Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 13 14

Original poster

to wonder why so many people don't get married before having DCs?

342 replies

EveWasFramed · 03/05/2010 10:43

I promise, this isn't meant to be judgemental!! But, my DH and I grew up in pretty traditional families, where you got married first BEFORE having kids...it was kind of a negative thing to do otherwise.

I wanted to get married before my DCs just because I thought there should be some kind of (legal) committment to make it more difficult for one of us to bugger off if we got fed up...if kind of 'makes' us work things out if we ever run into any problems.

Don't know...thoughts, please? I am curious...

OP posts:

BarbieLovesKen · 03/05/2010 12:34

exactly eve! (sorry if I repeated - didnt get a chance to read all of thread yet)

Missus84 · 03/05/2010 12:36

In terms of commitment, I think if a couple are truly committed to each other then it is irrelevant whether they are married or not. If a couple's commitment to each other is a little more shakey, then getting married probably does make a difference to the longevity of their relationship, since it makes it harder to leave.

BarbieLovesKen · 03/05/2010 12:37

Not sure about the UK, but here an unmarried father has absolutely no rights over his child. Absolutely none. Sickening really, he couldnt legally sign to let dd get her vaccinations (if unmarried) for instance. He couldnt object if I placed his children up for adoption, he wouldnt even be a legal guardian. Loads more to this - am sure most of you are aware.

Thats why I cant understand if people are living as "married couple", with children, very committed etc.., they dont just sign the papers to safeguard their children and themselves.

Missus84 · 03/05/2010 12:39

"Not sure about the UK, but here an unmarried father has absolutely no rights over his child. Absolutely none. Sickening really, he couldnt legally sign to let dd get her vaccinations (if unmarried) for instance. He couldnt object if I placed his children up for adoption, he wouldnt even be a legal guardian. Loads more to this - am sure most of you are aware. "

In the UK an unmarried father has to be present to register the birth in order to have parental responsibility - a married father doesn't need to be present, he has PR automatically.

Original poster

EveWasFramed · 03/05/2010 12:42

mystery...lol...I wish I had some assets!!
I feel very vulnerable that DH does hold much of our financial situation in his name. But, when we moved to England, I decided to be a SAHM, and I had no credit history here in the UK, etc. I am back at university, however, because I got nervous when my US teaching certificate expired...I don't like being without a qualification...I may be happily married, but I am not naive...if DH ever did take off (or lost his job, died, whatever), I need to know that I can take care of my DCs in my own right, IYSWIM. Anyway, once I go back to work, then yes, I will finally be able to hold some assets, and we will change our mortgage/house deed at that point so that we do hold joint ownership.

Yes...the financial disadvantage to not being married wouldn't bother me if it were just me, but I would definitely be a bit worried for DCs...

OP posts:

Granny23 · 03/05/2010 12:49

No one seems to be looking at the situation where the woman is the big earner in the partnership, or the man is the SAHP. Both my DDs are the higher earners and have their houses in only their names. Both have DC who have their father's surname. Both have very long term lovely DPs. They have wills that leave any estate for the children's welfare - sort of in trust with their fathers.

It seems to some people (the out-laws mainly) that this arrangement is a bit unfair to the men, but the 2 DPs are apparently perfectly happy with the arrangement which guarantees them (as long as they behave!) a roof over their head, a family, the opportunity to work in low paid jobs which they love and spend much time on their art & music. Both DPs appear to be afraid of major 'responsibilities'.

These relationships are almost the reverse of the traditional (man in charge supporting little wifie) norm, but who cares? Couples should be free to adopt and adapt whatever works for them.

BarbieLovesKen · 03/05/2010 12:51

Missus84 - so do you mean that in the UK, name on the birth cert stands for something?

venusonarockbun · 03/05/2010 12:52

I am married but really cannot see the point to it. Given my time over again me and DP probably wouldnt have bothered. It all seems a bit - well - old-fashioned to me now. I dont suppose either of my Dcs will ever bother.

Missus84 · 03/05/2010 12:52

Yes Barbie - the people named on the birth certificate have parental responsibility for the child.

usualsuspect · 03/05/2010 12:54

It funny you should say that tho..because despite me and my dp not being married my eldest dd is married

Biggles123 · 03/05/2010 12:54

I think the point has to be why WOULD you consider getting married before having kids? Most people don't nowadays and there really is no stigma, at least where I live. Not everyone has the same values and some of us have seen parents struggle along in unhappy marriages 'for the sake of the kids'.

BarbieLovesKen · 03/05/2010 12:56

Thanks for that Missus . Proper order and much better system, here if unmarried, I can pop down fred flinstone on baby's birth cert and it doesnt make a blind bit of difference. Ridiculous. An unmarried father can become legal guardian, but only by court order or voluntary statutory declaration made my child's mother but has no legal right to either of these anyway.

Thanks again - am studying for exams and thats helpful

BarbieLovesKen · 03/05/2010 12:58

Biggles unfortunately there defininately is still a bit of a stigma to not being married where I am - as someone earlier pointed out earlier its deemed "more respectable". Old Catholic Ireland hasnt moved on that much really...

Missus84 · 03/05/2010 13:01

"Thanks for that Missus . Proper order and much better system, here if unmarried, I can pop down fred flinstone on baby's birth cert and it doesnt make a blind bit of difference. Ridiculous. An unmarried father can become legal guardian, but only by court order or voluntary statutory declaration made my child's mother but has no legal right to either of these anyway. "

It changed here in 2003 I think - before that an unmarried father would either have to get a parent responsibility agreement from the mother or through the courts (of course he can still do that now if relations with the mother are estranged and she won't put him on the borth certificate).

Missus84 · 03/05/2010 13:04

Although my parents and aunts/uncles are all married, none of my friends with children my age (25-35) are got married before (or since) having children. I do have one friend who got married when she found out she was pregnant, but only because she's an American citizen so needed too for visa and financial reasons.

tortoiseonthehalfshell · 03/05/2010 13:07

I'm pretty deeply uncomfortable with the privileged status of marriage, the heteronormative nature of it, the patriarchal traditions, etc. I think the better question is 'why get married' if you're not religious, etc.

But I am married, and the reason why is because I wanted to say to everyone I cared about and everyone whose opinion I valued, this is the man I love with the whole of my heart and I'll do whatever I can to make sure I'm worthy of him. And I wanted to do it in public so that, if I ever wavered, my friends would say hey, d'you remember that day that you promised to always care for and love and laugh with your husband? You seemed to really mean that. Don't you think it's worth another try at making it come true?

WidowWadman · 03/05/2010 13:17

I think moving to another country to live with him was a far bigger commitment than signing a piece of paper and having a party. We had our daughter before getting married as we needed to save up for the wedding, but didn't want to put off having children any longer.

Manda25 · 03/05/2010 13:25

We planned our baby - and neither of us want to be married (been together 9 yrs). I never thought about being married as a kid - and come from a family where everyone is married (before having kids) - to be honest i just don't see the point.

mollybob · 03/05/2010 13:29

I got married for a number of reasons.

I work in health care and have seen enough young people die to be a bit paranoid about what would happen to DCs if one parent suddenly dies. Did have a terminally ill patient who needed to hang on to end of the month so all the finances were properly sorted for his dp (a sahm) but he died 2 days too soon. Was very messy.

Also I liked the idea of publicly committing myself to DH as I was so in love. Still am actually but not in such a hearts and flowers, soppy way!

I changed my surname - well, it was my father's name so no big deal and my DH gave up his career (at sea) to be with me as he felt him being away all the time would have impacted on our chances of lasting so I wanted to make a formal commitment too.

My parents are also v v traditional and went a bit nuts when we were looking at living together before we got married. My Dad in particular. I think he still believes I was a virgin on my wedding day. Bless.

It was the right thing for us in our situation but it is a personal thing. I absolutely do not think the governmentt should have any involvement in such things and tax breaks should be for those raising a young family, not for those who happen to have signed a particular contract.

CaveMum · 03/05/2010 13:30

On a personal level, as DH is in the RAF, it makes sense for us to be married. The military is still very old fashioned in that respect. As a girlfriend I was not entitled to have my own pass to move on and off DH's base - I had to be signed in and out by DH; when DH went to Iraq I was not 'officially' the person that would be contacted if anything happened to him - that is for next of kin only.
Also I don't think we would have been entitled to married quarters, though we've never lived on base for that to be a concern.
There is also an element that a married man in the military, particularly an officer, is looked upon more favourably for promotion etc, as being married is considered to be a sign of maturity and responsibility.

I'm not saying it is right, but it does happen.

If being married means you and your children can have a more secure future, I really don't see the problem with it.
The basic church service for our wedding cost about £300, and I presume it is about the same in a registry office. The big white dress, flowers, band etc are not compulsory.

I also don't buy into the 'marriage is part of the male oppression of women' arguement. Marriage these days is a declaration of two peoples love. Nothing more sinister than that.

RubysReturn · 03/05/2010 13:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

activate · 03/05/2010 13:38

I married DH when we decided to have children - that was the reason we got married so I am with you OP and wonder the same

flockwallpaper · 03/05/2010 13:41

We knew we wanted children so got married as it is easier from the legal point of view if anything happens to either of you. Had a quick registry office job. What's the big deal?

usualsuspect · 03/05/2010 13:45

I never felt the need to make a public statement about our relationship ..

marantha · 03/05/2010 13:55

Deep breath...

Firstly, I don't think that married people necessarily ARE more committed than the married or vice versa- don't buy that they always are- seen too many married people who are uncommitted and too many UNmarried couples who are committed. BUT...

IF - and I do mean if- a couple wish (and, yes, they may not wish it) to make it clear to the outside world what the nature of their relationship is so in the event of their death their "other half" inherits, or in the event of one of the couple f*ing off and deserting the mother of their child then it is wise to marry.

NOT for the moral upper hand, not for religious reasons, NOT even for love- simply to be able to produce a document that says, "See this person DID commit to the relationship, they can't just walk away without paying a price".

One thing that does get my goat about some cohabitees though, is the notion that they can do without that "Piece of paper" yet still be seen "as married" when things go tits up- sorry, but that to me is taking the p*.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 13 14