Children before marriage

[Marvelftw]

Extremely pragmatic post incoming. My partner and I are in a really great, loving supportive relationship. We’ve been together for 2 years and have had all the talks about our plans for the future which includes marriage and children. Since I am getting on in age fertility wise, I told him I wanted to have a baby first before we got married. We’ve now successfully conceived but I’ve since started reading slightly horrifying threads about what a bad idea children without marriage is. I’m now wondering if from a security pov we both look into tying the knot a bit faster than anticipated but just wanted some opinions on this based more specifically on our situation.

-I’m the higher earner out of us two
-We live in a house my parents helped me buy and the mortgage is in my name
-I have more in savings
-After having a baby I would want to return to work part time as my job is quite full on

Giving all the above would we need to look into getting married sooner rather than later? Please note as I said this is a very pragmatic post that isn’t outlying our feeling and commitment to each other at all but I just want to think about what’s best logically!

I can’t see the benefit in you getting married as you’d lose half of what you already have.

We had a child outside of marriage.

We got married when DD was 2 years old and we're now expecting DD2

If you’re concerned about losing half of everything, I think your partner could claim half of your house anyway in a split - if he could prove he’d been contributing to the mortgage.

I think it’s nice for children to know their parents are committed, but it’s not essential. If you’re planning on getting married anyway, perhaps this is the time to do it, if you can afford to?

So it’s your house alone? Plus all the savings you have. In that case I wouldn’t say it’s a rush to get married. Usually it’s when women move into a man’s home and then has a child and goes part time etc. can then end up homeless if the relationship ends.

Our daughter had just turned 3 when we got married. She was our beautiful flower girl at our wedding 🥰

Not worried about losing half of anything. Just wanted to ask because in the threads I read the woman always ends up screwed over if the relationship goes awry, especially if they’ve stopped working or gone back part time. But since I have more assets I was wondering if this risk would apply to us.

We had a child a year before marriage. It was definitely a fully committed relationship. We went to a solicitor and sorted out wills. We were both on the same page regarding sharing assets and our child’s future, but talking to the solicitor made us think through all the implications of what we were doing.
In our case, I was the lower earner and was putting myself in a vulnerable position by becoming a SAHM - in DH position he was risking what he owned and earned.
The solicitor was very good and objective.

In your situation I wouldn't get married and would not let him contribute to the mortgage either for now so he doesn't have a claim on the house. Things can change a lot when children are involved so give all that time to settle then decide on marriage or not.

In your situation it’s him that should be rushing you down the aisle.

There’s 0 wrong and 0 meaning to this. Why do you need to get married before children what’s the urgency. You being married or not being married makes 0 difference to a babies life and shouldn’t make a difference to your child. I am unmarried with a 3 year old and we’ve both survived.

I know this is against the grain because you have more to lose if things went awry, but you have a child together now, which is the biggest commitment of all. I would encourage you to get married.

I was in your situation; higher earner, no debt, more savings, owned the house (also helped by DM&DF). I've never regretted it. My children have a stable home!

But that being said in your situation I’d stay in it. I wouldn’t get married I’d keep paying the mortgage and the bills that count and that’s your security.

Yeah it is! Ok thanks, that’s nice to know that we don’t have to rush and could take time to plan and save for a nice wedding celebration.

@MagickTrickAw sounds lovely. Definitely would love to have our child old enough to join in and remember the wedding too ☺️

The risk applies to you if you do get married, as the higher earning and asset-rich partner.

It applies to others (for not getting married) where they're lower earning, do not have a stake in the house, and do not go back to work shortly after the baby, hence diminishing their earning power.

Is your partner paying towards anything especially towards the house?

The point about being married before children is that it is usually the woman who will be on lower income due to going part-time/career break/maternity leave and if the man has more assets (including house/pension) the woman will be left with very little if they split but will probably still be doing most of the parenting. In your case it might be less beneficial for you to be married, depending on your income disparity and career prospects when you go part-time.

Given your situation it's a bad financial move to get married.
The advice to be married is for women who are going to take long time out of work or cut down hours and don't have their name on the family home- if they split up they're homeless and on low incomes and have no rights.
In your situation your home becomes the marital home and at risk of being lost if you divorce- i would delay marriage as long as you can in your shoes maybe after second baby when kids are big enough to remember a wedding (if at all)

Ps is this a reverse and it's a man writing it?!

No if unmarried he could only claim half of the equity accrued when he was making contributions or whatever proportion and could only prove that if he paid directly into mortgage account, hopefully op is taking it as rent into her current account

I think that the issue is that as you intend to return to work PT after the baby, this means that your income will be reduced substantially, and it leaves you vulnerable

@purpleblue2 it’s not really about the baby it’s about finances and how women can be left high and dry if a couple splits and most of the assets etc are in man’s name. Would appear to be opposite case with the OP.

Only go part time if it won't ruin your career prospects if you want or need to be full time later.
Get income protection insurance in place both of you in case he loses his job and can't contribute

you need to get married purely to get a prenup in place stating who has the capital in your house and that you walk away with the assets you came with

The risk is to the parent who reduces their earnings after kids in reliance on the other partner. Usually this is the mum who stops work or goes part time after children.

Be aware OP that there are many, many mums out there who - like you - had no intention of going part time or stopping work after children. So they never expected you to

Then the reality of having children made them make a different decision - especially where the child has additional needs or health issues, or where the dad doesn’t pull his weight so mum is trying to work and do everything else.

@Unexpectedlysinglemum it’s interesting though. If a woman is asset rich, good career prospects and has more than the man she is having a child with, advice is don’t get married. If they are asset poor get married. But if a man is asset rich he is awful if he refuses to get married but if he had very little he is a cocklodger if he wants to get married.

I bet the advice would change. It’s ridiculous that people are advising the woman not to get married to protect her assets. If a man said this he would get crucified