Married before kids?

[AdviceNeededplesse]

Hello. Please can anyone tell me what the pros of being married before having children are? Sorry if I’m being extremely dense.

I read a lot that it offers financial security (and I totally agree) but what if DP and I both earn the same and neither of us are likely to go on to be high earners? Does it matter so much then?

For context DP and I are desperate to start a family sooner than later and time is of the essence as I have endometriosis so this may be a lengthy process. The original plan was to start trying this September however after much thought we have decided to get married in a very low key wedding next year first as we want the security of being married before children.

After discussing with my friends who have kids they all seem to think this is stupid as they all have children without being married and they don’t think it impacts them. They pointed out we are unlikely to be rich and neither of us are set to inherit anything. I know marriage before children is the sensible idea but I can’t seem to think of why other than financial. Am I being old fashioned here?

It's because often one of you (usually the mum) bears the brunt of child care by staying home for a bit or by going part time.
That person's job prospects/career suffers more which puts them in a vulnerable position should the relationship not work out. Marriage offers a form of protection in that any pensions & savings built up are then shared rather than one person having more than the other.

There is no benefit except financial protection. And that only really kicks in if you are separated and then get 50/50 split of assets. I don't see a point in it either, OP.

It's none of your friends' business.

But would it bother you to be pregnant on your wedding day? If not, start TTC in September as planned and get married early next year?

Being married makes many things simpler. If you were to split, being married would mean that there was a default assumption that assets would be split 50/50. If one of you were in a serious accident, the other would automatically be next of kin and have the right to information and also to key decisions. If one of you died without a will, the other would automatically inherit everything.
None of this would be the case if you merely lived together. There are so many sad stories on here of women who have given up their careers to have children with a man who is legally obliged to provide them with nothing - even a roof over their heads - if they split up.
Just do it! You can always get married quietly in a registry office and then have the big celebration when you feel the time is right.

It depends on what your set up and plans are. Do you intend to take maternity leave? If so that’s up to a year in which you won’t be earning money. Will you work reduced hours or part time afterwards? Will you avoid putting yourself forward for promotion opportunities for a few years because the new role wouldn’t be compatible with childcare? What if you sustain a birth injury which requires you to reduce or stop working?

In the above scenarios, marriage protects you because if you make financial sacrifices in order to have and raise your children (and your partner doesn’t have to make equivalent sacrifices because you have it covered), then if you split up you are much more likely to be entitled to some form of financial compensation or ongoing support than if you are unmarried.

It may be that you plan on only taking the mandatory 2 weeks mat leave and that your partner will be the one taking leave and making career sacrifices. If so, marriage protects him in the same way.

Marriage also gives you rights upon the severe illness or death of your spouse (like being automatic next of kin) which unmarried partners don’t have, even when children are involved.

Many people plan to get married one day and have children in the meantime. It’s very easy however for the marriage to slip down the list of priorities - once you have kids there is always something more important to pay for.

In almost all circumstances I would advise to get married first (even if just the legal bit with a celebration to follow at a time that suits you) because however rosy things are now, you simply never know what will one day happen, and marriage is protection.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

I earn more than DH and I knew I would never choose to be a SAHM, I didn't want children before marriage. From what I've seen those who don't get married first rarely do. Marriage was important to me as a legal commitment.
I have quite severe PCOS and had been told I would not be able to fall pregnant, I still got married first. It was lovely to have something focused just on us and our relationship with each other before moving into the next phase of thinking about children. If we'd never had DC I would've still wanted to be married.

It's your choice not that of your friends, do what you want. They've made their choices.

Things don't always go to plan. Sometimes parenthood brings out the worst in a man. If the relationship breaks down at any point between conception and your youngest starting high school, longer if they need a lift to school, it will be your earning potential that is hammered hard, or else you fork out for childcare, so start thinking along the lines of £1,000 a month per child if you can even find a childcare provider. Unfortunately many men skip off unfettered by such mundane issues.

Will you take maternity leave?
Go part time? Have a career break?

If so, it isn’t going to stay equal for long once DC come into it.

I wanted to be married before children and it was the same for dh
so I wouldn’t listen to your friends - do what you want yourself

Everything in here is exactly what I was going to say except worded ten times better :)

I enjoyed my wedding without kids. That was a bonus.

There are some really good points on here, one of which hadn't even occurred to me until I read it! I lost my husband suddenly a few years ago (he was only in his early forties). We had children together. If I hadn't been married to him, I wouldn't have been his next of kin. His sister has spent the last few years since his death basically making my life a misery, trying to claim his possessions. He had not made a will and therefore legally anything he owned came to me. If I hadn't been married to him, my children and I would probably have ended up with nothing. Depressing but true!

what if DP and I both earn the same and neither of us are likely to go on to be high earners? Does it matter so much then?

yes, even if you earn more your earnings and pension will be impacted by children. Your career will also likely be stalled. You may have birth injuries, your child may be disabled. The list goes on…

you will make serious financial losses and sacrifices as a woman when you have children.
i say this as someone with enhanced maternity packages who makes well over 150k

however awesome your relationship is, kids put a strain on it, illness, finances, sleep deprivation etc
marriage is another layer that makes it harder to quit… because if he does “quit” and you aren’t married you are probs screwed.
can you actually pay full time childcare and a mortgage on your salary and maybe… 20% of his salary???
in London ft care is 1.5-2.5k per child.

even if it all goes well if you unexpectedly dies you could find yourself in a bind as you aren’t next of kin.

no one wants to think about when it goes wrong… but it does

Do you own or rent ? If owning - is the home in both names ?

Financial protection.

So many men decide not to marry once they have kids because they hold all the cards so don't want to weaken their position.

As an example, say after maternity leave, someone has to work part time. Your partner receives 5% uplift because of his performance in the last 12 months. You get 3% because they can't assess you as exceeding, nor can they say you are underperformed. Or he gets a promotion and you don't. Who works full time? Him.

You go part time because its cheaper for you to be off than him. Or you fall for the Storybook line that you might as well be off because your salary is cancelled out by childcare. Then you're working part time and hoping he is prepared to share "his" money that "he has worked hard for" while you've had a "baby holiday". You also end up paying for baby clubs and clothes.

Suddenly you are on baby 2 and he is earning relatively more and you give up work because he comes and goes as he wants and won't commit to nursery pick ups and you're better off not working and paying a pension or getting your yearly 5% and then he leaves you. You can't pay bills, you've not kept your skills up to fate, you aren't sighted on his salary or account and you have no recompense to his pension in a split.

Or say he has a horrible accident. The money is due to his child if you have one or his parents if you don't. Either way, how do you think you'll access his personal account or pay bills during this time?

Marriage is there to protect you from breakups and tragedies.

You might also be eligible for things like this

www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance

What @BeSpoonyAquaHare and @GreatMistakes have said.

I'm much older and wiser and when younger was actually anti marriage (felt too traditional and I got didn't want the stupid ceremony). What I now realise is that it's a legal process, it combines your assets and responsibilities, forget the 'wedding' that's a massive red herring.
I've seen far far too many women who started out equal earners/in the same place re a career take a back seat post kids (reduced hours, long gaps, not pursuing promotions) and end up 15 years later earning 1/3 or less of what their husband does and not really having a way back. The power imbalance becomes problematic....Then 'd' h does a number on them, either they remain in a shit relationship or he walks. They were fucked, but those that got married slightly less fucked as marital assets (pensions and property) are split. Honestly it's a story as old as the hills and far to common to ignore.
Pre kids dh and I earnt similar (me a bit more). But then I took a years maternity with each, had to retrain went very part time, and was would have been financially buggered had he left been a dick. I'm bloody glad I'm married these days because although he's ace and massively supported my career and I'm now back to earning a similar amount to him (nearly 18 years later) anything could happen to anyone at any time.
It's a legal protection against one person screwing the other over and leaving them holding the baby, it's not perfect (god knows CSA needs reforming to ensure all parents contribute) but it's better than nothing.

I would say, if you have "enough" means
and assets yourself, and I mean enough, then you really wouldn't need to get married before kids.
Hypothetically, keep it in your name only, as
a PP said, it's mainly for financial protection.
No other real benefits of being married.

It seems fashionable to marry after kids these days. It’s a thing that’s recently become more fashionable again having been a late 1960s and 70s thing for some.

I personally didn’t get married to have children. It was part of the logical progression of the romance.

I think it’s good that we live in an era when it’s socially acceptable to get married when you already have kids without parents of the bride and groom feeling embarrassed.

If you are getting married or civilly partnered for financial security etc. then the ceremony and reception might only feel necessary for family.

There’s lots of different ways to look at it. Ultimately, you should do what’s right for you. And only you can know what feels right,

OP financial and legal protection.

If you give up work for a while, you have a house, he keeps paying into his pension etc it means if you divorce you will get a share of the assets and potentially his pension.

I wouldn't marry if you are bringing assets into the situation though.

The IFS published a paper not long ago on the (statistically) different outcomes of children (social, emotional, etc,) who are born to married versus cohabiting couples. I think it is fairly easy to Google if you're interested.

Why wait until next year to get married? You can marry in a few weeks at the Registry office and then start trying for kids right away.

Financial and legal protection for your potential child. I’ve seen a fair few women on mumsnet who have been utterly screwed because they didn’t get married before kids came along. Women often end up holding the baby unfortunately. If you earn significantly more than your DP and can support a child whilst not skipping a beat on career progression it may not matter much to you. But if you earn similar or less I would definitely get married first.

All of the physical risk is on the woman carrying the baby. Once the baby is born, if there are complications and the child needs more care than anticipated, it is incredibly rare for men to be able to provide this. This is not just societal, sometimes what a baby needs is access to breastmilk and the most efficient way to get it is from the mother.

being married makes you financial and legal partners. It says that if you can’t work during the pregnancy or after the birth, your husband has committed to support you. It says if he dies his assets are yours.

now with divorce this protection is somewhat mitigated, but don’t underestimate the symbolism. a man who makes the commitment to be married is statistically more likely to stand by you