go ahead and do it.

Correct me if I am wrong but you can’t just unilaterally choose to have your relationship recognised by law though, you need both partners to agree to a UK civil union, as with marriage. And the discussion would typically happen some time after you first move in together and formed attachments and perhaps already with a pregnancy under way. So your argument of choice is theoretical and as we constantly see on MN in this thread and many others it doesn’t work like that in practice because of sunk cost on the part of the female partner which inhibits them from walking away.

No one in practice enters a relationship making all their choices for the next 10 years (as with the OP) there and then. Circumstances change, people change and so does the capacity to make a choice.

Yes women have assets too (you are male then?) and it works both ways here. If a high net worth woman was in a de facto relationship (as we call common law here) for 25 years and then splits with her partner, “her” assets would be split with the partner. They can work out their own split percentage based on mutual agreement via consent orders but a judge will approve it and generally review for reasonableness.

Lawyers work it out between them and they are reasonable. If for example the relationship was only 2 years and 1 day and one partner won both the lottery and got a huge inheritance from their grandmother the day before and the other partner immediately split and demanded a share of those funds, the beneficiary partner is likely to keep most of it (if not all). The length of relationship, future needs and what assets partner’s contributed and when are all considered.

If however a common law relationship was very long and one partner developed a health condition and the other met someone else, decided it was all too hard and wanted to walk away with all “their” assets leaving the other partner with not much then their former partner’s future needs would be taken into account in terms of the asset split. The argument that the partner with the health condition made a choice to live common law 25 years ago would not hold water.

We all know single mothers tend to be asset poor on the whole and that they are most likely to be primary resident parents too. Child support payment is not guaranteed. Your argument that women are better off under common law (with legal protection only if both agree) does not make sense.

No you can’t do it in the UK. The discussion arose from someone saying this happens in Australia and how it should happen here. Comments aren’t made in isolation.

Choosing to move into someone else’s home and have a baby without marriage, is a choice. It doesn’t just happen. You make choices each step of the way.

You do make choices for your future everyday. Especially when having kids. That’s a choice you make that impacts more than the next years. Choosing to get married or not is also a choice that will impact the next 10 years.

Why are you assuming I am male because o talk about women having more assets now?

Again, why should someone who has many made the conscious decision to involve the law in their relationship, have the law involved in a split? Why should they need to pay lawyers?

If you want a legal relationship. Make it a legal one. It’s not even difficult to do. If you want to legally share assets, make the steps to do that.

Yes single mothers tend to be asset poor. Tend being the operative word. Equalising things for people who have children, doesn’t require common law marriage. And men who just want to protect their assets? Just won’t move women in. But I bet, there will be still plenty of kids born, just without their parents living together. Those children not be better off.

Common law, if implemented, would impact both those who have kids and those who don’t.

Essentially common law would mean a woman who doesn’t want to share her assets, would never be able to live with a romantic partner. All because someone people don’t take the very easy options,, to legalise their relationship.

There’s currently choice. Choice to have a legally recognised relationship. Choice to not have a legally recognised relationship. Why should that choice be removed?

I haven’t argued women are better off under common law. I have argued that making your relationship a legal only recognised one should always be an active choice. Never ‘de facto’. So the opposite.

and as women, become more financially independent, changing it now would actually be simply changing to support the increasing number of men, who target women with assets. There’s 3 threads on the go at the moment where men have moved into their girlfriend’s place and took the piss financially. it’s not uncommon. Even where the woman has kids.

Please leave him for the sake of your older child.

The older child is apparently an adult. Isn’t damaged by any of this and thinks her partner is wonderful, apparently.

The drip feed is confusing. She also said

'My older childs father died before birth. I acknowledge it's hard to accept a 10 year old step child, but they are no trouble!
Hes not mean or anything, just massively favours his own child over most things.... It causes hurt to my older child.'

Idk 😶

@Alwaystransforming @HenndigoOZ

It simply comes down to.....

Aussie de facto law protects the poor person in the relationship.

UK 'actively go to the registry office and legally sign marriage papers', massively puts power into the asset rich persons hands. No surprise that UK law serves to protect the rights of the rich and often (but not always) men.

IMO the UK should have Aussie de facto laws, and American style strongly enforced child maintenance systems.

Its current pathetic system disproportionately leaves women and children often utterly screwed, and poor.

No, the poorer person puts the power into the richest persons hands, usually because at the time they gain something they want for it. That’s how relationships work. We only enter them because we get some sort of gain, so that’s not judging anyone. It could be emotional gain or more practical.

The poorer person doesn’t have to move in with someone into a home they don’t have their name on. Doesn’t have to have children or give up their own financial independence before making the relationship legally binding. Those are choices.

and it’s a bit weird to imagine women shouldn’t be able to make those choices for themselves.

I am glad the Uk doesn’t have those laws. That people are free to choose to not have the law involved in their relationships unless they want it.

If you want a legally binding relationship, choose to do that. If your partner doesn’t want it. Walk away. It’s really that simple.