To think getting married wouldn't have mattered.

[ThisPithyJoker]

Often on MN people are told not to consider getting pregnant without getting married first for financial security. I totally agree that if you're going to take a career break etc this is important. Likewise if you are going to earn significantly less or are bringing different things to the marriage (which is likely in a country with a gender pay gap).

I fell pregnant unexpectedly and we didn't marry. We make very similar amounts, brought little to the relationship and our house is owned as tenants in kind (both own half rather than joint own the property). We pay half of everything each and after maternity leave, I paid more into my pension (and less into the household) to make up the short fall there.

Am I being unreasonable to think it's possible to mitigate the risk of not being married and it's just a good general rule of thumb? Or am I missing something?

Thanks!

What would have happened if your baby turned out to be disabled and couldn't go to nursery?

For me it's about what happens if DH dies, so I'd have access to his pension and death-in-service etc. The same for DH should I die.

Also there's no way to predict you'll always earn equal amounts. There's also (usually) a better financial settlement for the lower earner or one taking on most of the childcare after divorce.

This is a good point.

Its all fine and dandy when things are going well. The protection is needed when things go wrong.

What about inheritance? If one of you dies, the other gets everything (shorthand) without paying IHT. If not, the thresholds at that time will count.

You are missing the possibility of you getting seriously injured or incapacitated during the pregnancy or birth. You are missing the possibility of the baby being born with complications and requiring a stay-at-home parent or at least a parent who works part-time.

you are missing the fact that statistically, once couples have children, men’s incomes tend to rise and women’s incomes tend to stagnate even if they both stay in the workforce.

Even when couples try to be egalitarian, women often end up doing more than half of the child related tasks. they do more pickups and dropoffs. They cover more sick days. They do more life admin in general. This all has an impact on how much focus they have at work and salaries tend to falter.

marriage recognizes the biological
reality that pregnancy and child rearing is harder on women than it is on men. It helps mitigate the risk women take in having children.

That's an excellent point (and exactly the sort of thing I've probably overlooked). I worked from home with her until she was 3 and got the 30 free childcare hours. It was tricky but I do a non-time sensitive job (similar to programming) so there was a lot of working in the evenings and during naps. I guess I would have tried to do that but perhaps work at the weekends when DP was home. My earning potential is higher than his so there would be a lot of room for me to get a higher paid job and push more of the childcare to him, too.

Agree with all of the above. You’re vulnerable to earning less, working more, having less pension overall as a result of these things. It’s not just about maternity leave - that’s the very tip of the iceberg of inequality beginning! Its compound for mothers from maternity leave onwards until they die pretty much. Your life may not always be so smooth sailing and your child will be better protected and statistically have better chances if their parents’ are married.

So you worked and did childcare for your DD, whereas he just worked and ‘helped out’?

Household responsibilities? Is that 50/50 or do you do less as you do more childcare?

Maternity expenses- how was that covered when you weren’t working? Did he cover all of your share?
Who is paying DD’s costs?

What if you were ill and unable to return to work due to birth injuries?

At the moment, you are entirely relying on his goodwill should you be unable to maintain your contribution (for a maternity/child related reason). He could just walk away.

When your dc starts school and has parents’ evenings or needs collecting at random hours, or is ill, who will flex?

It’s all fine until it isn’t.

Thanks, that's really helpful. All really good points. I suppose I would push back slightly on the assumption that I'd be the stay at home parent by default or that he's likely to end up earning more than me. I completely agree that that's the most likely outcome in general, but not necessarily the case in our particular case.

He's always done more of the pick ups (we chose a school near his place of work for the purpose as I was working from home), though it would be hard to argue I don't take on more of the mental, house-running load.

I'm terms of inheritance, we have wills. At the moment, half the house and our savings wouldn't breach the threshold. Would definitely be something to bear in mind for the future and an excellent thing to remember, thanks!

in the absence of a will, his next of kin will get his half of the house. That for me is a big problem.

If he is in a serious accident, you have no say in his treatment and may not even be able to see him.

As a partner you won’t get any of his pension (state) when he dies. This may be relevant for you financially.

These and all the stuff above mean it very definitely makes a difference.

edit - sorry cross post

Agreed, but why would a marriage certificate change that? At the moment we do half of those things each - being married wouldn't prevent him from deciding he can't be arsed anymore.

Remember, thresholds change, but IHT ones seem to be worsening over time as governments see it as a tax opportunity but are unlikely to tax transfer between spouses.
Probably easier and cheaper to just have a quick registry office style wedding and leave everything to each other. If your life doesn't get sidetracked by other issues, it is likely you will breach the current thresholds without too much effort.

There is absolutely nothing to stop him walking away entirely. You may think it unlikely but so did the many other thousands of women who found themselves up the creek without a paddle.

He may fall in love with someone else and become a deadbeat dad. He could go on to have other children and decide to be a stay at home dad to them and so not liable for child support. There are simply no guarantees.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

It was all fine because it all went to plan, it could have been very different, in which case being married might have helped. Few possible scenarios
You became very ill/died
Baby was very ill/died
Partner very ill/died
Partner left you
You were unable to work/didn't want to work post baby
You lost your job or were demoted due to demands of a baby

It wouldn’t, but he’d have more responsibility to share resources with you should that happen.

Over time, one partner does less home responsibilities than the other. Over time their earning potential and savings and pension grow.

They decide to walk:
Unmarried- they can leave and take all the accumulated benefits with them.
Married- they only take 50% of the benefit with them.

Because it potentially gives you a claim to a larger settlement - pension/house equity should he decide to walk away.

I suppose I would push back slightly on the assumption that I'd be the stay at home parent by default
And if he pushes back harder? Someone has to eventually give in and it's always the woman.

What happens if you have two or more children and the childcare is extortionate, or they are never sick at exactly the same time, who will take the unpaid leave then? What happens if he says he fancies Cheryl next door and swans off into the sunset leaving you with three sproglets and half a house?

EDIT - after reading your updates you seem to be under the impression it's to protect the woman now. No, it's to protect the woman later on when she is at her most vulnerable.

Nope, totally agree it's not unlikely - he absolutely could. Just don't know that a marriage would change that at all. I already have sole control over half of what would be the marital assets. In that situation, though, I'd potentially be better off as I could move somewhere significantly cheaper (currently live in the SE due to his job and most of my family are in a cheap area in the North). I know I'm lucky at the moment with how involved he his (have had plenty of useless partners over the years) but if he disappeared tomorrow, I don't think I'd be worse off, or would be better off following a divorce if we were married.

I totally agree with being prepared - thanks for replying :)

A will can be changed at any time, without the other partner even knowing.

Similarly the named beneficiary of a pension scheme when the pension holder dies.

There are always going to be individual cases where a marriage certificate makes little difference but for the vast majority of women it does make a difference. Even stupid little stuff like sorting out a CAO during a divorce which makes the difference between being able to take the children on a holiday abroad or not. No marriage = no divorce.

If your partner became seriously ill and unable to communicate his wishes with regard to treatment, you will not be next of Kin. Someone else will get to make those sort of decisions and you will not have the final say - you may not even get any say at all, depending in your relationship with whoever is

Yeah, you're right - in reality, I love my kids and of course I'd probably push hard to have them as much as possible rather than the opposite. I guess I'm relying pretty heavily on the fact that I make decent money, work remotely and would be happy to relocate somewhere cheaper if it was just me and a brood of sproglets. That's assuming a lot about AI not taking my job and the housing market in the UK continuing to be so varied.

Genuine question - does not being married make that harder re. pension and death in service? We are not married (and don't plan on it) but have a joint will and have both submitted forms naming each other as beneficiaries of our death in service payments. No-one really eligible to contest the wills either - neither set of parents would and our (pre-school aged) children together are our only ones, so any money would always eventually go to them anyway when we're both gone.