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?

OP, I am so sorry that he has been so uncaring, and disresepctful of you contribution to the teamwork that is running a family household.

lots of “so if I don’t leave you anything you want out” inferring that I’m a gold digger again and totally ignoring the fact of what it means about how he views our future

The answer to that is that if you are not protected in the event of his death you really have no choice but to take care of your security yourself.

Underneath it all, he simply has no regard for the family work you have put in as mother of his children.

And doesn't care what happens to you when he dies.

I would ask him what would happen to his kids if he had a fatal accident tomorrow. Has he even got life insurance?

Ok, I see what you mean, so I should have said:

she should have insisted that she owned the house with a 50% share as joint tenants with her husband

The point I am trying to make is that even if she insisted that she held the house as joint tenants, there would be no guarantee that she would inherit the whole house because he can unilaterally sever the joint tenancy.

Most people do not realise that someone can unilaterally sever a joint tenancy, I didn't until I read about a poor woman whose husband had done exactly that and so she was left with only half a house when he died.

"Snowflake" is a pejorative term. "Old fogey" would also be a pejorative term, but "Boomer" isn't.

Just like "Millennial" and "Gen X", "Boomer" is a term used to name a generational cohort which refers to a group of individuals who were born during the same period and share everyday historical, cultural, and societal experiences. These cohort descriptors were originally created by the generational theorists, Neil Howe and William Strauss. I accept that some people try to use "Boomer" and "Millennial" as insults, but they're just showing their ignorance (in so many ways), so when they do I just laugh at them.

You're absolutely right when you say "people can't help when they were born", which is why I'm more than happy to tell people I'm a Boomer2 (the cohort was so large it had to be sub-divided - our parents did what the Govt asked of them by producing lots of babies in a short space of time!) and why I don't feel the need to apologise for growing up in a time of productivity growth and increasing wealth for the UK. I believe that Boomers are the luckiest generation to have ever lived (so far), but we had no control over that and I'm certain that any younger person born at that time would also have simply lived their life as they knew it and enjoyed its benefits, just as we did. I do think the intergenerational culture wars are appalling and unnecessary, particularly when there will be a huge wealth transfer from Boomers to younger generations in the next 20-30 years - in the UK, Boomers are expected to pass down £5.5 trillion of assets between now and 2050. Still, it serves the Govt for us to be wasting our time pointing our fingers at each other, so we can't be pointing them at them and asking when the great wealth transfer from the 1% to the 99% will start! 🙄

Such an odd decision from your partner given your age difference. Leaving you aside entirely. ....

If he dies tomorrow who is the executor of the will? How will it provide for his children? Will his assets be sold - do his investments/cash flow to the children and you as their mother to maintain them? Where will they live if these funds are insufficient? Has he remotely figured out how you will house and feed them in the event of his death.

If he becomes incapacitated - is his expectation that you will be his carer? In not making any housing [at a minimum] provision for you does he really expect that you will act in this way?

Sadly it appears like you have learned a bitter lesson in self interest from your partner. He can see the end of the teen years on the horizon and now views you as something of a disposable cost centre that he can remove at his leisure. I suspect his father also a) has no great love for you and b) wants to leave his assets to his son without any risk of a claim from you. The two things are not an issue while you remain unmarried though.

Ah, OK, I think that's why I was confused by your post then because you were saying she should have insisted on owning the house as a Joint Tenant, but then went on to say why that wouldn't help her. 🤔

Yes, I agree with you that we do need choice.

But I think that once you decide to have children and one partner gives up work or works part-time to bring up the children, then they need protecting, whether it is a man or a woman bringing up the children.

I don't think that co-habiters should have exactly the same rights as married couples, but there needs to be some protection for the dependent party. Otherwise they will be dependent on the state.

If the person who doesn't give up work doesn't like it, then they shouldn't have children. No-one is forcing them to have children.

Yes, I could have been a lot clearer!

Good luck OP!

Baby boomer, the original term for people born within the timeframe you reference, isn't perjorative. "Boomer" is. "OK, boomer" from a young politician in USA to an older politician is widely observed to be intentionally perjorative, and has been increasingly used since in a perjorative way. I don't think it's helpful to divide people by using perjorative terms. In any case, not all baby boomers are wealthy. Many of that age group are now scared to turn on their heating. Equally, to describe all younger people as "snowflakes" who spend frivolously, are overly sensitive and have a sense of entitlement and being offended by almost everything is clearly just wrong. I am just saying using perjorative language is divisive and unhelpful

Not being funny, but if he did die tomorrow - preferably on his way to the solicitor - that would be a result for OP as his old Will, which does include her, would stand.

I agree with you. And any sentence that starts with "You Boomers" or "You Millennials" (often whilst jabbing a finger) clearly isn't going to be meant kindly. However, I'm saying that "Boomer" isn't essentially a pejorative term, but a socially scientific one, and the best response is to smile benignly at the person trying to use it as an insult and educate them about this fact (because what they're actually expecting/hoping for is for you to get angry and upset). I did this with a much younger person a few years ago and it silenced them - they literally didn't know what to say (I actually think they didn't know what "cohort" meant! 😂) I'm simply saying that the best way to silence someone attempting to use a non-pejorative term as a pejorative one is to politely explain their misuse to them - in my experience, at least, this really works. 😉

Well, I accept your point of view but I still think "boomer" and "snowflake" often appear to me to be used in recent times in a perjorative way, and I don't like these terms to describe either of these generations. I actually studied Social Science and the language people use to describe others matters. I acknowledge we're a bit off topic from OP so I'll thank you for your comments which appear to be not unkindly made and leave it at that. Best wishes

I'm glad your eyes have been opened now rather than 10, 15 years from now while he continues to sit back and watch you work part time to cover the childcare/homecare issues. Imagine he would have been laughing quietly to himself at an offer to let him retire while you continued to work and pay the bills knowing he was cutting you out of joint safety net, decent standard of living should the worst happen.

Start socking your money away, tell his dad he's an arse, and no matter what affect this may or may not have on him, I would still be planning to leave as soon as possible and sensible.

But equally, nobody is forced to go part-time and make themselves dependent on another adult either.

If people choose to make themselves vulnerable when there are a myriad of ways available to protect themselves, well, that's on them, quite frankly. The government isn't there to nanny us.

Op, I think you're now coming around to dealing with the situation as it is. Maybe worth still checking out (with a professional) any rights you might have in terms of a claim on the house (though this doesn't sound straight forward). It sounds as if you're on the right tracks to making the best out of this situation. I hope moving forward, life is a lot kinder to you. You still have a lot of life to live and no doubt will be better without your 'partner' going forward.

Someone mentioned mirroring what has been done to you (i.e.) accumulating assets and saving all you can. This seems like a good way to proceed. Keeping everything low key and under the radar and being a little ruthless about what you spend on anything joint is probably the best way forward in terms of putting money aside until the day comes that you are ready to make the change. Wishing you the very best of luck.

No they aren't forced to but if the other party agrees that they should once they have had children, then the other party should be forced to provide for them if they divorce or die.

Yes, they will have to deal with the consquences, but, assuming that you are a taxpayer, then so will you and I as they will be dependent on the State. Why should we have to pay when the other parent gets off scot-free?

Well it’s not an abstract decision is it? It’s normally done with what is best for very young vulnerable and dependent children for which the parent who gives up work cares very much. The love mums in particular have for their kids means that they will not hesitate to prioritise them over their career. These men know that. They also tend to be higher earners so it makes sense for them to stay full time while the woman goes part time. In many cases childcare costs are prohibitive too.
Why should women have to take the blame and responsibility for this? Why don’t we tell the men that if they don’t want to be financially liable and share their assets then don’t have kids with someone and make them financially dependent on you?

I’m not suggesting she instruct the same lawyer. It’s not combative yet. Just give the lawyer the heads up in a ‘we are a family’ sort of way, so that the lawyer is more cognisant of the need for setting out the advantages of marriage from an IHT perspective. If she needs her own lawyer then clearly she needs to go elsewhere. Many family lawyers would talk a client through the means by which they can pass on as much as possible to their loved ones.

That's two different issues.

As a parent, you're responsible for supporting your child - you're not responsible for supporting another single adult who you are not legally connected to.

More should be done to force absent parents to pay, but the way to do that isn't to force people into a de-facto marriage type scenario just because they live together or because one of them is pregnant.

Nobody should be forced to share their assets with anyone they don't want to - people seem to be forgetting that becoming a parent is only a commitment to raising a child, it doesn't mean you're committing yourself to the other parent. That's what marriage is for.

Too many women (and it's always women) go into motherhood without thinking through the long-term risks and consequences of it. It's not on men to protect us - we need to use our brains and protect ourselves by not sleep-walking into scenarios that make us vulnerable.

If women want to give up their careers, stay home and raise their children then they need to make sure they're as protected as can be before doing so - they can't just get pregnant, hope for the best, and then get pissed off when it all falls apart.

Yes, you aren't responsible for supporting the other parent of your child at the moment, but the law should be changed so that you are to some extent if you have agreed that they can work part-time or not at all to look after the kids.

If you don't want to support them, then don't have kids with them. No-one is forced to have kids.

And you haven't said why you think that it is ok for you and me to pick up the tab?

No, it shouldn't be changed - people should be given free choice on how they choose to have children and raise a family. All your suggestion does is remove even more choice from women and force them into a situation where they may not be able to escape, simply because they're pregnant.

I also never said it was okay for anyone to "pick up the tab" (awful phrase) but the answer to that is not to trap women into legal arrangements with men. Marriage (and similar commitments) should never be something that happens by default. Ever.

@coffeesaveslives

I agree with you. I have said this to the op

what did she expect to happen - the fact he wouldn’t marry her is the first red flag

whether his actions are morally correct is different but I still think the op has to take some responsibility for allowing this to happen in the first place

100%.

FWIW, I agree he's been an arsehole, but the entire scenario is such a bunting of red flags that it can hardly come as a surprise.

There seems to be a running theme of women not wanting to take responsibility for their own choices. It's sad, imo.

@YourRealBiscuit I think you would be better just leaving right now! show him the consequences of his nasty actions. get a flat or house and take the children with you. He cannot stop you moving out. then contact csa and get maintenance from him sorted out for the children. just hanging round makes him think you are taking this lying down and he has won his horrible game.