Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
JazzHands · 05/03/2009 14:09

Not "anything" but "anything of that asset".

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 14:13

Jazz Hands - you are confusing inheritance and divorce .

And the issue of the ringfencing/protection of assets is a real one in English marriage/divorce. Pre-nuptial agreements go somewhere towards helping people but they are often not considered binding.

georgimama · 05/03/2009 14:18

A tenancy in common is the way that you jointly own a property but in effect own half each - so when you die your half goes under the terms of your will (or intestacy if you haven't made one). A sale would have to be forced for anyone to actually get the proceeds. Your "half" also forms part of your estate for inheritance tax calculations.

A joint tenancy means you both own the whole property jointly - if one dies it automatically goes to the co-owner and doesn't form part of the estate for the purposes of inheritance tax calculations.

You don't need to be married for that to be the case. An unmarried couple can own a property as joint tenants.

If you have a joint tenancy I believe divorce automatically severs it, but separation doesn't.

JazzHands · 05/03/2009 14:23

Isn't it only when there are children that things get knotty? Or when people have been married for donkeys years and so everything really is "theirs".

If DH and I got divorced and didn't have DD I wouldn't have thought he'd get half of everything I earned before we met, as we've only been together a few years...

Mind you I'm not a divorce lawyer so probably talking shite. I suppose your point is that legally it starts with half each and then everyone has a big argument? is that right?

georgimama · 05/03/2009 14:27

I think in the case of a short marriage with no children, it's usually a clean break - you walk away with what you brought in. The interesting case was that recent divorce (can't remember the names) of the couple who hadn't been married long - less than five years I think. She gave up her (very good) career as soon as they married with the intention of having children and being a SAHM. He was very wealthy. He left her. They never actually had any children.

She got a very generous settlement on the basis that she had relied, to her detriment, on their joint agreement that he would be the moneybags and she would stay at home.

BonsoirAnna · 05/03/2009 14:29

In English law I wouldn't feel confident in your position Jazz Hands ie if you brought more assets to the marriage you will not necessarily walk away from the marriage with them if your DH wants some for him

JazzHands · 05/03/2009 14:32

It's all academic now as there is a sprog around the place.

Interesting though.

A lot of better off men are dubious about marrying as they worry about divorce (so I hear!).

And people come to the UK specifically as they know they'll get more cash than in other countries don't they (the less well off one makes it the UK I mean).

All veeery interesting...

Judy1234 · 05/03/2009 14:52

If you have chidlren the short marriage rules don't apply. All your assets from before and after the marriage including inheritances and debts on both sides go into one pot and are then divided (if and noly if you are married).

"For eg I have an asset that I got before I met DH, is entirely in my name and he has never had anything to do with. If we had no children I am sure he would not be entitled to anything."

I had to pay my ex nearly £1m on the divorce so I know a bit about the rules. But most women are more sensible and marry someone who earns a lot more so the money transfers are the other way about.

JazzHands · 05/03/2009 15:05

Do you know xenia I was thinking of you during my last few posts

If you don't have children though I'm sure it's a bit more straightfroward - in my post which you've cut and paste i specified no kids.

I'm not sure that most women marry men who earn more than them any more - at least not nearly so much as a couple of decades ago. The older wealthier male and younger less well paid wife thing is very gradually being eroded I think.

FAQinglovely · 05/03/2009 16:20

what happens with parental responsibility if for children registered pre-December 05 where the father went to the registry office and the mother didn't............does that mean I'm not legally responsible for my DS's

georgimama · 05/03/2009 16:22

Mothers always have parental responsibility for a child unless it is explicitly taken away by a court.

FAQinglovely · 05/03/2009 16:27

oh shucks

does anyone find that rather odd though? I mean why shouldn't the father also automatically have parental responsibility too unless taken away by the courts >> Surely that's like absolving fathers who don't go to the registry office/named on the certificate from their moral obligations that come about from pro-creating..........

JazzHands · 05/03/2009 16:32

Guess it's the same as the child benefit always used to be cash to the mum.

We are all saintly angels and men are feckless vagabonds.

Glad no-one has told me and DH he does most of the "mummying" round here while I sit on MN

Eve4Walle · 05/03/2009 16:37

I'm of the opinion that you've made the biggest commitment already by having 2 children together - that binds you for life in a way that marriage can't.

Have to say I don't understand why some people have kids together but then actively avoid getting married...it doesn't change anything, only your security as a family.

JazzHands · 05/03/2009 16:44

Eve this isn't going to make me any friends but...

A lot of babies aren't planned - they come along without any regard for whether the people who made them are in a stable relationship, a committed relationship, a new relationship or indeed a one night relationship.

Once you're pg the commitment is thrust upon you (and your DP if there is one).

Whereas with marriage you have to actively choose to stand up in front of people and make solemn vows which are legally binding and have big expectations attached to them.

Obviously a lot of people who aren't married make an active decision to have children, same as married people.

But there are also a lot of people who end up committed (through children) more or less by accident and who would still blanche at the idea of marriage.

IMO

Eve4Walle · 05/03/2009 16:47

I agree entirely Jazz - I was referring to those who choose to have kids together and continue to live together in a stable family unit.

georgimama · 05/03/2009 16:48

Indeed - many people in long term unmarried relationships are in quasi-marriages - they feel and are as committed as any married couple. But others really aren't.

My unease with the idea that gets floated about that unmarried couples with children should have the same rights as married couples is that a whole heap of rights and responsibilities would be put upon people who don't want them. If they wanted them they would either get married, or take the alternative legal steps such as PR agreement, powers of attorney, wills etc that would give them those rights.

piscesmoon · 05/03/2009 17:10

If you are set on not getting married I think you ought to go to a solicitor or the CAB and find out all your legal rights-don't just assume things.

bloss · 05/03/2009 17:22

Message withdrawn

Hulababy · 05/03/2009 18:18

Congratulations Zebraa

Podrick · 05/03/2009 18:28

Friends and family tend to do this out of pity ime, they are assuming that the woman is desperate to marry and the man is being irresponsible and needs a push.

It's rude to say so and sometimes wide of the mark. I guess it is potentially helpful if the woman is wanting to get married and the man is reluctant.

Anyway, congratulations if marriage is what you both actually want!

MamaZzz · 05/03/2009 18:29

I have a genuine question i would like peoples thoughts on.

Do you think peoples attitudes towards marriage nowadays (unnecessary/waste of time etc)and general relaxed attitudes towards relationships be part of the reason we here all these stories of kids being abused/killed?

There is that story at the moment where the boyfriend (who isn't the babies dad) is being convicted for murder of his girlfriends little boy? They said the little boys death would have been very painful

What i mean is, with the relaxed attitudes towards relationships and lack of proper family units, do you really know who you are exposing your kids too?

JazzHands · 05/03/2009 18:33

No. I think just as many dads in traditional married relationships do terrible things as well. (And mums).

bloss · 05/03/2009 18:38

Message withdrawn

bloss · 05/03/2009 18:40

Message withdrawn

Swipe left for the next trending thread