I have had enough - I want to leave after 11 years but cant afford to with DDs and we never married. Dont know what to do.

[lifeswork]

We have been together for 11 years. I moved into his in 2005 when we were both in our early 30s and we have two DDs. He inherited our home in full at a young age before we were together. As such only his name is on the deeds. We had a good life together and have never had to worry about mortgage payments, just bills and family expenses.

We never got married because he was adamant he didn't want to very early on in our relationship. He said he was scared about the consequences if it went wrong. I pushed as it meant a lot to me to be married for our children but he always belittled the whole idea of marriage which has got to me over time. This is a conversation we have had so many times over the years.

The last 12 months his refusal on marriage and also managing finances has broken any feelings I had for him as a partner. We have been arguing more than ever and sometimes he loses his temper/shouts/storms out of the house and will not come back for hours. He is a good dad but I have had enough of feeling like he wont open himself up to be with me forever. I know he loves me still and I have been trying to work on my own feelings without letting him know how I feel.

However he has been asking what is wrong and the other day I told him all. He refused to even consider getting engaged. Said he would always be with me but having witnessed the consequences of divorce amongst his friends/family he still wasn't going to marry. He even refused to put my name on the deeds of the property and he laughed when I said it would make me feel secure. He said it was in his family before me and his will clearly stated that if he died it would be left to the children with me being able to stay for life.

I have had enough. However I am scared about where to go. We have a joint account for bills but the bulk of our salaries goes into our separate accounts. I have a large sum saved up in my account/savings so could get a deposit together for somewhere in the next few months.

However I cant afford to get a mortgage for a house/flat big enough for me and my daughters in the fairly nice area we live now on my own. I would have to move away from the area which would mean moving my children into a different school. I would also have to move away from my family who are local. I don't want to increase the disruption to my children.

We both earn around the same above average salaries and work FT. I have contributed to the house in decorating costs and paid part of the money for an extension to the property - about 10% of the overall cost for upgrading some of the cheaper stuff (fixtures/fittings) he picked out originally. He has more money saved up than me because he doesn't spend much on himself or us. I pay for most of the children's clothes/presents. He pays for their hobbies. We have always been 50:50 on childcare costs. The house is worth around 400k.

Where do I stand or has anyone been in a similar position? As we are not married do I have a claim on the house as I would like our children to stay in the family home. Ive been reading up and it seems like I do not other than for what i have spent in improvements over the years which would only be about £20-30k. I'm so upset by this as I dont see why I shouldn't have the same protections that a wife would have. If we were married I'm guessing the property would have been divided 50:50 or I could stay until the children left school.

What I'm not sure is that as we have children under 18 with him does this change anything about what I am entitled to as an unmarried partner or if i can stay in the house until they have finished school? He has enough in his own savings account that he could buy another place outright.

Please help. If he changed his mind on marriage I would stay but I cant see that happening.

I am aware that I sound cold in that post, but it has taken a lot of love, pain and sadness to come to that point....

Op I understand why your worried and I'm sure you already know you should have got married years ago, before children. There's many women in this situation. I hope your post highlights to other women to get married before starting a family. If your making a commitment to love one another, be together and raise a family then marriage is the natural first step.

I feel sad for you after 11 years , I guess now your at stalemates. It's about the trust. You don't trust him to look after you and if anything did go wrong between you and him there's no legal basis for him to provide other than kids and that scares you which would me and he doesn't trust you because the more you ask to get married so your protected financially he grows concerned that you are being underhand and trying to get his money as you have accepted it for 11 years, therefore makes him insecure. He laughed when you asked to have your name put on the deeds, because he feels suspicious of you asking and thinks your planning something. He doesn't trust your motives. Both of you are wary of one another and insecure therefore the trust is going and the love.

I ts very tricky because before he met you the house was his. Now you have made it a family home but it was his before you knew him. I think you would have been better selling it at the time then buying a house together that you both chose with each of you putting in a deposit then paying a mortgage. If you had got married some of that would have become yours regardless of him having it before you met.
He's clued up on all this is your partner as he's seen it with his friends therefore he probably would have treated any woman this way not just you and not married them to protect his asset.
It's now bothering you because you have seen the reality as times gone on about what could happen.

I think your going to have to right off the money that came from before you met him and be happy that at least you have been mortgage free and saved up what would have gone on mortgage payments. ( he provided this ) Then keep saving what you have now and make sure all expenses are joint and the higher earner pays more so it's equal. Without marriage you need to make yourself secure by saving, investing etc for you for the future and retirement etc. He does the same with his salary by the sounds of it.
Your doing okay yourself by the sounds of it so you don't need money from the house too just keep accumulating yours from now to retirement and your living mortgage free. If you don't love him anymore then I think it is time to move on.

I'm very happily married, but I'm also pragmatic. Branching out, you speak sense.

FWIW I'd like to see common law unions given the same status as marriage.

I think you shouldn't give people who aren't married and just cohabiting the same rights as marriage because it makes a mockery of marriage in the first place! Get married!

You knew from the start he would never marry you. You chose to carry on the relationship and have children with a man, who made it abundantly clear marriage was not on the cards.

TBH with you - you just want to get your hands on his assets. You come across as very grasping.

You knew from the start he would never marry you

What total bollocks. The OP is still asking after 11 years, so it is abundantly clear that she did not know that he would never marry her.

As regards the rest of your post Grace I think the less said the better.

I think the problem is that we all do things 'in good faith' - we trust to the future, trust that people won't let us down, trust that the picture we have in our mind will one day be realised.

To be honest, re-reading your OP, I think that the best thing you can do right now (if you reallly don't want to be together) is to consult a solicitor about your position. Then, get the largest flat you can possibly afford that will get you into a good secondary school, de-clutter like mad and make the best of living in a smaller space - remember that part of the time they will be having contact with their father. I am so sorry it has come to this.

Talking enthusiastically about marriage while doing nothing to make it a reality was a favourite tactic of my emotionally abusive ex. He eventually bit the bullet to reel me back in after I'd found myself building a life for myself after one of his idealise, devalue, discard cycles had turned the full 360 degrees. Until then, keeping me dangling was another control mechanism.

I find the idea that Women who cohabit are somehow not committed to a relationship or deserve less in seperation a where children are involved quite offensive.

If you want to stay there, stay. Work on the relationship. Stop making an issue about the property - he doesn't want you to have a claim on that. He's know that from the beginning it would seem, but you haven't.

Get on the property ladder yourself - take some of your income and buy a rental flat. No doubt if you have less disposable income, he will have to spend a little more on the kids and other family stuff.

"What total bollocks. The OP is still asking after 11 years, so it is abundantly clear that she did not know that he would never marry her."

That's not quite right. It says in the opening post that he was "adamant" he would not marry from the earliest days of the relationship and has rejected marriage in every single conversation about it since then.

I think that is pretty strong evidence that he'll never marry her, and at no stage has he given her hope that he might.

It's easier for you to leave than if you were married. Much easier.

You won't be entitled to the house but furniture etc you bought together. Yes.

He will still have to pay towards your DDs. This includes financial support towards their housing. This will enable you to get a home large enough for all of you.

Just because you are married doesn't automatically entitle you to a house or half a house etc etc. that's either for the divorcing parties to either agree or get a court to settle.

You are clearly upset that he won't and hasn't committed to you all these years. It's understandable.

If you can't accept this, you will need to rethink you life and your lifestyle.

What protection would be offered to the OP if she was married to her partner? As far as I can see it, you can secure spousal maintenance and a divorce settlement only if the spouse is reasonable. If you are a SAHM with no income of your own and a husband who is not prepared to be reasonable how do you secure your rights under marriage without going through court, and incurring massive costs in the process? I can't see personally what protection is gained from marriage. Legal protection yes, but that still has to be fought for and invariably the woman comes off a lot worse.

I'm NOT a lawyer, so please don't take anything I write as hard fact, but if he inherited the house in full some time before you got together, even marriage might not make that much difference.

Pre-marital assets are assessed on a case-by-case basis, balancing fairness with need, looking at each partner's financial situation, and taking into account the length of the union.

Given that you've had the advantage of living there mortgage/rent free for 11 years and that you both earn a similar salary, it wouldn't be a given - even with marriage - that you'd get a significant share of the house. Like I say though, each case is unique and I'd urge you to get professional advice.

From a purely moral POV, I think he's treating you quite shoddily. Once you make the decision to start a family with someone in an ongoing relationship, I think you 'owe' them something. While I don't think marriage and cohabitation should be one and the same thing (there are many valid reasons why both people in a partnership would want to cohabit without legally being tied), I think the term "common law spouse" should have a basis in law once children are involved and should afford that partner some of the rights conferred by marriage.

While your P has every legal right to behave the way he is, I'm not at all sure why you'd want to stay with someone who values you so little. Whatever you lose financially by walking away from this relationship is little compared to the self-worth and respect you'll lose if you stay. Some things are priceless. It's never a good idea to compound one mistake by making another because you are too stubborn to admit you made the first.

Good luck with everything.

You say he was adamant that he didn't want to marry early on in your relationship. He has not deceived you in any way. You knew fully well where he stood but thought you chose to go ahead. Not sure what you can do, contact a solicitor.

Reading between the lines, is your primary concern that the children will stay with him while you live alone somewhere smaller?

If it is a given that they will stay with you (and I don't think it is in every circumstance) then your options will be dictated by your financial situation and you will need to make some sweeping changes but that's a given with any split.

If not, then only you know whether being away from him is sufficient reward for swapping full-time parenting for alternative weekend contact.

It's a difficult situation and I am sorry it's come to this.

That's not quite right. It says in the opening post that he was "adamant" he would not marry from the earliest days of the relationship and has rejected marriage in every single conversation about it since then.

In historical narratives, people tend to forget that the protagonists don't know what's going to happen next.

The OP says he was 'adamant' that he would not marry her 'very early' in the relationship. They subsequently went on to have children. Now, in many relationships, I know two personally, the man 'comes round' to marriage after the children are born. The OP wasn't to know then that he would never come round. She says she 'pushed' it, as 'it meant a lot to be married for our children', which shows that she still thought it possible that he might agree at the time. Indeed, it seems only to be as a result of the last 12 months of arguments, that she feels now a) he will never do it & b) he never had any intention of doing it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I think that he never had any intention of doing it has been OP's dp's position right from the beginning. It shouldn't have come as some belated revelation over the last year. The OP has always known it, but she thought she could get him to change his mind.

This is a familiar theme in another sort of thread, where one half of a couple has made it clear that they do not want children, but the other doesn't listen and then gets hurt and indignant, saying things like 'if he really loved me, he'd want me to be happy'. I always think that's unfair. It should work both ways.

From what the OP says, it sounds as if her dp is confident he will never leave her. In which case, the arrangements he's put into place after his death give her as much security as any wife. (Tho' what will happen to his pension? Has he considered that?)

So not being married is only relevant if OP leaves her dp. Why should he go out of his way to make that more financially beneficial to her when she will be the one who's caused him heartbreak by ending the relationship?

Tinsel town - it's not that women are less committed who are cohabiting but if they want the same rights as marriage then get married. That's what that piece of paper does for you!

Get married - have kids - live happily ever after ! Amen

Some of the attitudes on this thread are pretty shocking. If someone doesn't get married they don't deserve protection? I feel like a lot of posters are polishing their wedding rings and smugly muttering "well you made your bed, feckless cohabitee, now lie-in it." What advice would you give to a friend who is pregnant, her partner is keen to be a father but won't marry her?

Personally my plan would always be to marry and then have kids but life doesn't always work out neatly and are we really going to condemn people because they couldn't wrestle someone down the aisle? Many men have a big vested interest in holding out on marriage.

If the OP had genuinely 'always known it' then I think it's fair to say she would not have wasted time & energy 'pushing' for it.

It's very easy to take the narrative of someone's life, in which narrator herself has the benefit of hindsight, and say 'x was never going to happen'.

I've seen two adamantly anti-marriage men get married after children. It's very difficult to know which men will capitulate and which won't.

The children issue is similar in that some people are adamantly one way or the other and then change their mind.

To claim that not being married is 'only relevant if the OP leaves her DP' is a very odd statement. Being un-married has numerous disadvantages quite apart from the issue of separation. For example, they are not each other's 'next of kin', some hospitals and official bodies may not accept involvement in the other's affairs, however long they have been together.

Reply to Thymeout ^

Agreed Stranger. I can't work out whether it's smugness, lack of humanity, or even envy at the fact that OP's house is mortgage-free, and they earn 'above average salaries' that's prompted all the bitching.

[bemused]

If they won't marry then don't have kids with them. Why would you pin your whole life on someone who shows no commitment and your kids lives to in the hope they "might change". Cohabitants shouldn't have the same rights. That's why you get married and make that commitment. No ones polishing a halo. I feel sorry for op and think her man should see them all as a family unit and get married. If not then save and invest possibly a buy to let for her future. She needs to see herself really as single if she's going to stay there in the way she conducts the financial situation from now till retirement as he obviously hasn't made plans for her for the future just the kids and as you get older this becomes more worrying. If op inherits any money or comes into some she can keep it all .

Totally right, Stranger. I too find it shocking that anyone this side of 1920 thinks it is OK for children born of cohabiting couples to loose their homes and stability purely because their parents didn't marry.

Because that's who it really impacts upon.