AIBU to be very shocked only 3% of unmarried parents stay together until child is 16!

[littlemoominmamma]

3% is nothing!!! It is soooo sad. 1 out of every 3 couples have seperated before the child is 5yrs old

I am now glad that the tories are going to give married couples help.

Good comment Tiggy - I think if Children's parents are married they are far more likely to themselves marry too.

Maybe marriage as an institution will die out?

Ah ha.....leningrad...

I want you to pass a message onto your dp..

tell her as hard as she tries she will never catch me....I'm out to win, losing is never an option...just hope she's got the stamina to keep up with me....

ANyway does stillmarried mean together?Can think of a few where it does not, but no divorce signed.

Allmy friends with kids aremarried,just by having one before I was odd (blame a provincial somerset upbringing). But amongst those are some not together but married,some divorced,and some who would be better off divorced in truth.

but tiggy, neither of my children were planned, my DD1 i had when i was 19, i was a single parent. DD2 15 years or so later - unplanned but in long term relationship, still unplanned.

I am an excellent and capable parent thank you very much

no hang on one doggone minute Im sorry, but im not sharing DP with Lenin's DP, shes mine and she has stamina - woohoo!

By making the fathers pay for the children. At least a bit. And trying harder to get money off them - a lot harder than now. This is achieved fine in other countries so it can well be improved in the UK.

It vexes me that society thinks of marriage and children as a 'women's issue' - then wonder why 70 per cent of absent 'fathers' (=biodads) don't support their chidren. Or be fathers to them.

Leaving aside obvious problems like abuse, mad exes and so on, anything that stops children being valued/supported by both parents needs to be given a very beady eye - and that starts with upping the cash rate from deadbeat dads.

..but if the two people accept it's too unstable for marriage then why do they deemed stable enough for children? Somebody was talking about people who aren't getting married because their relationship wasn't stable or long term enough, or something like that.. I don't think that's your situation?

who is talking about your situation? congratulations, glad it's working out but this isn't about that, plus, you are just one person

if a child is damaged by a vaccine does that apply to EVERYBODY?

here's my situation, married, children, twenty years together ..what difference does that make to the price of fish? does it prove anything? no

to use fridge full analogy: i have enough to eat, it doesn't stop half of Africa from starving

lem you're nice anyway I've seen you before but this is more general

An article in the Telegraph was discussing the Catholic marriage spokesman's view that married parents are no better than unmarried and there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual parents.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100003646/married-couples-no-better-as-parents-says-catholic-marri age-spokesman/here rather refreshing!!!!

This is not a debate about whether you are or are not an excellent and capable parent, or whether parents are 'better' for being married or not. It is about examining the reasons why so few babies born out of wedlock have parents who are still together 5 years later.

I knew that headline must be nonsense so I'm glad someone spotted the mistake.

You only have to think of people you know to see that the 3% couldn't have been right.

Sorry, that was to LucyEllensmadMummy

"Interestingly, of the marriages that are successful, they tend to be couples who co-habited first and have known each other for some time before marriage and babies."

that IS interesting because I thought it was the other way round

Do you not think upandrunning that my situation may well be repeated all over the whole world?? maybe a few times? So, of course its not about me (it should be )

Sorry, but idont get the fridge analogy - all that does is make me realise i need to load the dishwasher

Tell you what, if you like, i'll ring the registry office book it for next week, we'll get married if it makes you rest better in your bed?

well, maybe, but until I can ask every single person in tho whole world I'll have to rely on statistics..

the fridge thing is when somebody says, half of Africa is starving, and you say -- well MY fridge is full

yes gwan get wed you know it makes sense I'll be the spectre at the feast

oh, asked the same q upandrunning - i think someone should google it, but not me!!

To be fair, there is of course, in the section of the pie containing unmarried parents, there is going to be a sub section of parents who are irresponsible and didnt consider shit before getting pregnant. So it can never be a measurable statistic can it because no one is going to be able to quantify that.

yes but statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say - there are too many variables. You simply can't - therefore i am going to stop even thinking about it before i get a migraine

Only read the OP

What a load of old cock

And the Tories are all up me arse with their married couples benefits

Cant see the truth in this statistic somehow, would love to know how they compiled these.

Most of our friends are not married, have children and have been together 4+yrs

I have been with dp since we were 17, so 8 years now, engaged to be married for 7 years and we have nrly 6yr old, 4yr old and one on the way. dont plan on splitting up anytime soon.

Maybe the statistic is true, although cant see that staying married is always a good thing, we know of at least 3 couples that would of split up had they not been married, but cant now as they are and are as such "trapped" in the marriage because of finances.

Still think the tories rewarding married couples is a load of crap, if it happened,do you think the rates of child abuse and domestic violence would go up??

wheresmypaddle - I couldn't see a direct answer to your question (apologies if there is one. It's a long thread!).

You are poorly protected if unmarried in a number of ways.

If your partner's assets are over the inheritance tax threshold, you will pay inheritance tax on them, whereas you wouldn't as a spouse. Other than the very rich, this is mainly relevant to people who fall into some or all of the categories of: older couples who have a lot of equity in their house; people in expensive cities who've paid of a fair amount of mortgage; people where a house is in one partner's name.

You have said you have a will. If you didn't, you may not inherit anything from your partner. LOTS of unmarried couples with children don't have wills. If the assets pass to young children or parents, it can make day to day life very difficult. The same would apply if a will was invalid for any reason (e.g. a glitch in signatures).

Many pension schemes will not give a surviving partner benefits in the same way they would a surviving spouse or civil partner.

You may find issues if there were a long illness or other medical decisions which your partner could not make for himself. There have been instances where long term partners are shut out of these decisions and the parents get to make them.

You do not qualify to apply for maintenance if you split (other than on behalf of dependant children). This may be fine whilst you are both young and working, but women often build up less long-term financial stability than men because they are more likely to work part time and take career breaks for family. A co-habiting woman who splits in her 50s with grown up children and who didn't work until they left home can find herself exteremly financially disadvantaged compared to a married woman in the same circumstances.

Does that help answer your question. I'm not commenting on the morality of it, or the public policy, but the fact is that, if you have any degree of financial stability as a result of one partner earning more than the other (usually the man earns more, but obviously not always), you are disadvantaged if not married. Likewise if you have substantial assets (house above IHT levels, one has a decent pension) and in situations of ill health. There really are lots of ways that it is beneficial to be married, but most of them are very long term.

The tories are up your arse VT?

Actaully, I see now that it has nothing to do with whether you are born in or out of wedlock, just that so few parents stay committed to each other for more than 5 years. I don't think this is just about serious committed relationships that hit a rocky patch being easier to walk out on when there's no marriage certificate, as the Tories are naively implying. As before I think these figures are heavily skewed by parents who were never really committed to one another in the first place, and by the modern day assumption that we are all entitled to parenthood regardless of our current personal circumstances, age, or level of stability in our lives, emotional, financial or otherwise.

I wonder if it makes a difference how long you were married before children came along or if you married after dcs, or if you're engaged....

In otherwords, they are on the same level as my shit

(i dont mean the tories are up my are literally) they are all my arse/full of shit

RibenaBerry - thank you very, very much for taking the time to reply to my question and for explaining things so clearly.

I really really do not want to ever marry- but what you have said is food for thought, some issues are less relevant to me as I earn more than DP, however it certainally seems a shame to pay inheritance tax where it can be avoided.