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.

Followup, I agree with Contrarian's amendment that it's not a matter of thinking they don't deserve it, so much as they shouldn't expect or feel entitled to it.

The answer is "no" Children should not be penalised becasue of the choices of their parents. The fact is though that children get various advntages and suffer various disadvantages based on decisons that their parents make on their behalf. Not necessarily related to marriage.

When you have children with someone, you have a legal and moral responsiblity to provide for that child(ren). There is not currently a legal or legal obligation to provide for a partner/former partner. Without being controversial (genuinely) wouldn't feminism demand that that's the case?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with your last bit.

To bring this back to the op, the partner has already made provision for THEIR children. He has also (she says) provided that she can stay in the house if she survives him (though I'd personally like to see that strengthened slightly if I were her). What she seems to want (and I may have misunderstood) is for her husband to marry her so that she can then potentially divorce him and take a proportion for herself, or have him leave what would then be the former "marital home". YOu'd struggle to advise a woman in his position to do the same.

I think she no longer loves him and wants to leave. She wants the children to remain with her. Were she married, her children might be entitled to some financial support from their father in finding a suitable new home.

She wants marriage because she loves him and feels unloved.

Unless you have a prenup, if YOU divorce either stating in the home (until the children leave FT education) or a full and final settlement is designed to be for your children's benefit and not yours. Judges don't really buy the argument for spousal maintenance these days.

My friend recently ended a marriage - unhappily and after many years of trying - his ex wife pushed for spousal maintenance and the judge laughed. She is staying in the home for another few years, it will then be split 50/50 with much of her share going on legal aid.

Marriage is not the panacea you suggest and all children deserve to be supported and cared for by both parents.

We all look the same, married or not, when we're down at Job Centre Plus filling in our housing benefit forms while our former loved-ones lie entwined in the arms of a nubile young idiot, slagging us off.

Abandonment is such a leveller.

loved, not loves - tenses fuck up due to contemplating perfectly timed school run down pour.

She might want the children to remain with her, but that might not be realistic. He would be the one remaining in the family home. They both work FT, both earn the same, both split the childcare costs 50/50. She pays for clothes and presents, he pays for hobbies, probably works out about the same.

All things being equal, him remaining in the family home means the children are less disrupted by staying with him, at least 50% of the time.

On the plus side, the deserter is liable for half the debts when they debunk, married or not. Plus, half of everything bought during the relationship, excluding gifts, is hers. It's just the property thing and, for a lot of married women (or co-owners) that's little more than a huge debt with mortgage payments that can't be met.

Seriously - your overestimating the whole 'protection' thing.

That's rather down to the children, isn't it? If things get that far.

Would you accept being married, but still not getting the house?

[dont know if you would get any claim on the house if you split, but you could then start buying a flat in your name with your savings, and have a tenant in it, if you want to, with a clearer conscience].

I think the lesson to be learned is not to have children before some sort of legal arrangement is in place to protect their future. Get something drawn up by a solicitor if you don't intend to get married.

It would help to dissociate marriage, with its automatic legal protection, from the expensive frou frou of weddings, which seems to lead couples to put the cart before the horse for frivolous reasons. Children now, marriage later when we've saved up for our Big Day.

But, realistically, when a family splits into two households, there will be a drop in the standard of living for the children. Many married couples cannot afford for one partner to stay on in the marital home till the dcs are 18 because one partner cannot afford the mortgage on their own and the other partner has his/her own housing costs. They both end up in smaller properties on reduced incomes.

That's why I'd advise the OP to get help to stop fixating on the idea of marriage, which is bound to destabilise the relationship in view of the financial implications for her dp. Focus instead on the many advantages she enjoys in her situation while using her surplus income to buy another property as an investment/lifeline, if it all goes sour.

But there may be other reasons for her discontent and the reason the desire for marriage now looms so large is because the idea of leaving is already in her head and she has belatedly woken up to her weaker position as a dp and not a dw.

If you still live each other, is there a compromise to be had? You wish for financial security, but does his have to be in the form of a share in the family home? If he has huge savings, could you club together to put down the deposit on a buy to let? Or if you want emotional security, would he consider marriage with a prenup protecting his house? Could either or both of those together finesse the situation and keep you together? Sounds like the alternative (leaving with the children and massively downgrading the material quality of life for all of you) would be a great shame unless your relationship is unsalvageable.
Otherwise you are in a catch 22 - you don't trust him enough to leave things as they are, and he doesn't trust you to stay if he marries you/puts you on the deeds.
In any case, a joint account you both contribute to proportionately and use for all non-discretionary spending and stuff for the children would be a good idea going forward.
I feel for you.

If you still love each other

Bragmatic you are a hypocrite.....

You've taken massive umbrage and repeatedly upbraided another poster for using the word "bastard" because it is offensive and unacceptable. Fine I agree with you to a certain extent. You then further made your point by highlighting that the word "nigger" is also offensive and unacceptable....

How the fuck can you sit on that high horse, berating others when you then follow it up with a HUGELY OFFENSIVE DISABILIST comment???

I quote:

"People need to calm the fuck down. Except for the Tourette's sufferer up there He should probably to STFU."

Seriously?! Can you not see how offensive, disabilist and unacceptable it is to use a seriously disabiling neurological condition as an INSULT???

Like I said - you are a hypocrite. Talk about a swan dive off the moral high ground head first into concrete.

Yes it's unacceptable to use certain terms - guess what, calling someone a "Tourette's sufferer" for using words you don't like is one of those terms.

Disgusting.

Can I just point out that I did use the offending word I daren't write it now in inverted commas - just as you have done coola I also noted the hypocrisy.

Funnily enough, and unbeknown to Bragmatic I do actually have Tourette's. Though it does not cause me to swear. I don't consider it a disability though. It's just one of those things.

My friend considers himself to be disabled by his Tourette's, his tics are verbal, loud and, more often than not, swear words or inappropriate/ offensive words. He really struggles with accepting himself and being accepted in society.

I'm glad you don't consider your Tourette's to be a disability, I wish my friend felt the same about his because he is a lovely, wonderful person who feels shamed by something he can't help. Bragmatic's use of the term gave me the absolute rage on his behalf. (And yes, I noted your inverted commas, and understood what they implied).

I think I'd feel differently if I did swear. I do tend to grunt from time to time and I've actually put my back out before as a result of holding in my tic - which results in one mega-session. I laugh about it now, but by God I wasn't laughing at the time

Anyway, enough of all that..........

[http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/]

www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/

My ex owned his house when we got together. We were together 14 years and had 2 children. When HE cheated on me, I left.
I was scared to death as I had never lived alone.

I found somewhere to rent and a friend helped me move mine and the kids stuff by car.
8 years on, I have never been happier.

If the kids will inherit his house eventually, then they won't miss out in the long term. So I would not buy, but would look for somewhere nicer to rent in the same school catchment area, and accept that you will not be able to get on the property ladder but a) you haven't uprooted your kids and b) you've managed to separate from the partner you are unhappy with. This would also demonstrate to him that it's not all about grabbing a slice of property, it's about feeling happy in yourself and in your relationship. He can then reflect on where his attitude has got him.