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!

Just double check that you are quality as a dependent. In a lot of cases, dependents are online minors or people that the deceased has a financial responsibility for.

If you cannot prove you are a financial dependent on him, you make get nothing. DIS and pension are generally there to provide for the deceased dependents, not the deceased's estate.

It will vary significantly from scheme.

I agree on the first point (as a fellow unmarried mum who was the higher earner). Bereavement benefits have now been equalised for married and unmarried parents though

Yes they can, people also regularly don’t understand what next of kin is, my next of kin was my ex fiance for about the first six months of marriage to my husband.

"What’s your point ? Marriage is repeatedly shown to be an important factor in economic and educational outcomes?"

My point is obviously that marriage does not cause any of these economic or educational outcomes. It just happens to be that people who are more likely to be married are more likely to have these outcomes. It's a correlation not a cause as I said.

"A woman on here a few years ago found that having thought she got on well with her DP’s adult son and parents, the son’s loyalty was to his mum and the parents was to their grandchild and his mum. So the ex wife had priority over everything. She lost her home and was cut out of the funeral. Everything he had was left to his adult son. Including the house she lived in."

This could equally happen if she had been married. It often does in fact. People on second marriages often leave everything to their children. If she was a dependent (married or not) she could have challenged the will. But it's his property and he doesn't have to leave it to her (married or not).

Yes. These can be left to anyone you like - I left mine to my daughters but previously I halved them between my ex partner and friend. They go into discretionary trusts but the trustees will almost always pay them to whoever you have indicated you want them to go to.

Your Next of Kin can be anyone you nominate. Not necessarily a spouse.

@user243245346 Seeing as both poorer married parents and richer married parents have better relationship stability and outcomes than unmarried parents shows that it is certainly more than just an economic tie. Choosing to have children within a marriage seems like a far less risky an option than cohabiting. Why would we pretend otherwise ?

It's a complete myth that marriage has any impact on medical treatment or funerals etc. it doesn't. You may not make medical decisions about someone unless you have a medical poa or a court order.

The executor of a will has the right to arrange a funeral regardless of whether they are the spouse or not. Who they invite is up to them.

Also current uk state pensions available to people born after 1953 do not have any spousal benefits. Almost all workplace pensions allow you to nominate anyone for death benefits.

Modern death in service and pensions allow you to nominate anyone. I used to have my siblings. I know have my partner and child.

Absolutely - but it’s less likely if he’s not the main carer.

Are those stats not skewed by people who weren’t in a committed relationship to begin with?

It’s compared to cohabiting parents so that may depend if you consider cohabiting parents to be committed or not!

I would never ever get married again ever!!!!! Pointless make a will

I’d be interested to know whether this was because for some women in particular it is harder to leave a marriage than a cohabiting relationship, particularly if they have used the ‘security’ of marriage to reduce or give up their earning capacity and pension in order to be a SAHM.

Half or even 70% of a house they can’t afford to run on their 12k income, and a chunk of their ex-husband’s pension in 20 or 30 year’s time isn’t much good to her.

It being harder to leave is often cited as a benefit to the kids, but it’s often a terrible trap for women.

Ahh ok - you didn’t say that.

I did not know that about DIS only being payable to a spouse. Sorry to hear you have had such bad news

But the question also: why not? You sleep together, procreated, eat together, I assume talk to each other and do not hate each other? Why not married?

I married my lower earning partner had two children with him and he did nothing in the house of for the kids. Divorcing him cost me a fortune and he benefited. I was so put off marriage I didn't marry my next partner and had a child with him only soon after falling pregnant one of my older children became unable to attend school due to disability so I had to stop work. Suddenly being unmarried was a problem as my partner just walked away when I was unable to contribute. Now I'm a single mum of 3 one so disabled I cannot work and I had fuck all pension and cannot pay more than interest only in my mortgage. Maybe he would have left anyway had we been married but I would at least have a chunk of his very good pension. Instead I face a lifetime of caring until I can't anymore then poverty in my old age.

So I see pros and cons to marriage. If I could rewind time I would not marry a man who earnt significantly less than me unless I knew he would step up and take on the bulk of childcare and housework while I supported the family. If we were equally earning or he earnt more I would marry before having children so my situation couldn't have happened

Better to have been married and failed, but getting 50% than going single after being single all the time, with a bonus added of a man in the house treating you like not important enough to be legally tied with.

Depends on the couple in questions circumstances. Not being married is better for me, id only lose in a divorce, not gain.

But if you control for relationship breakdown and poverty you're controlling for the mechanism by which marriage induces better outcomes. Two parents who stay together (married or not) are better for children because they are richer and home life is more stable (in general, obviously not in all cases).

Now obviously people who get married are likely to be systematically different from people who don't, but to me it is likely that marriage itself still does something to keep people together (as indeed that was what it was originally designed to do).

@ThisPithyJoker

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

It’s a good idea to think about these things critically and it sounds as though you are in a good financial position right now. In my experience having some financial independence is the difference between being able to weather a relationship storm or not.

But I’m afraid you can’t futureproof your life entirely or predict what might happen if… your gamble is that you’ll always have your current earning potential and be able to work flexibly and maybe you will.

Although moving somewhere cheaper if you split up might be an option, you also have to consider that once your child(ren) are in school that flexibility diminishes, and that he may well argue that you can’t up and leave with his kids - especially as his job is tied to this location, and you can do yours anywhere. You also might consider how you’d want to co-parent if you split and whether you’d really want to put so much distance between your children and their dad. So moving somewhere cheaper might not be an option.

Running a household by yourself is expensive, it’s not just 50% of your current costs.

If you have one child that’s one ball game, but if you have more than one things become much more challenging logistically and financially.

What if you, or he, become sick and that impacts both your incomes? Suddenly he isn’t earning at all, or has to reduce hours, can’t do picks up/drop offs etc? What happens if you start earning less or you have to jointly pay out more to cover caring/household responsibilities.

As PP have said - marriage offers some protection if you earn less/your career is held back by raising children. It might not protect against everything, but don’t assume you’re invulnerable either, or that it is possible to have all bases covered - life doesn’t usually work that way.