To be annoyed I’m not in partners will????

[YourRealBiscuit]

Backstory
we’ve been together almost 14 years. We’ve got children. Not married. His house we have lived in. He’s 60 I’m 50.

Am I being unreasonable that I’m annoyed now he’s doing his will his intention is to leave everything to the kids?
We have a decade age gap and I can’t help wondering what would happen to me of he died before me?
he sees it as his stuff so he leaves to who he wants to but I think it’s a huge red flag coupled with the fact obviously he’s not popped the question too

feels to me like he doesn’t really see us as an US?

what do you think?

He's happy with the idea of you caring for him as he ages and then being homeless.

The OP has not mentioned anything about her partners previous life, he was 46, has something gone on to make him like he is? If this was a financially comfortable woman aged 46 who got together with a man who had nothing we’d all be telling her to be careful.

There's a teeny tiny part of me that can see why he wouldn't want to hand over all his assets and risk his children not benefiting (should you meet someone else after his demise), but that doesn't excuse that he should be allowing you to remain living in the property, at the very least until the children are grown and flown. He could put the house in trust for them to ensure they get it.

But that could be the case with any couple, married or otherwise. These 2 have a bit of an age gap but otherwise there’s nothing particularly special about them! He also seems pretty insistent (unrealistically) that he’ll outlive OP.

That attitude also implies that OP won’t care about the children but they are her children and she has been the major caregiver in their lives. It is unlikely that she would favour a new partner over them.

I do agree. Even if a couple don’t want to marry, it’s best to set up a Civil Partnership, which in essence gives the same legal protection as Marriage. And it’s certainly best done before having a family.

There really is a lack of understanding and commitment around just how serious the implications are of not protecting one’s self and family sometimes. I fully understand marriage isn’t for everyone, but that doesn’t mean it’s sensible to share assets without both parties being protected.

Being married doesn’t necessarily protect you if your spouse dies. A married person can leave their money and share of the house (if Tenants in Common ) to someone else.

It would probably only be successfully challenged if the surviving spouse could show that they were dependent. (England and Wales)

Given his father is also changing/updating his will, could it be something to do with that? So you don't 'get your hands on' any of his Dad's inheritance?

I thought that to seems to be something going on!

Yes I agree. However, there are two methods of showing commitment to each other there, Marriage or CP. If one partner doesn’t agree, it would be a clear indicator that commitment is lacking. And might be enough to give a successful challenge. It’s better than nothing🙂

True. I mean for those women who earn less, which is those on these boards that get themselves into messes like thr OP has

Given the ages OP and her partner got together, her biological clock was ticking, so perhaps his parents think she saw him as her ‘meal ticket’ for children and a provided comfortable life, hence trying to ensure she has no claim on family money.

That's a good point.

Being married protects you from divorce but not from your partner dying if they want to leave everything to someone else in their will.

Even buying a property as joint tenants doesn't protect you as the other person can sever a joint tenancy unilaterally which shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I remember reading a case of someone who thougth that they were protected because they had a joint tenancy but found out when their partner died that he had severed it.

you need to be in a de facto relationship for 2 years. And there is a time limit where you can apply for a financial settlement after the defacto relationship ends. Maybe a year I’m not sure exactly. Obviously it’s not automatically 50% they take into account the relationship length assets brought in, ect. In the OPs case, being together 14 years, and having 2 kids she would be entitled to a substantial portion of the assets acquired while they are together. People here just get a prenup even if they aren’t married if they are just living together.

i always find it interesting how so many people there are against it. Like it’s so simple just say don’t have babies until you are married. Like these partners aren’t stringing them along like the OPs partner is probably promising marriage one day.

Yes, a lot of partner do string the women along with promises of marriage, but if they didn't have children until they were married, then they couldn't string them along.

It really is up to women to take responsiblity for themselves and it needs to be taught in schools.

@lateatwork has some good suggestions. Stay with him while you can and save as much as you can as hard as you can. If you have no right to the house then do not pay a penny towards it. Only pay the bills you can't avoid and bung the rest into the highest interest account you can find that also allows you relatively easy access should things come to a head. Get the child benefit paid to you not him. Make sure he pays towards the kids hobbies/school costs/clothes etc. Make sure he pays entirely for anything to do with his house, so any expenses related to house/garden maintenance. You need all your money to save hard. I don't know how much a 2 or 3 bed flat costs in your area but look to that as your goal. You should save for a really large deposit while you can. As large as possible. Given your age you may only be able to get a shorter mortgage which can be more costly as the repayments are over a shorter period. But they are out there, especially if you have say a 40% or larger deposit. You could rent it out but as @Yalta says you may need your flat before the tenancy ends.
One thing I might suggest you talk about with him is the distribution of house/ money to the children. Many posters have pointed out it could disadvantage your daughter. Should he need to go into care the money will be used first, then the house. And it can be as much as £1500 to £1800 a week. A straightforward 50% each would even out their inheritance.
There may be a chance your not so DP will need care or help at home as he ages. Should this occur this is the point at which you may need to leave him. Not your circus, not your monkeys. He refused to consider the future security of his long time partner and mother to his children. Don't waste your time or resources on his needs. He will need to pay for it. Don't be sucked into caring for him. From my own experience caring is hard, it demands huge sacrifice. He's doesn't deserve your care, time or work.
Never allow someone to be your priority while allowing yourself to be their option - Mark Twain

Yeah not going to happen though is it if a woman is in a relationship and really wants children and the man has been hinting at marriage for a while? Why are you so intent on letting men get away with this shit? The OP’s DP has had the benefit of a family and free childcare for a long time, it’s had zero effect on his ability to amass assets yet we want to let him keep it all because the OP hasn’t been able to convince him to do the decent thing. If we had cohabitation laws then at least she would get something from this relationship. It used to be frowned on to have kids out of wedlock but now it absolutely isn’t so all these guys need to do is make the right noises, make vague promises about a future proposal and boom, they get their whole cake and still have it left. Women are getting fucked by these laws and people on here seem happy to let that happen

That’s really odd. We adore our joint children but of course we’ve left everything to each other in the first instance. The children will receive what ever left when the remaining one has gone. (We’re also gifting a good sum in advance)

Why do you live in “his” house? Why is it not in joint names?

Either insist on marriage/civil partnership or seek urgent legal advice.

Home | Rights of Women

Unfortunately, OP appears to be in a terrible position regarding home ownership or rights to the property/family money as she is not married and has no civil partnership. However, maybe the guides/advice lines at Rights Of Women could be useful.

Your claim on an estate as a spouse is a very strong one. A court would start at giving you at least what you would have received in a divorce. Unmarried partners claim is far weaker.

Yes but if the OP had refused to have kids before marriage, she wouldn't be in this position.

So very sorry to read your distressing update. I feel for you.

DH earns a lot more than me in a very stressful, long hours job. We are married, and I changed careers to be there for the children, plus we also did an overseas stint during which time I couldnot work. I have also done the majority of the childcare and housework.

I am on everything, the mortgage, our investments, the will, and we have a joint account for money. If one partner does more of the childcare, they should be compensated. If he called me a golddigger, I would just laugh his in his face and then see a solicitor.

It 's only because I have helped him with childcare and running the house that he has been able to earn this much. I agree men are having their cake and eating it too these days.

if a woman is in a relationship and really wants children and the man has been hinting at marriage for a while?

Then she can ask him directly. Or leave and find a man who does more than hint. Or stay but do all she can to maintain her financial independence.

Men may want to string women along, but we don't have to grab the string.

Agree with not caring for him.

Someone I know had an abusive husband. She set a divorce in motion. Before she managed to progress it, he had a stroke.

She finished up caring for a man she hated for 10 years. In the end, she told social work that she was no longer prepared to do it.

She now has a job she likes, a good partner (whom she refuses to live with) and is getting fitter and healthier by the day.

No they would not - stop peddling this wishful thinking. We have testamentary freedom in England and the best a spouse would have might be a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act. Under English law the courts simply do not have the power to rewrite a will to make it like a divorce

Well yes of course it would be ideal if the laws would change, but there seems to be nothing to say that this is going to happen.

Perhaps it's something that we should all petition for.

A pp said that cohabitation counts in Australia so it is possible to make it work.

As you say, our laws do not keep up with societal changes.

I don’t think you can say he got away with it.

He has been really open about not wanting to get married. This man, hasn’t lied or misled op. There was no convincing to do. It’s not about men getting away with anything. It’s about women protecting themselves.

He is entitled to not want to get married. He was honest. Saying the Op ‘couldn’t convince him’ is strange. Why would anyone try and convince someone to get married, that has openly said they don’t want to.

If marriage was important to Op why didn’t she, walk away?

The issue here is you could also say that the Op has had the benefit of not paying a bills, having family and working part time.

Automatic cohabitation laws don’t solve the issue. Plenty of women are financially independent and don’t want to get married. Why should our choice be taken away?

You talk about men getting away with things. When, as women, are we going to expect women to take responsibility for their choices? Rather than victimising them all the time?

Op didn’t have to move in with him, have kids or work part time in the relationship he was offering. She could have chosen not to.