Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not see the urgency to get married just because we have children together?!

160 replies

Zebraa · 02/03/2009 20:40

I'm mid twenties, have two children (15 months and 2 weeks) both were not planned, second one actually more of a suprise than the first! I'm a teacher but had to give it up once I got pregnant with DD whilst on mat leave. My DP has a really good job but like me, is young and just at the start of his career etc.

All my friends and family came over at weekend and we went out for dinner and the topic for the night seemed to be when is my DP asking me to marry him! Ok, funny at first but it seemed everyone and their dog feels we should get married as we have two babies! If we didn't have children, they wouldn't feel the need to say it as our friends have been together years, have no kids and nobody says anything to them.

So, AIBU to think marriage isn't the rule just because we've started a family?!!

OP posts:
georgimama · 05/03/2009 11:37

I also don't understand that jack. I would be very at the idea of having children with a man who was OK with having children with me, but wasn't sure he was committed enough to actually marry me. Having children is a far bigger commitment, and like it or not, you have a lifelong connection to that person afterwards, via the child if nothing else (or you should do).

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 11:42

I think people are reluctant to get married these days because marriage has stopped being the lifelong commitment it once was. People are not sure why they are getting married when divorce is so easy. And, in fact, the only rational reasons for getting married when marriage is not "for life" are economic and financial, which many people find distasteful.

georgimama · 05/03/2009 11:50

But by that logic Anna, you seem to be saying that people don't get married so that it is easier to split up. That's hardly romantic either.

I genuinely did marry with the intention that it should be a life long commitment. I sincerely hope and intend that it will be.

JazzHands · 05/03/2009 11:52

Aw Anna not all of us!

I got married because I fell in love and DH and I meant it when we vowed to spend the rest of our lives together

I can't be the only one!

I think (and this is really just my personal view) that if people meet and fall in love and maybe move in and decide to get married and it all happpens quite quickly (as it used to) then that is one thing - marrying while still in the "honeymoonn period" of the first couple of years if you like.

Once you have moved in, set up home, had children, been together for years, the impetus kind of subsides, which is why so many of my friends are not married - they just never got round to it and now it's kind of passed them by.

I would have been the same but I met DH when I was older and we both knew that we wanted to settle down permanently etc.

If it hadn't been like that I don't know whether it would bother me being married or not/whether the financial stuff would have swayed me.

roulade · 05/03/2009 11:53

If you are not married then your dp will have no rights in regards to your children if you haven't sorted out parental responsibility ( and you die)

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 11:55

But the marriage contract doesn't actually give a lifelong commitment anymore, does it? The lifelong commitment is a private arrangement between man and woman; the public marriage contract deals with practical aspects of life together and provides for the union coming to an end.

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 11:56

If both parents are named on the birth certificate, both parents have parental responsibility. The parental responsibility argument is a red herring as far as getting married is concerned.

Issues of pensions and wills are much better reasons.

roulade · 05/03/2009 12:00

Unmarried Fathers named on birth certificates after december 2005 have automatic parental responsibilty but not before!

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 12:02

That's not the right date - I know there was a change, but it was before December 2005... someone?

roulade · 05/03/2009 12:04

Nope, just checked with the family solicitor where i work and i think she should know

georgimama · 05/03/2009 12:05

I thought an unmarried father who is named on a birth certificate had always had PR - that's why you needed to get him to agree to the name being there in the first place - otherwise I could have put Roman Abronovich or Bill Gates!

I thought the change was so that fathers who aren't named can get themselves added and therefore get PR.

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 12:05

The date was 1 December 2003.

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 12:06

Read here

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 12:07

Yes indeed you do actually have to take the father along to the Registry Office with you and you both need to agree that he is the father in front of the Registrar .

roulade · 05/03/2009 12:07

But then again the date matters only if you have a child born before it came into effect as it is not retroactive. So if your child is 4 then your dp has no parental responsibilty.

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 12:10

Since it is now March 2009, any child whose two unmarried parents are both named on its birth certificate and who is younger than 5 years and three months will have two parents with full parental responsibility.

jack99 · 05/03/2009 12:10

Agree with Jazz - most people get married because it feels right to do that with person they love.

But I would also advise to get married if you have kids even if you do not feel the need to for the above reason, just for the practical/ security aspects.

If you are already committed to your partner its not going to blow yor relationaship apart!

roulade · 05/03/2009 12:11

Obviously my solictor has memory problems!!

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 12:14

jack99 - marriage provides security for wives/mothers in England. In other countries marriage is not always as desirable, economically and financially.

jack99 · 05/03/2009 12:16

Just to clarify, does that mean that unmarried parents of chiildren born before 2003 do not both have parental responsibilty unless the obtain a parental reponsibility order or agreement, even if they are both named on the birth certificate?

georgimama · 05/03/2009 12:16

I had no idea about this (am not a family lawyer!)!

So just to be clear, a father of a child born before 1st December 2003 who was not married to the child's mother at the time and has not married her since the birth does not have PR for the child, even if his name is on the birth certificate?

Well. You learn something every day.

I hope some of the other posters on this thread who are not married and have children older than six are aware. I would have assumed that being named as the father on the birth certificate gave you PR. I would imagine that other people might make that assumption too.

georgimama · 05/03/2009 12:18

x posted with Jack.

It would appear so.

I'm shocked. I am sure lots of people don't know this. And no PR, no automatic control or residency of the children if the mother dies. If the mother's family don't like the DP, could spell big trouble....

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 12:19

The change in the law clarified and simplified the pre-existing situation.

roulade · 05/03/2009 12:23

Exactly Jack & George!

jack99 · 05/03/2009 12:24

Sure Anna, but I think most posters on this thread are assuming we are talking about the UK situation.

It would be interesting if you could share some of your knowledge of the situation in other countries - would be good to contrast the situation in the UK with that in the rest of the world.

Anyone else have any info on the situation in other countries?

Swipe left for the next trending thread