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.

Protection - depends what you mean by that.

It's nothing to do with the mothers choice then is it? Why kids might not have any security.

bed, you ask why someone would put all their hopes and dreams into someone who wouldn't do likewise. The answer, of course, is love. Often it's also because the relationship exists within a framework of abuse and control.

It worries me that you can't see this.

I'm also struggling to understand why you are so defensive about marriage. It's not a great advert for the institution when you make it sound largely like a rather joyless business contract where the payback only comes if he dumps you.

I'm sorry he can't share the house fully with you when he is sharing his life with you and the parenting of your two DD. I think there is some lack of generosity there on his part. He should know that you and the DDs are more important than the house x
Counselling could be an idea?

You need proper legal advice. If you have been paying more towards the house and children than him, you should get compensation for this. Equally, you should get enough (I believe) to purchase somewhere suitable for you and the children, depending on how child care was split going forward. As for the rest, it seems right and fair that it remains with him.

I think 11 years and two children in common does give you rights, regardless of marriage. However, I am not a solicitor.

I do find it a bit of an odd reason to divorce though. Why is marriage so vital if he has stated he wants to be with you for life. It is a bit of a chicken and egg argument but would you marry someone who has made it clear that the reason for marriage was a claim on your assets?

I see your point OP but if I was him, I'd be leaving things as they are. Why would he risk his house? He has you over a barrel sadly.

It all should have been sorted out before children. I think you know now you were a bit blinkered. Two of my friends have done similar and it ended badly.

All you can do now is save like crazy and ride it out as long as you can untill you can get somewhere closer. A big flat might be a good option, one large double and a single for you.

Good luck and sorry.

Tinsel. ---It might sound that way but wouldn't marry anyone I didn't love. Wouldn't have kids if It wasn't out of love. The kids get protected if you split but not the partner that doesn't seem good therefore marriage protects everyone and encourages family units. That's why we have a law on it. You sign a commitment for life till death do us part. That's love isn't it! No good protecting the kids but not the mum and vice Versa. Everyone gets protected .

But he has made plans for her future - his will gives her a lifelong interest in the house.

I think it is all well and good that if a woman - or man - contribute childcare as a sahp while the other contributes earned money, then their contribution to the partnership should be viewed and treated as equal. But they are both covering parenting, they are both contributing income.

If I had inherited a house prior to the beginning of a relationship I would be reluctant to put myself in a position where half that house could be taken away by a divorcing spouse, perhaps re-invested in another relationship and part of it's value left to the step children of my ex! I would be no more protecting my interests and security than the OP is seeking to do by getting a stake in the house!

She says he has more because he spends little on himself - OP, how much have you been spending on yourself, and of what nature? What kind of thing do you buy or spend on that he does not?

I do agree that a much fairer or clearer way of managing the household budget would help. Why don't you both put an equal amount in a joint account to cover all household and child expenses? Or pro rata to your salaries?

Do seek legal advice and counselling, it may turn out that if his house could be subject to some kind of pre-nup (not official in this country) and the knowledge that in a break up you could not simply waltz off with his house and live in it with another man might actually re-assure him enough to get married!

I am sorry you are in this upsetting pickle. In your shoes I would build my own security with a small buy-to-let flat.

llarrygrylls - your assumptions are wrong and the kind of thinking that leads women to believe that some form of common-law will protect them.

It can be taken into account if she can show significant capital investment or mortgage payments into the property. But there were no mortgage payments. She could reclaim her share of capital improvements.

Sorry larrygrylls but this is not correct. Common law wife has no legal bearing, meaning or status in English law. It means bugger all that OP has contributed to the house even if receipts can be produced by her and being resident there for x number of years still does not entitle her to having any financial claim.

OP's man is only responsible financially for their children in the event of separation, not the OP. They are still two separate individuals and will be treated as such in the eyes of the law; what is his is his and what is hers is hers.

My sisters in that situation now. The house is in his name she's a sahm to 2 kids, might be another on way. The house is in his name not hers and his dad has contributed too.therefore the house is in his and the dad's name basically and not hers, they have a mortgage but a huge deposit has been paid into it. There relationship is very rocky even. They have been together 12 yearish.
She has no savings, no job and nothing basically of value money wise but and if anything happens I dread to think what would happen . When they were on verge of splitting up My dad the loving sod that he is was telling me what was happening with them. I said what will happen and he said well she might have to go to a refuge . ( he's dysfunctional) what dad says that. With two kids?

On the outside my sister looks wealthy living in a posh area , cars and big house etc but that's why it's so important to look at marriage. I suspect if you didn't love them then you wouldn't be with them so just get married too.

Really quite surprised by some of the comments on here; however, I do sort of make the dissenters correct. If the op's partner has always been steadfast in his refusal to countenance marriage, then she cannot claim to have been deceived. Though I do have a degree of sympathy for her situation.

The fact is that marriage affords certain legal protection (for both parties). I'm absolutely shocked that some have suggested that co-habiting should convey the same rights. That's a step too far. If you want and need the protection that marriage/civili partnership gives, then enter into it with somebody that's mutually agreeable, prefferably before (in the case of women) you start churning out kids.

In terms of practical advice, do as some suggest and start saving hard (let him share some of the heavy lifting in terms of discretionary spending on the kids) If he spends less on himself or is just a better saver then good for him. Also, see what compromise might be reached by getting some sort of life interest registered so that in the event you survive him (and you're still together) you won't be homeless. Otherwise, just be happy that you have the advantage of not having to pay a mortgage!! Make the most of that.

I agree with those who have mentioned Buy To Let.

If you are happy with your DP apart from the marriage/house issue then do what you say you wished all along, and start cultivating your own money and investment. Then if you split, you both have your own fair share of assets.

'Churning out kids'? Anything to stigmatise the bastard offspring of the above brush dwellers, eh?

I actually don't think the OP's situation is particularly relevant to the marriage debate, more of wanting to leave without a lifestyle downgrade (which is inevitable, marriage or none). I am however shocked at the slightly superior attitude towards children born of wedlock.

Furthermore, unless your marriage was spent rolling in cash, it doesn't offer that much 'protection' when it all goes belly up. Other than half of an asset and - possibly - a right to stay in the home until the children are grown, what is there?

The idea of spousal maintenance is little more than idea these days. Even divorcees feel the pinch.

'Churning out kids' also insulting to women...

The OP stated that her DP does not spend much on her and the children. I'm amused that that makes him 'a better saver' rather than a tightwad.

If I spent less money on my H and kids I could save more. Better saver? Better person?

Yes. My ex never bought a uniform, paid for a holiday, bought groceries or paid for presents. School trips, childcare, his petrol and even his clothes were all bought by me. Yet, because the bills and rent went out of his account he was a better person than me too twinkle, even though the monthly tally was definitely in his favour.

I know this because he told me so. Frequently.

Bedtime: In fact your sister is in a far more vulnerable position because she is a sahm, and as you say, has no job. She is in exactly the situation that leaves stay at home parents most vulnerable. Lifeswork on this thread earns an above average salary and about the same as her Dp.

All of us need to be conscious about the choices we are making. I am not at all unsympathetic to the OP, far from it, but I think we need to be honest about meeting our responsibilities and taking the steps that protect us. Had her DO not owned a house she would presumably have bought one with him, as an earning partner paid towards the mortgage and had a lot less disposable income. The house would probably have been in a less salubrious area than the current one.

It sounds as if your whole relationship is becoming ever more narrowed down to this issue, rather than being about the totality of your lives together. Maybe your anxiety, and his shouting is a symptom of something else, which could maybe be resolved or not, but at the moment the narrower this issue becomes the more you will go head to head over it.

Good luck!

If you have money saved up, why don't you offer to 'buy' a share in the property, and thereby show him that you aren't after his inheritance with marriage as the back door key? Even a relatively small share, 5-10%.

His fear of being screwed financially is perfectly logical (surely you must be able to see this?) and each time you desperately throw up the marriage question, this danger is all he sees become all too clear and present.

As soon as a couple marry, the wealthier party asset-wise - in this case him - becomes poorer pretty much instantly. With each passing second (figuratively speaking) of the marriage, some more of his/her wealth moves into the matrimonial property category, and is liable to be handed to you, as and when you decide to leave. In effect, he is being asked to invest financially in you on the basis of your 'love' for him (... which is crazy because I can't remember the last time I invested in a company by buying its shares on the basis that I 'loved' the company).

If you were to split, a claim could always be made against his assets for the benefit of his children. If he were to die and leave his children out of his will, they would as dependants be able to claim against the estate for provision (yes, it isn't usually as generous or efficient, but the provision is there). He is not therefore a bad 'father' as some have said simply because he won't hand 'you' an opportunity to claim on his inheritance through marriage.

"...I'm absolutely shocked that some have suggested that co-habiting should convey the same rights."

Absolutely. It would be a tyrannical interference with freedom. What would be the point of 'choosing' to get married then? The decision to marry is how you show that you CHOOSE for the world to treat your assets/liabilities as one.

If cohabitees had the same rights, then the man in the OP would just never have let the her move in in the first place, meaning she would need to find her own housing on the open market etc. Now multiply that scenarios over and over again and imagine the knock-on effect on the housing issues we have in this country, which are only going to get worse anyway. The idea is woefully short-sighted.

But the man is managing to have both the financial freedom and indulgence of a single guy but the emotional support and family live of a married guy, the best of both worlds. Just because he has made provision in the event of his death, doesn't let him off the hook while he's alive. If he wants the benefits of a family life, then he does have to take on the responsibilities, and that includes ensuring that his children and their primary carer are given adequate housing.

If it's 50/50 then he still shouldn't be insisting on a financial situation which disadvantages his partner to such a great extent. If he won't share the house, in spite of having children together, then he should be paying money towards some savings/pension/buy to let, so that she is not being held back by him.

If he would pay her for any contribution, plus any increased value, then that would seem fair, but it doesn't sound like he will. He wants to keep his house all for himself until he dies. There are 4 people living there, it isn't just his any longer. He should have thought that through before having kids.

However, it sounds like the area the op currently lives would be beyond either one of them managing alone with the kids, in which case the op probably has to face the truth and either live in a tiny place, or move further away. Which is a whole other argument about the cost of housing.

If he didnt own the house would you still be as pushy to get married?

Olathelawyer, yes precisely! Which is why in OTHER countries, where common law marriages DO exist there is a chronic housing shortage!!

Oh, hang on. No there isn't.

My DP and I have taken a conscious considered decision not to get married. It is all fine within the way we run our family, and we both take equal responsibility for finance, housing, parenting etc etc. We are both very clear about our legal rights, where they exist and where they do not. I would be outraged if the state decided to over ride my / our decision and impose a de facto legal partnership where none exists - a tyrannical interference with freedom as Ola says.

Or, if they did, you could, you know, divide your assets as you saw fit if you split up. An option that is not afforded to all couples.

Oh, hang on, yes it is.

I wasn't stigmatising anyone's bastard offspring. I'm generally pro-marriage, but I do recignise that families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes (I was raised in what's now called a blended family). I think it is important that (women in particular) people understand the benefits of marriage. It's not going to be for everyone, but let's be very clear, it would also be wrong of the state to actually establish a principle of common law spouseship to the extent which some people mistakenly believe exists. If you want marriage, and the legal protection it affords, get married.

You'll also note that in the "practical advice" bit of my post I suggested that the OP have her partner share some of the heavy lifting in relation to disrectionary spending on the kids. He doesn't have to spend on the wife, who earns her own money and has also benefitted from being mortgage free.