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!

OP it's more about what typically happens in a relationship. Not every time. You are an anomaly, I am too (though dh and I are married we have always earned the same, worked the same, parented and houseworked the same).

But it's still significantly more likely that a mother will:-
Reduce her hours
Reduce her pension
Compromise her career progression
Be left holding the baby
Be left caring for the baby
Be left caring for the elderly parents
Be left do it all while her dp has time to themselves due to their "big job"
Takes the step back when the career paths need more focus
Be a trailing partner following the man abroad

All the above (and more) are very very common. And until they aren't, marriage offers an additional layer of protection.

Let's face it, marriage wouldn't put you specifically into a worse situation.

I agree with this. As tenants in common rather than joint tenants, who gets his half of the house? If he’s left it to you in a will, he can change that without even telling you. He could leave it to his parents, the kids. I’d honestly feel more secure as joint tenants.

Yes, a lady on here discovered after her partner’s death that she was cut out of the funeral, and owned only half (if that) of her house. They had been happy together for many years. He hadn’t got around to changing a pre existing will. She wasn’t NoK. Everything he owned went to someone other than her.

I'd have made the points above. The worst story I heard was from an old friend who was due to marry her partner of twenty plus years when he died in an accident days before the wedding.
She thought she had a wonderful relationship with her partner's two grown up DC from a previous relationship. She told me they shut her out immediately and refused to even tell her where and when the funeral would be held.
The DC also immediately moved to evict her. The couple had moved in together to a house he'd bought shortly before with a mortgage. Nothing on paper and no will to say it was their home for many years or that she'd spent a lot of money maintaing and paying equally. In the eyes of the law she was essentially a lodger.
She lost everything. If he'd died a week later her life would be completely different. It's rare I see no benefit to marriage.

There probably are advantages for a lot of women, as it’s true women are usually left holding the baby, but a lot of the very pro marriage stuff on mn comes from a very sort of very conventional middle class perspective (reference to the man and his Big Job, trailing spouses, death in service etc).
OP if you will be the one with the Big Job, then equally, in divorce, he would do better out of it.
Also, people don’t half talk a load of nonsense about Next of Kin, and medical decisions.
You nominate your next of kin on entering a hospital. It can be annyone. It’s not like they ask to see a marriage certificate or proof you are a blood relative… Also, just being married to someone does NOT confer the right to decide their treatment or switch off their life support! You need a Lasting Power of Attorney for that , which you would hopefully have the sense to nominate prior to getting too ill to function.
So, there are pros and cons but as long as you keep
working and prioritising your career, and have your paperwork sorted you should be fine.
RE the house, always consider what would happen should you die and he re marries. You need whichever contract protects your half and ensures your children inherit it, as opposed to his new wife and her kids…

Regarding pension and death in service, couldn't a married man just change those anyway without his wife knowing?

Edit - I mean change the beneficiary.

You can't replicate the provisions of marriage/CP outside that institution. So it's not about mitigating the risks so much as assessing whether they apply to you or not. They don't to everyone.

That said, you've left out the way the state will treat your relationship if it ends with one of you dying. That's one of the most important things to consider. Which again doesn't mean you ought to get married. You might be better off not doing.

@Ponderingwindow 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.

Surely only if a woman leaves the workforce for a few years or has multiple maternity leaves close together.

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.

I did more of the child related tasks when she was a baby. It's more equal now she's a toddler. One of us does pick up and one does drop off. I do more life admin I guess.

How would marriage prevent this?

Sounds like if OP’s partner left her, she could support herself. She already owns half the house, and it doesn’t sound like her partner has savings and pension that would come to her on divorce due to disparities. If anything it could be the other way round.

If he upped and left, the only thing marriage would give over cohabiting is a solicitors bill.

So you're tenants in common, rather than joint tenants, and you're not married, so you're relying purely on his goodwill not to change his will without telling you?

Which is still possible, even if he isn't a complete bastard, if you both develop diseases which affect your mind.

It wouldn't stop him walking away no.

It would give her a bigger slice of the pie re a potential settlement, pension etc... you don't make the decision to marry based on circumstances now - you marry to take into account possible future circumstances.

No one knows what's round the corner. 20 years down the line the OP could have sacrificed her career to care for a disabled child for example. Marriage affords a level of protection that living together simply doesn't.

Relocating us so much easier on paper than the reality of moving your child away from their friends, clubs and dad, especially as you'll be the face of the move and carry the weight of being seen to move DC away from everything they love and starting over.

It depends if either of your assets will exceed the Inheritance Tax Threshold. If you are married you can leave assets to your spouse and not be liable for IHT. If you're not married anything you leave to your partner in excess of the threshold would be subject to IHT @ 40%.
In England the IHT threshold is £325,000.

And you have no right to be informed when/where his funeral is or even if he has died.
Basically someone else gets to decide his treatment or lack thereof and they don't even have to inform let alone consult you

Yeah, you'd get 50%.

50% of equity, 100% of outstanding debt. You'd still need to buy him out and if you could afford to do that then youd be the sole applicant for a mortgage for the remaining debt.

If you were married you might get 70% (less needed to buy him out) if you're keeping the kids and keep the pensions off the table.

And 70% isn't greedy, the point is to keep a roof over your kids head because you may not get enough maintenance to cover your kid's current lifestyle and you may need to reduce your hours (which also affects your earning ability and pension).

There's also nothing stopping him transferring his share of the house and marrying you and becoming entitled to half of your 50%. Unlikely, of course. But it costs nothing to change to joint owners.

Basically, if a man isn't prepared to stand up in front of his family and friends and swear to love and honour you etc for the rest of his life, you shouldn't be stretching yourself out of shape and risking your life having children with him.

Assuming your partner wants to get married, of course. There's nothing saying they have to.

Recently got married after 30 odd years together as I have terminal cancer. On checking paperwork realised death in service and pension isn't payable to 'Common law' but to legal spouse only. Also, I own half of a flat my DM lives in. As DH he inherits and won't be kibble for capital gains as a spouse. Definitely we'll worth getting married for DIS and pension if nothing else.

For me the marriage is about protection but also a public statement of clear intent and clarifying legally our relationship status.

I think it is easy to fall into (and walk away from) cohabiting but less so marriage. I know this is not the way everybody sees it. But it’s how I view it.

In terms of using other methods to mitigate all the concerns I think you can so so but it seems more complicated.

Who is your next of kin, OP. That was a crucial factor for me. Also I love a shindig.

It doesn't matter whether you're married or not in this instance, as you need a Power Of Attorney, whether married or not, to take over dealing with financial or medical matters.

This can be solved with a power of attorney. In practice it's usual for the partner to be accepted by medical staff as someone who is involved in their treatment. They don't insist on a marriage certificate before telling you how your DP is.

It's not feminism to pretend that men and women are the same and that marriage is no longer a sensible precaution for women having a child.

I believe hetero couples can also get a civil partnership now, something to think about if you are opposed to the principle of marriage.

You say you have wills...but wills can be changed at any time - he doesn't even have to inform if he does this.

The appeal of marriage for me was that it is a legally binding, lifetime financial contract. I felt that was a sensible precaution having a child.

In a perfect and equal world where pregnancy & birth is perfectly straightforward, baby is born totally healthy, no learning difficulties at play etc, both parents earn the same amount, pay the same amount, own 50% each of all assets, and do totally equal amounts of parenting, there really isn’t a huge need to marry. But how often is that the case?

Pregnancy & birth leaves some women unable to work again or unable to do the same work/amount of work again, suddenly they’re worse off financially, unable to save or build pension, so unmarried means dad can save up and then walk away with everything and mum is left with very little.

A disabled child or child with ND, or even not ND, can struggle in school. If a child can’t attend school or nursery, someone needs to be there, so again, someone (usually mum) has to stop working to be carer.

Even where all is perfectly fine and child is in school, someone has to be available to do drop off, pick up, sick days, inset days, parents evenings- if both parents are going to split these equally and it doesn’t impact earning then great, no need to marry. But reality is one parent, usually mum, has to reduce hours or pass on promotions which require less flexibility/more travel/more responsibility because someone has to be available for the kids. Someone has to have the job where you can go “actually I need to leave, child is ill/inset day/parents evening”, the other parent without those restrictions can progress in their career, can do the late nights, the travel, the networking, without having to consider childcare. So after 10 years of that actually dad is earning £30k more and mum is either on the same as she was or less if had to reduce hours, dad couldn’t have moved up without mum picking up the brunt of the childcare, but dad could walk away in 20 years with his big savings & pension. Even where things may look equal with a 3 year old, they won’t necessarily look equal in 15 years time when one person has had to shape their career around flexibility, being available when needed, being a bit unreliable as an employee due to last min sick days for child, not being the worker first in & last out of the office because they are at the school gates, not being at the networking dinner because they are getting the kids home & fed etc.

It’s a bigger picture thing and it’s one where there are so many changing variables it’s impossible to say early on that you’re better off for being unmarried- it’s almost never the case.

I got married before I had kids. As you say, it is common knowledge that women are better off married once kids come along.

Since then, I have done the lions share of the child rearing and domestic labour, my wages have stagnated like "statistics" said they would, and my husband's salary has climbed and climbed.

In parallel, my family have helped us buy houses and I have received a large inheritance from the far-too-early passing of a relative and I have had the opportunity to pay into a very good pension scheme.

I am now scared to divorce because I worry I will lose the home my family helped us buy, lose the pension I have paid into (with little impact on household finances) and lose half of the inheritance that I am using to fund necessary educational stuff for my children.

I realise I am a statistical anomaly, but I would be better off financially in the event of divorce/separation if I wasn't married. Inheritance wise I don't think marriage benefits me at this point as if he died I would become sole owner of our jointly owned home, and there are not enough assets to hit any inheritance thresholds. If we remain married for another 30 years then I realise that the inheritance threshold situation may well change, but that's a long time!

Marriage works to "protect" some women and it disadvantages others. Unfortunately it isn't possible to know in advance which way it will go!