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.

To be a bit flippant about it, I think introducing automatic common law spousedom (is there such a word?) at the point at which the couple produce children could be one of the most effective male contraceptions around.

I don't believe it should be automatic just for cohabiting, but IMO when you have a child with someone you then owe that other parent something as well, particularly in a situation where the mum (because it usually is) takes a career hit in order to provide care for that child. If you don't want that to happen, near-to-foolproof contraception is the only way to go. That does, of course, apply both ways however.

There is nothing stopping common law pre-nups either...

It seems that security in the partnership is more important to you than marriage, judging by what you have said in the first post.

So address that. Tell him that you understand that he wants the house to be kept in his name, but that you feel you should also be adequately protected, and that you therefore want the money you spent on the extension paid back to you, and you will purchase an investment property for yourself.

Then you could use the money you have saved up, and the extra money he has paid you, to purchase a lovely house that could be rented out.

You could also contribute to the mortgage while it was being rented out, and then you would have your own financial security, and if ever needed, your own home. Then you wouldn't be financially reliant on your partner, and he wouldn't fear you trying to 'take' his house.

This will only work if he starts putting his hands in his own pocket to spend on the children. Children's costs should be shared and you've been very foolish not to make sure they are.

Or an exemption certificate.

But if I was to move in with a man who wanted me to have a child with him and be primary carer of said child, but sign away any rights to compensation for that in the event of a split, I'd seriously reconsider the relationship.

FWIW, I don't think common law spouse should carry the same rights as marriage, but a more basic level of protection for the financially weaker party.

I've been thinking about you lifeswork and just wanted to ask if you're sure you want to split up with your partner? I can of course see that his attitude and behaviour must be very frustrating, especially on the issue of marriage and the house/your security.
However life is never perfect and I wouldn't split up without

1. considering options carefully
2. having some counselling, probably on my own
3. seeking legal advice Good luck with everything x

How lovely of you, contrarian, to deign to recognise the validity of all types of unions, including ones that produce 'bastard' children. Sweet.

*Dahlen Broadly sensible, but I think the reality is that the State can barely get absent parents to pay for their kids, let alone their former partners and if I'm being brutally honest and controversial, those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale would remain unaffected

bragmatic, I wasn't the first to use the term "bastard offspring" but rather it was by way of response to someone else's post further up thread.

Nice try though

Oh, I missed that. How sad to be so blissfully ignorant. Still, there's plenty of it around.

I'm presuming you think it's an abhorrent way to refer to children, then.

'bastard' is a word, it has a specific meaning with regards to children born out of wedlock. I assume that years ago, there was some stigma attached to that - hence the term being adopted as a wider term of abuse. In that sense, it's not a term I'd use particularly.

It's likely however that 'bastards' will outnumber children born to married parents in the not too distant future.

Is it just me or is this a really odd post? OP you say you'd stay if only he'd get married, but he has never, ever said he would marry you in all the 11 years you've been together, so why would you make this a condition of your staying? The time to throw a hissy fit about his lack of a marriage proposal was BEFORE you moved in with him and had two DC by him, not now.

You gripe about the fact that you've been prevented from getting on the property ladder yourself, but if you haven't been paying rent for 11 years why the hell didn't you save up and buy yourself a property from your FT salary and give YOURSELF a bit of security, rather than expecting him to??? If this post had been written by a guy he'd have been ripped to shreds. Sorry, but I think you're utterly deluded. He's made it clear from the outset that protecting his inheritance is his number 1 goal where you're concerned (with good reason, apparently), so why didn't you listen? People don't change.

Not just you, Juneau.

I've just noticed that her dp also paid 90% of the extension, even tho' they both earn the same. The 10% OP paid was to upgrade fittings because she didn't like his original choice.

What gets me if that by continually bringing up the subject, not taking NO for an answer, OP is making it more likely that she will find herself in the financially disadvantageous position she fears. She is certainly not improving her chances of dp saying yes to her proposal of marriage!

I know the meaning of the word bastard. It has been used as much more than to convey the marital status of a child's parents. Bastard children were spirited off and hidden, discarded, and something to be ashamed of, because they were illegitimate - an equally horrible term to refer to a child. It has nothing but negative connotations and to blithely use the term in an innocuous fashion is either ignorant, or disingenuous.

Neither of those things particularly. Controversial perhaps. Does it matter? If people are worried about having "bastards" (and all of the evidence suggests that they're not) then they should get married before having kids.

My nieces are bastards! I'm going to phone my sister and tell her so!

It's just a word. Not one in general/orignial use, but a word nonetheless.

My sister had children out of wedlock much to our grandparents displeasure. My nan has referred to them in conversation as being bastards on numerous occasions....

She didn't use it blithely. She used it in response to my post suggesting any automatic discrimination towards children of un married parents, merely on grounds of parental marital status, was inherently unfair and reminiscent of an ignorant age where children born out of wedlock were this relegated to below the bottom run of the social ladder.

I am more shocked at the inference that not marrying has anything to do with social class and that the poor and ignorant pop babies out on a whim. It is just a vile Daily Mail cliche and conveys a level of smugness that belies little more than a snobbish kind of moral panic.

I also can't grasp why people can't see how, in an abusive relationship, marriage is a wonderful weapon in the perpetrator's arsenal. By always keeping it as a carrot dangling a few inches before the victim's eyes but never following through, they're making security (or the promise of it) another means of control. If walking away from an emotionally abusive relationship were easy, we'd all be out at the first sign of trouble. To be honest (on that basis), I find the whole 'just get married' argument as archaic as the social segregation of children and as ignorant.

While the OP doesn't really say much about the relationship, other than that she wants to leave, it's unlikely she's stayed for 11 years and two children later wants to leave on a whim.

As for him saying he wouldn't marry at the outset, maybe that met her needs at the time. People change and grow.
The fact his, her financial position is extremely stable due to her living rent free for years and she'll be fine.

For other people, where there are children, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that the person who leaves should be held accountable fairly for the ongoing care of said children instead of just being able to bugger off and live the hi-life while the resident parent and children lose all. Mediation should be compulsory for all with the intention that men do a little more than lob a meager 15% of their income at someone before hot-footing it away and impregnating their next victim.

I think marriage is lovely, to be honest. An open declaration of love and trust. Do I think it should be used - or it's lack used - to prop up pay day loan companies? No.

I am not advocating the automatic application of the legal benefits of marriage to all cohabiting couples, more that children are afforded some protection in the event of seperation that exceeds a paltry 15% and leaves the parent who stays with liability for all the debts accrued throughout the relationship.

If we really haven't got beyond the stage of saying 'she deserved that because she wasn't cunning/clever/desirable enough to get a ring on her finger' then heaven help us all.

I don't know the legalities but I can't see how you could claim back decorating costs for a house you don't pay rent or mortgage on.

Presumably if you whipped out a calculator and worked out how much you've saved in 11 years of free housing, the decor would be a tiny consideration.

I'm inclined to agree with Juneau.

I also can't grasp why people can't see how, in an abusive relationship, marriage is a wonderful weapon in the perpetrator's arsenal. By always keeping it as a carrot dangling a few inches before the victim's eyes but never following through, they're making security (or the promise of it) another means of control. If walking away from an emotionally abusive relationship were easy, we'd all be out at the first sign of trouble. To be honest (on that basis), I find the whole 'just get married' argument as archaic as the social segregation of children and as ignorant.

This, very well put.

If we really haven't got beyond the stage of saying 'she deserved that because she wasn't cunning/clever/desirable enough to get a ring on her finger' then heaven help us all.*

And definitely this.

Posters are confusing free housing with no housing. The OP has had free lodgings, she hasn't acquired a home in the process. The bonkers way the housing market has performed over the last 20 years means that anyone who has lived rent free but hasn't invested in property has effectively disadvantaged themselves, as - as the OP is finding - unless they have a huge deposit they just can't climb back onto the housing ladder.

With the benefit of hindsight it would have been beneficial for the OP to invest in a buy to let. And it would be very interesting to see how her partner reacted to such an obvious insurance strategy.

Regards the broader discussion, I don't think cohabitation itself should automatically convey rights. But when a couple procreate I think some additional protection has to come into play. When there's a vast wealth imbalance people can and will withhold marriage deliberately. That shouldn't allow them to completely opt out.

I shocked people on here think it is OK these days to refer to "bastard children" and being conceived "out of wedlock".

What is this - the 50's?

It seems in this case the male partner has gone in with his cynical eyes wide open and kept them like that, whereas the OP has thought being in a LTR and having children with someone ment she was in a committed situation with her P. Clearly her P thinks otherwise.

I actually feel a little bit sorry for this man. He is being vilified for having been upfront about his views on marriage at the outset of the relationship and for not changing his mind. He has never strung the OP along with false promises that they'd get married when they turned 30 / had kids / whatever.

Unless the OP has suggested in the past that she buy herself a property to rent out to ensure some financial security for herself in the event of his early death and he has actively dissuaded her in order to keep her paying for more of their DCs' costs, I'm not entirely sure what he has done that's so heinous. His will gives the mother of his children a lifelong interest in the house. Presumably if the OP is insistent on splitting up but doesn't want her children to suffer, he'd be willing to become the RP so that his daughters can stay in their family home? There's nothing to indicate otherwise.

OP, it must be frustrating to look back in hindsight and think you could have done so much more with your money to give yourself some financial stability, but I'm not entirely sure if the blame for the fact that you apparently chose not to and enjoyed living rent/mortgage free instead can be entirely laid at your DP's feet.

In my view, it's an entirely different situation from a SAHM who gives up her career and any financial independence to care for the children and finds herself completely at the whim of her partner; you had the choice and the opportunity to carve out some financial security for yourself and either assumed - wrongly, with no indication from your DP to suggest otherwise, and in fact all evidence to the contrary - that you could change his mind, or because the comfortable/affluent lifestyle and 'living in the now' was more important to you than a long-term plan. And that's fine, no judgement implied, but I don't think you can blame your DP for the decisions you made, especially when to all intents and purposes he has been telling you all along that your assumption he would change was flawed.

Mmm. Just a word. Like nigger, really.

I don't think she is blaming him. She's actually saying the relationship no longer meets her needs and she feels trapped and stifled by it.

Sadly, if he won't compromise at all, he will loose her. If that's not what he wants, then he should be willing to compromise. It seems , however, that he is adamant which must be very upsetting. The OP seems quite resigned to this, if disappointed to realise how he's kept hold of all the cards to protect himself. I can't imagine intimacy thriving in a relationship where one person gets their own way all the time.

I speak from experience when I say, sadly, that an early inheritance isn't always good for people. It doesn't always help them find their own feet and grow as adults.

He sounds a bit spoilt and stroppy, to be honest, and clearly sees things in quite black and white terms. I wonder why he can't let go of the house?

Contrarian you do seem to be getting some perverse pleasure from using the term bastards over and over again, and explaining the term and defending it.

I'll just say, as an unmarried mother (and a mother who never had an intention to marry), I find the term highly offensive and if you used it in reference to my DC, I'd be fucking outraged.

I feel for you OP. I am not great with the practical side, but on the emotional front...

My exP was similar to your present P. Inherited house, together 7 years, refused to marry me. Thankfully we did not have children which is obviously the big issue here but I came out the other side of that relationship having to pay him a debt. When I left him he was so annoyed with me for leaving for what he called "superficial reasons" ie (that he wouldn't marry me and have kids) he backdated rent on his property (yes, he was trying to get me to pay rent) and followed me round the small claims court for it for years.

These types... I don't know what's wrong with them. I'd say a bad past experience but there was none of that in my P's history. I am so well out of it and you will be too, once you figure out what to do.