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?

hmm. If in just about every company in every industry there is a gender pay gap, ie on average the men are paid more, then it is statistically impossible for there to be more couples with the woman earning more than the man than there are vice versa (ok fine if all gay men are high earning there is a tiny bit of lee way in that ‘impossible’, similarly if all the highest earning men are single and the highest earning women coupled up, but that’s not the case) . So the gender pay gap is relevant to the argument that common law marriage is bad for women when they earn a more, as it tells us it’s on average women don’t earn more, so it’s not bad and is in fact better for more women than it isn’t. If the gender pay gap shrinks, more women are earning closer to what men earn and more couples are going to be on similar income levels. The relevance is the macro view it provides about the relative pay of men and women.

@Alwaystransforming

De facto doesn't take away woman's or peoples choices. It's a fallacy.

Under de facto......The asset rich person can choose to .....

*refuse to allow the asset poor person to move in together
*can refuse to sleep with/donate sperm to/father children with
*can refuse to accept unpaid domestic and childcare duties being done for them
*can refuse to accept their own bills becoming lower/mortgage becoming lower, because they're shared with the asset poor cohabitant partner.

No one's pointing a gun to their head. They have the choice not to ever live together and the choice to not reap the benefits that come with living together.

Anyways you're safe, the UK will never implement a law that would stand up for womens and children's rights and most certainly wouldn't put a law in place that protects the poor. De facto will never happen in the UK.

OP, if you insist on staying with this man and keeping your joint investment property, rather than leaving him, or at least separating your assets from him, then for the sake on your eldest son, please ensure the joint property is owned as 'tenants in common', not as 'joint tenants'. If it's owned as the latter, if you die, your share would go to your boyfriend, which would disinherit your oldest child for definite, and possibly your youngest child-if your boyfriend were to leave everything to a new girlfriend or wife for example-instead of your children.

Under the current rules

The poorer person can

Choose not to move in
Choose not to have a child
choose to not become financially vulnerable
Choose to not rely on someone’s income in exchange for domestic labour

Theres no gun to their head. They have the choice to not live together and not reap the benefits of living together. And there’s no change required, no need to impact anyone else’s choices. They can choose that now.

I know I am safe. I earn quite a lot of money and wouldn’t live with a man again anyway. Whatever the rules.

He is selfish with his love, his attention to the children in your home and financially. That isnt the action of a good man and father.
And yet you would marry this man ?
You are in effect lone parenting now, with no security and damaging to your eldest child.
If not for you, then your firstborn.

Far better to have two seperate happy homes for your children than this situation.
My ex favoured one of our children over the other very noticeably. A childhood of this brews emotional insecurity and resentment. When he left it took therapy to bring the peace for my child and I will bear that guilt forever.

Please celebrate a happy future for the three of you, let your eldest be free of this man and let your youngest see her dad.
It wont be easy to start with, but your bond and relationship with your children will be the better for it.

As others have said, get your paperwork and finances in order, then go. Being single is better than the gilded cage you are currently in. You deserve better.

1. anyone told him he can't take it with him when he dies?
2. I got feck all in my divorce so that's bs
3. If he can't do something that clearly means so much to you... put the whole man in the bin.

Treating one child better than another child in the household is abusive. Favorites don't work and they divide the family instead of unifying it. Denying you what you are asking for from him is also abusive. He's basically telling you that he runs things and you have no say or power in the relationship. I was with a man like that and he also was a coercive controller. Last year I broke up with him because he thought he was running the relationship and he thought he could tell me what to do etc. As soon as I took my power back he was begging for me to stay in the relationship and I refused because he had the chance to treat me well and be respectful from the start of the relationship so I knew it was useless to think he could actually do that once I decided to leave. He stalked me and harassed me for several months until I got a protective order. Make a plan without telling him that you are leaving and once you are ready get out. Be aware that he might make it difficult but it's worth it for you and your oldest child to get out.

I have no idea how I managed to add myself to this but wow.....really.

Absolutely horrific advice from all who have replied. Fact is no man will accept fully a child that isn't theirs its life. Even if the biological father is dead or gone. At best you can expect them to have a good friendship with the child....but they won't be connected like a biological dad and you should never expect them to either.

Why would you ruin a relationship for a piece of paper and a ring? Marriages can fail and do more so than couples out of wedlock.

No offence but something went wrong in the first instance......don't make the same mistake twice by getting caught up in something so trivial

Why is it a waste of 10 years? Its only a waste if you push it apart for no good reason.

What you need to think about is.....10 years ago if marriage was the penultimate thing you should have laid that down then.....not 10 years later!

Horse has bolted there....

You can't impose something on someone 10 years down the line...you can discuss it and see where they're at.

But you have to accept a common ground be adult talk and understand points of view.

Surely it would be more important for the bonds of the children and the adults as priority and not a ring....or chuck everything away and screw the kids lives up along the way too just for the ride.

I assure you.....you would look back in 2 years and think.....how selfish was I.....

There's more than just yourself to think about now sometimes you have to sacrifice got the better good.

What would happen if he agreed.....you'd only move onto the next thing you want to get...and the next thing...and the next thing.

You obviously believe that we live in a just world where everyone has equality of choice, education and information regardless of their circumstances and as such, there are never any power imbalances in relationships. I can imagine if someone is asset rich, it’s a very comforting belief to have and it avoids cognitive dissonance if such a person was benefiting from an unequal relationship.

It’s much better from a moral standpoint for asset rich people to form common law relationships with similar people. Both parties can get (and afford) legal advice to ensure their assets are mutually protected in the relationship. Also it would be better to wait until you’ve finished having children too.

De facto is best for the majority and opposing it only because it doesn’t serve the interests of the asset rich is not a reason. Most relationships do operate on a specialisation of labour model where one parent (usually the mother) does more unpaid domestic and caring work. It’s not an individual “choice” but a rational decision for most families because the male partner is often older and on a higher wage due to both years in the workforce and the gender pay gap. As such the lower paid partner is taking a risk and investing trust that the relationship will still be there in old age, so they will be provided for in return for the sacrifice made during childbearing years.

Exactly. Which is why women in particular should be really careful and make decisions thinking about the future years.

Defacto doesn’t help the majority. You are forgetting about the people who have nothing on either side.

for the people it would help, that’s what’s marriage is for. So there’s options for every set up. The law has no place in romantic relationships, if it’s not been invited in.

You say people don’t have equal choice. But they do at the start of a relationship. That’s when choices need to be made. Once you move in, have kids, reduce work then you have limited your choices. But you have made choices all along the way.

My point is that no one has to do any of that. You don’t have to move in with a partner with their own home, you could insist you wait until you can get one together, you don’t have to have kids before you get married. You don’t have to give up work. If you choose to do those things because it suits you and your situation, then that’s fine. It’s your choice. But that’s the point. It’s choices.

If you went to court stating you lived in that house as a family and you contributed to it for 10 years I think you would fibd youre entitled to quite a lunp out of it. I lived with someone whi didnt contribute, for 8 months, he said he had been there 5 years although council tax had him elsewhere but I was told as we lived "as a family" he would get a good chunk of the equity when we split despite the kids all being mine. He got 25k out of less than 100k equity! He had contributed for 8 months and had "witnesses" say it was longer. Now it may be that he was a freemason and thats why, but you would certainly be entitled to something regardless so his reticense is ill founded.

This sounds unusual. Is it in the UK? Who told you he'd get a good chunk?

The de facto system does protect the majority. There are still usually assets even if the couple does not own a house, shares or have savings. In Australia, all employers must contribute to the employee’s chosen private pension fund by law on top of their wages at the rate of 11% of gross wage. So everyone has a private pension fund that usually will supplement the government one. So if one de facto worked full time from the age of 18 their pension fund balance can be quite significant due to the compounding effect. If the other de facto did most of the housework, caring of joint children and elderly relatives and sacrificed the ability to work full time in doing so their pension fund balance will tend to be a lot lower. So if the couple has a 50% split, there will be a transfer from the higher pension balance to the lower one.

Also cars etc will go into the asset pool. So if there are two cars both registered into a business owned by one de facto for tax advantage but driven by both of them they will go in the asset pool and be split. Usually both parties negotiate and come to their own arrangement - I.e you have the Jeep I will have the Merc.

It prevents one party from being left with absolutely nothing after many years. People in common law marriages do in reality share their income and assets in good faith. They do unpaid work that benefits both of them in good faith. It may be not very wise and that’s why the law is there to protect them.

No it doesn’t.

Look at the proportion who do get married. Then in the remaining proportion, you need to remove those that don’t have kids so no need to impact their own earnings, those that don’t have assets between them, those that choose to live apart, those that will receive a sizeable inheritance giving them financial security of their own, people who have kids but still pursue their career.

If the majority of people are choosing not to get married, it follows that de facto isn’t a good idea as you are taking the choice away from the majority of people.

For those who live together short term less than 2 years, de facto does not apply. No problem. They simply just move out when the short term relationship finishes.

For a long term couple in the example you used above who both do not want any kind of asset split and to keep the same assets they entered the relationship with, they would simply get one lawyer who draws up the consent orders and it is filed at the court. They are required to seek independent legal advice by law to ensure they fully understand everything and verify there is no coercion. But not a big deal and would be a few hundred dollars and one visit to the lawyer, maybe another one to sign the documents. This is the easiest and simplest financial separation and is relatively quick.

The long term nature of relationships resulting in kids, domestic arrangements income sharing, house sharing is key to why de facto laws are relevant. It can sometimes apply to people living separately if their other affairs are meshed, eg they have children together. So a Muslim husband with more than one wife in separate houses owned by him would be considered a de facto with a wife who only had a religious marriage and religious divorce not recognised in the country.

I would disagree with you that people are capable of making informed choices at the beginning of a relationship about the financial impact of common law marriages for the long term with all of the unanticipated life changes. I think this is the crux of the disagreement really.

Yes, people living together under 2 years are another group you need to remove from the 'majority'.

Why should a couple who doesn't isn't to involve lawyers in their relationship? People who do want to involve the law can choose to.

Of course people can make decisions that will impact them in years. If you decide to move into a house that you don't have your name on it, that will impact you for years and it's really easy to see.

Think of reducing your hours to look after a shared child? It's really easy to see the impact.

I spent til my mid 30s being pretty piss poor. Not making ends meet. I was perfectly capable of making decisions for myself. Some worked out. Some were stupid.

That's really worrying you think so many people can't make informed decisions about their relationships. If so many people can't make informed decisions about their future, de facto is even worse. If people can't make informed decisions when deciding to move in, the one whose house it is hasn't made an informed decision. Then finds themselves having to share their assets. That's really terrible for women. Especially women who are vulnerable after leaving abusive marriages, but have (at least) got an amount in the divorce.

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.

And you're annoyed this nasty man won't marry you?!

Your poor kid. Bereaved of his Dad then shortly afterwards his mother shacks up with another man who treats him like a second-class member of the family when he's vulnerable already and then decides this is a good person to have THREE more children with, and is fawning after this man begging for marriage. 🙄 And is now shocked he's treating you dismissively when he has done this for years to your poor son and you have allowed it.

Jesus Christ. Put your children first finally, leave, and raise your standards.

Same thing happened to someone in my family. In the UK. He got £40k of her equity and had witnesses etc. he had a house which he sold and spent the money then just lived in hers and contributed very little.

I'm going to tell you like it is, marriage is not all it's cracked up to be. If you make enough money to be on your own and take care of your kids do it. Make him pay child support! Been married twice restarted my life to many times to count because of men, don't this to yourself he is a narcissistic asshole! Run don't walk! If you love your children and yourself go now!♡

marriage is not all it's cracked up to be
I think it could be argued that the one of the main functions of marriage is to placate men, give them a small kingdom to rule over, a personal servant whom they can dominate & exploit, who also bears & nurtures a lineage for him.

It's a way of keeping average men happy so that they dont cause problems in wider society, dont sabotage those in power etc.
A way of absorbing & containing some of the damage done by men, and of distracting them so they dont try to sabotage those who have the real power in society.

I would leave him for this alone. He entered into a relationship with you knowing you came as a two person deal. For me, how my children are treated would come above anything else.