What an insult !!!

[rosesarebeautiful7]

Been with partner 15 years 3 kids between ages of 1m and 8 ( all both of ours ) used to own a house together but he asked me to sign a prenup to make sure I didn’t get his deposit money, when we moved he brought me out ( 7k ) and I didn’t go on the next mortgage, fast forward to 3 kids and many years later I’ve said I’ve got no security, it’s completely his house I’ve mentioned this to him as we have kids together I’ve said to him I don’t feel like it’s my home and no security he could ask me to leave at any time !

I have spoke to him about this he messages me today as he’s been “ thinking “ he will write it down a “ letter “ to say that if anything happens to him then the house Is left to me and the kids !

im really insulted ! And not sure if im being unreasonable, we aren’t married we aren’t getting married either, I had hoped for some togetherness as a couple bringing up our kids together ! Please no comments about going to work my baby is only 5 weeks so that isn’t an option! X

He’s treating you like his bit on the side (that he can kick out of his house any time) and you’ve been very foolish letting him treat you this way imho.

Get dual wills drawn up at the very least - but given you have kids together he should have you as 50% owner of the value the house has increased since purchase.

I nearly posted on the other thread that is about this topic but I realised many people had already said what I wanted to say.
I was in a similar situation a few years ago and was lucky that mumsnet set me straight on the risks of being financially dependent. I did have a job, but was not on the house deeds and unmarried, with a baby.
It caused me a serious amount of stress. I’m really pleased to say that I’m on the deeds now and we have a CP after 20-years of being unmarried. It does happen! But my advice to all women is don’t have a baby without being married and don’t give up your job!

Second thread in a day. Folks, do your homework on what happens when you give up financial freedom and have babies.

Why did you let him buy you out if you lived in the house.

The problem is that as soon as you start talking about how important marriage is for women, children and their life outcomes it gets drowned in 'why are we coming back to patriarchy?', 'is it shaming single mothers?' etc. as Melissa Kearney has found out.

Unfortunately the public discourse is shaped unproportionally by people who have financial means and education that go beyond what 'ordinary' people have access to. For them (and this is true for me to be clear, but I make 2.5x what my DP does and work full time) the marriage might be 'just a piece of paper' indeed.

What have you done with the money? Hopefully protected it. Have you made sure he's kept your pension contributions going if you are out of work? If he isn't going to marry you, I'd be planning on leaving. Do you have access to family money for shopping etc? I'm presuming you don't work because I can't see anywhere that you said you are/aren't. Id have a long hard thing about how you get out of this situation and quickly.

He can change a will without you knowing . He can change pension nomination.

Have you been able to build up any pension of your own since children?

You are in a financially vulnerable position. What happens if he wants out of the relationship? You will totally buggered in terms of asset division.

At least you are aware of it now. Given that even after children he is unsure about marriage you need to start making plans for your future.

Less of an insult, more of a complete stitch-up.

Oh God, absolutely! I want to scream when I hear someone spouting that arrant nonsense about "common law spouses", but as I'm sure you know, there are far too many ignorant people who still think this is a thing, when it has bugger-all legal standing! Phew, sorry, needed to get that off my chest! 😂

Insure his life. You have an insurable interest because you have the children. If he is under, say 50 and no health problems it won't cost much. Don't trust him to do it ... he could make anyone else beneficiaries.

So true. Too many older women end up impoverished in the later years because of this.

I have one friend, 62 who has to work until she is 67 to pay off her mortgage on a shitty two bed flat. The annual service charge plus other bills means she is living a hand to mouth type existence. Another is in her early 40s, partner left and she is struggling to find work, reliant upon CSA payments etc - she is allowed to stay in the house for another 3 years when the mortgage comes up for renewal then what? Neither married and built up very few assets in their own names.

Because if he's 'traditional' enough to want the children to have his surname then he should be 'traditional' enough to marry their mother. I get so tired of this BS about men picking and choosing which 'traditions' are important.

For every man who thinks this is OK, there's a woman who goes along with it.

He doesn't want to marry. Is he married to someone else? A man who refuses his children their legal entitlements isn't worth the time of day. 15 years?

He’s taken you for a mug! He sees you as his live in housekeeper/children’s nanny/sex slave, clearly not his EQUAL.

You need to leave now as this will only get worse when you’re older and find yourself living on a pittance with no proper pension and no housing rights.

I know you think it will be different for you but you only have to read the endless threads on here from women in their 50’s and 60’s who suddenly find they’ve been ditched for a younger model and because they’re not married, they’re living in a crappy flat on minimum wage.

YOU DESERVE BETTER!!!

A will is no good either, he can change it any time.

See a solicitor asap.

Do you both own the house? Not whose name is on the mortgage - whose name is on the deeds? And if so, did you buy it as joint tenants (i.e. equal ownership, and if one of you dies, the other inherits) or tenants in common?

It is clearly his house only from the OP.

OP has said several times that her boyfriend owns the house. Check her posts. There's only 4 or 5 o them!

First post... from @rosesarebeautiful7

Been with partner 15 years 3 kids between ages of 1m and 8 (all both of ours) used to own a house together but he asked me to sign a prenup to make sure I didn’t get his deposit money, when we moved he brought me out ( 7k ) and I didn’t go on the next mortgage

And...

Yes a deed of trust ! He brought me out because we moved to a different area!

Also...

I didn’t feel equal to him as he really showed me it was “ his “ house due to how much deposit he had put down

AND

I Also was told i had to sign a form to say I wouldn’t try and claim any rights to the house he brought - he said this is normal when buying a house if your not on the mortgage.

The OP is clearly not entitled to a shred of that house!

I'm still wondering what 'we have 3 kids, all both of ours' means though...

This. Kirstie Allsop (for example) could afford to stay with a man who didn’t want marriage (and they did get married eventually.)

She had a well paid job, quite possibly a trust fund and her now DH is a multimillionaire who would have been ordered by the courts to actually pay enough to support the children (if he didn’t do so voluntarily - I don’t know him and have no reason to think he wouldn’t have - the fact they got married if nothing else suggests he wouldn’t have tried to screw over the mother of his children).

SAHM Sally Smith living with Joe Brown on £40,000 a year doesn’t have any of that.

On the same thread where I got shredded for being ‘unsupportive’ for telling a woman the truth about the fact she had no right to her DP’s assets, I was also accused of ‘Victorian morality’ and told to ‘go back to the 50s’ for suggesting it wasn’t a good idea to give up work to be a SAHM without a wedding ring.

It has nothing to do with morality - it’s practicality. If a woman destroys or significantly damages her career ‘for the family’, she needs legal protection first. End of story.

It means he’s the father of all of them and she’s the mother of all of them.

Ah ha! Yes I can see it now. Thank you!

OP, I can see you have another very short thread where you mention that your partner's mother treats your children differently from her other sons' children. Are your partner's brothers married? It doesn't change anything about your situation but I'm curious. I know you have a tiny baby to deal with, as well as two other kids, plus it's probably a bit full on reading page after page of posts of this kind. But if you could answer some of the questions people might be able to offer some more insight, though speaking to the Citizens Advice Bureau / a solicitor is a must when you can.

Have you any personal savings?
Have you had a job/career that you can return to when the baby is older?
What are the reasons your partner gives for no marriage?
Are your partner's brothers married?

Unfortunately as much as there are women who get men to father their babies or marry for money, there are men out there who just want kids but not a wife/equal.

You are putting blame on him when you put yourself in the situation.

A will won't help as it can be changed behind your back.

Start now OP, only you can make that change.

If you are not married you are not the next of kin. His parents and siblings have more rights than you do, both to decide on what medical care he gets if he loses capacity, and also rights to his property and pensions.
I think the idea of insuring his life with you as beneficiary is a good one. Ask him who is the named beneficiary of any pension, lump sum death benefit etc.
Tell him you are afraid of being homeless and penniless if the worst happens, because it can happen.