Do I lose (or gain) any rights in marriage

[Sugarandshine]

Just that really, does anything change?

We earn roughly the same, I’ll probably earn more in the future. We’ll hopefully have kids.

There are things like miss/ms and people calling you Mrs, obviously the name change issue and any sexist traditions in the ceremony, but is there anything after that?

Its not just ad simple as deciding by earning potential.

Things like, potential (likely), damage to your career by just being pregnant.

Is anyone reducing hours or giving up work for kids. Or what happens if you aren't giving up work then have to (ill health of anyone in the family for example) or change your mind.

I think wether marriage is a good idea is very specific to everyone situation and any but of detail could impact it.

Wether 'gain or lose' situation really depends on this detail and things you can't know.

In my case marrying would definitely be a lose, so we aren't. But we aren't having kids and I already have kids.

This is a good summary:

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences

Very broadly speaking (it is not always the case) the difference is this. If you are married then the law will usually begin from the position that you are a partnership, meaning that you have pooled the risks and benefits of your life together. If you are not married it will start from the position that you are separate financial entities and that your romantic life is separate from your financial life. Whether you benefit from marriage when sometime goes wrong largely depends on whether a disproportionate amount of the risk or benefit falls on one partner and whether you have the assets for it to matter anyway. Of course you don't know how life will develop so at this stage one of the key questions for you is whether you both see yourself as a finanical partnership.

In the UK, I think being married is sensible if you have children, and equal assets - simply because, no matter what the plan, no matter how equal and independent you think you are, my overwhelming experience is that women get screwed over when kids come along, and then again if the relationship ends.

We didn't marry, I continued freelancing, I'm in Ireland, where child maintenance seems to be higher, and I ensured we were both on all properties we bought together. I (and the children) still sacrificed a lot so his career could be boosted, including doing some work for free for him, and he's in line for massive payouts because of that, which I have no recourse to because nothing was in writing and I trusted that we were a team working together for retirement, and that turned out not to be true (not that he ended it - I had to discover what he was up to and end it - he was perfectly happy gallivanting around while I looked after the kids, the admin, and worked my self into dust to keep my career).

So in summary - if you are equal, and you are in the UK, get married. Get everything in writing. Don't give up anything on a promise.

The situation when either of you dies is better than cohabiting couples. And sadly being involved in end of life care and funeral arrangementsis clearer with a spouse.

Mia85 sums it up very nicely.

The assumption that you're a unit goes beyond financial to personal. Eg

• you are automatically your spouses next-of-kin, but for a partner it's probably still his parents. This could matter in an urgent medical emergency, where you are more likely to know his wishes.
• Your husband is automatically your child's legal parent, but for a cohabiting partner it's only when you register the birth - which would be very stressful and awful if you died in childbirth, or if you were incapacitated in childbirth and your child needed urgent medical decisions
• not quite about being married, but similar: if you travel abroad without him but taking your children, that's much easier if you share the same surname! You always get questioned (which is obviously fine) but you need extra documents if you have different surnames

The biggie is the financial protection though, especially on death.

In general, official things will run more smoothly, and as you'd expect them to, if you're married. If you're committed to each other, plan to have children, and don't have anything complicated/different about your setup, then it's better to.

You always get questioned (which is obviously fine) but you need extra documents if you have different surnames

This isn't true - you sometimes, I'd go so far as to say rarely, get questioned. I've travelled extensively alone with my kids, one has my name, one has their dads, and I've been questioned once. I was also questioned once when I was travelling with both of them and their dad.

I carry all our passports and their birth certificates just in case, and have only been asked once.

The entire idea that having the same surname somehow makes it fine to travel with children is entirely ridiculous anyway - changing name in the UK is so straightforward that it would be no issue at all for someone who actually thought that being questioned would be a barrier to stealing children.

I will also say that we questioned the whole next of kin thing when I had my kids, and in two countries, they both said that it was fine, that ex (not ex at the time) would be the one making decisions for me and the kids should I become incapacitated. I suspect it's only an issue if other people step in legally and make it one.

I have travelled with the kids, numerous times and I have a different name to them. Never been questioned, myself. They usually ask the kids some gentle questions as though they are passing the time of day. Such as 'are you travelling with just mummy?' Or 'where are you going?' Etc that's it.

@ChristmasLightsAndSparkles

Your husband is automatically your child's legal parent, but for a cohabiting partner it's only when you register the birth - which would be very stressful and awful if you died in childbirth, or if you were incapacitated in childbirth and your child needed urgent medical decisions

A cohabiting partner isn't automatically your child's legal parent, but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to make decisions for their new born child. Deciding who is NOK in that case is not legally proscribed, and the wishes of the mother would be taken into account. When I had my first, I was very unwell after giving birth and was taken to the HDU, whilst my baby was also very unwell and was whisked straight off to SCBU. My partner went with the baby, we are not married, and he made several immediate decisions and gave consent for treatments whilst I was not with the baby. He was then the one caring for DS1 in SCBU whilst I recovered. No one said a thing about the fact we weren't married. I had specified on my maternity notes that he was my NOK. I think the vast majority of HCPs that dealt with us simply assumed we were married, partner was pretty much universally referred to as my husband rather than partner or boyfriend. I think it would only be an issue if there were other relatives present who wanted to interfere and become involved against the wishes of the unmarried partner and make different decisions.

There are loads of legal differences.

Name and title changes are entirely up to you but the legal differences are built in.

The main one is that if you split up later, finances are treated completely differently if you are married vs unmarried.

You may not think this matters now as you earn equally, but post children things tend to change and most women seem to end up with more childcare responsibilities than their DH, and earning less as a result. Even the ones who were determined this wouldn’t happen to them (voice of bitter experience).

Plenty of other stuff too - various tax rules, what happens on death, next of kin if you are in hospital and decisions need making, etc etc.

End of life issues were an important part of our decision. My mother in law is not a nice lady and I know if anything happened she would try to take bank accounts and part of the house, and possibly even exclude me from funeral decisions. Marriage prevents that.

There's a benefit payable if your spouse or civil partner dies, but not payable to 'just' partners.

My friend lost her partner of over 20 years, but he hadn't made a will. His estate went to his adult children from his first marriage. Some people might be ok with that, but my friend was devastated, not least because the house was in his name. It was a tremendous shock to her to find out she had no legal rights.

A cohabiting partner isn't automatically your child's legal parent,

An unmarried father is still legally the father but doesn't have the right to register the birth and won't get parental responsibility until the birth is registered (so technically probably shouldn't have been able to consent to the medical treatment of the newborn in the example above). But he is still legally the father nonetheless, e.g. if he walked away before the birth he'd still be the father and still have to pay child maintenance.

Legal next of kin isn't defined in law anywhere. Which is why there are sometimes court cases about incapacitated adults where parents/other family have different wishes to an unmarried partner (or even married partner).

In the case of my DS1, my DP was detailed as the father in my notes and also specified there as my next of kin. He was also the only person at the hospital with me and I had consented to him being present at the birth. The hospital made a perfectly reasonable judgement that he, at that point that I was incapacitated, was the baby's next of kin too. Especially as the last thing I said to him was to stay with the baby and not me.

Yes you're completely right on next of kin and they would have been right to involve him in the care. My point was just that if the baby wasn't yet registered then your DP wouldn't have had parental responsibility and therefore the formal legal authority to give consent for the baby's medical treatment. There's a difference between involving a relative in decisions and that person having the legal authority to give consent on behalf of a patient. Of course if it was urgent they'd be able to act anyway (and could probably argue that you'd delegated authority to him if there had been a challenge). It can, however, sometimes be a problem if a mother is seriously unwell or even dies during childbirth and the other parent doesn't have parental responsibility because the child hasn't been registered.

So even if I am married, I’m not DHs automatic next of kin? And legally his family could contest things for example if a decision had to be made?

This is all very interesting!
But it sounds like I don’t lose anything in getting married? But on MN I always see people saying to a higher earning woman not to do it? - realistically by the time we get married I’ll be making more and even with kids I will make at least 20-30k more per year in the next few years. Does it mean more like a lot more money than that

@Sugarandshine

So even if I am married, I’m not DHs automatic next of kin? And legally his family could contest things for example if a decision had to be made?

This is all very interesting!
But it sounds like I don’t lose anything in getting married? But on MN I always see people saying to a higher earning woman not to do it? - realistically by the time we get married I’ll be making more and even with kids I will make at least 20-30k more per year in the next few years. Does it mean more like a lot more money than that

It depends.

I won't marry dp. I earn several times what he does. But also I had a lot in assets coming into the relationship.

I also have kids and me and dp aren't having any. It's not just about wage. Its also about the set up.

We dint feel and benefit to joining assets. The gain would all be dps and the risk mine and or my kids.

If we split there would be no reason, as far as we are concerned, that dp should have a claim on my assets.

But it's also about point of view. For us, combining assets and creating a ginancial partnership is simply not required for us to be a couple. Some people, want to be a combined unit. Some people feel marriage is important to them, in a sentimental sense.

As long as everyone knows what the are risking/gaining and has their eyes wide open and marriage is important to them, I don't see why marriage would be a bad thing.

In your situation it's difficult to say what your risk was. Kids change things so much.

One of you may decided to reduce hours, give up work. That impacts assets split in a divorce as does, the split of care of the kids post split. Also remember your pensions would be part of the asset split.

Sometimes my feminist hat says 'do what's best for women' and sometimes it says 'do what's best for you, woman'.

If you earn more, or are projected to earn more, or if you have more assets to bring into the partnership then it makes no sense to get married (see disclaimer though) because if you split, your assets will be merged and split 50/50. So not getting married is probably doing what's best for you.

But what's best for women generally is to marry because men tend to be the higher earner. And (here comes the disclaimer) no matter what the set up pre-kids, it's always women who carry the financial/career can for child bearing and rearing.

And then I take both feminist hats off and think 'well Greta, if you are seriously 100% committed to equality, why should the woman walk away with more assets? It should be fair for both parties.'

So if you see yourself as entering into an equal life-time partnership, you should get married because that's fairer to both of you - though not necessarily fairer to you.

Second disclaimer: you do see increasing amounts of women on MN who are divorcing total cocklodgers who have not worked, done the absolute bare minimum of childcare (like school run and nothing else) where on divorce the women are giving up significant assets AND not getting primary residency, even though they've done all the actual stuff apart from just 'being an adult in a room.' Don't marry that guy, and if you do, don't have kids with him, and if you do, do not let him have childcare responsibilities.

Sexist marriage traditions are optional.

Name thing shouldn't be a consideration in whether to marry!

Would civil partnership alleviate the sexist wedding things OP?

When marry essentially you become linked legally in stuff others have mentioned and linked to.

Advantages and disadvantages but assuming you're not prince to his Cinderella, or have reason to think he's got some kind of motivation other than because wants to marry you, then can't see why not personally.

For me though I think the if split it's a sort of definite process, how it will work after.

The thought that either of us could just walk like you are two strangers, just sharing a place for it bit. Emotional reason for me.

Imo if either of couple, unless huge personal wealth from before got together and other normal job, complications as one royalty, been through 5 divorces already. Big stuff.
If calculating whether beneficial or not financially, to marry.

Then don't get married. I mean. Not great mindset when thinking about committing to marriage/civil P.
To be thinking what about cash if we split.

Nope.

'Greta, do what's best for you.'

Totally!
In terms of knowing as best anyone can that you both want that level of commitment.
That you both are sure.
That you get on well as friends, care about each other and express in ways other person understands.
That when disagree you resolve it in reasonable way. That you are both comfy with. Not constantly walking out, digging up old arguments, whatever.
That you work together, support each other, ...
That stuff.

Deciding based on money? Extrapolating to check better or worse off?
Well I earn more now he should earn more when qualified. We will have 2.8 children. Assuming he qualifies and I go PT and we live in a house worth X and and and.

Nope.

Don't get married.

Unless really big reason to consider xyz. And surely you'd do that openly with partner?

Sitting with a calculator and doing actuarial style analysis.

Nope.

From what I could work out, certain issues become likely to be more important and weighted in favour of marriage as you age.

Next of kin, decisions about and access to healthcare situations.
Inheritance, tax is the big one, I think. (If married you will be able to remain in your shared home post the death of either one.)

Some of these can be sorted by various specific legal agreements (thought not all, and it varies depending where in the UK you live).

The tax breaks seem hardly worth getting married for.

Perhaps best to seek legal advice?

The CAB summary is a great start.

If you have kids, they may have additional needs and you may find yourself feeling that your spouse is not able to meet them so it's you that ends up taking the financial hit. Read threads on here - it's v common. So just because you earn more now, or will soon, don't assume that will always be the case.
Wills, LPAs, agreements to pay into a SAHP's pension, beneficiaries of death-in-service - all these can be changed in a day. A previously wonderful DP can have a head injury, change personality and run off and you.are.buggered.
Marriage however is a legal contract that can't be backed out of unilaterally....

A more positive reason to get married, if you're both well off, is avoiding IHT and various other taxes, and getting more out of certain pension schemes. I know people who got married after decades so that they would get a payout from their OH's pension when they died - and then had a shares windfall and were able to escape CGT by transferring half the shares to their DH to sell ("I am giving you these shares DH" - DH sells shares and returns proceeds - "I am giving you this money DW"). Gifts between spouses are outside the tax system. They made back the cost of their wedding within 2 years. Admittedly the wedding was ~£200 all found (we were witnesses and we're bought lunch, which bumped up the cost).

Also helps get additional driver (if spouse) for free when hiring cars in some countries.

Also gives peace of mind if staying somewhere sex outwith marriage counts as a criminal offense.

@SylviaTrench

There's a benefit payable if your spouse or civil partner dies, but not payable to 'just' partners.

My friend lost her partner of over 20 years, but he hadn't made a will. His estate went to his adult children from his first marriage. Some people might be ok with that, but my friend was devastated, not least because the house was in his name. It was a tremendous shock to her to find out she had no legal rights.

This is sad, but I always wonder, how do people not realize that if they aren't married, they aren't automatically entitled to stuff related to their partner? How would that even work.

If you loathe the sexism of it all and the hideous history of marriage, don't forget that you can now get a civil partnership, which has all of the advantages and none of the crap.