can I please shout. Do NOT HAVE CHILDREN WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED FIRST ..

[Patchworkpatty]

Feel so sad to have just read another really sad thread about a lovely woman who is trying to escape a horrendously awful relationship, 3 small children, he earns big bucks, she is SAHM and has NO funds to get out and get a new home. If she was married she could have gone to a lawyer, explained situation and have had a guarantee of a lump sum to restart her life, she may even have got an interim payment to help her. I feel strongly that women do not know the value (legally amongst many other reasons) of marriage. So many women these days agree to having children and accept the ' not ready for marriage ' or 'it's just a piece of paper' lie as acceptable. Imo if you are ready for children, have decided you are both parent material and want babies, then what reasons can there be not to ? unless your OH doesn't feel the same. (with the exception of course of very high earning women who don't take more than a few weeks maternity leave and don't care about state pensions and being next of kin).

A few days ago a columnist in the Globe & Mail (Canada's national newspaper) wrote this column:

www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/marriage-is-the-new-class-divide/article23545818/

I hope the link works. It works for me, but I am a subscriber.

I think married or not married anyone who chooses to be dependent upon another individual is vulnerable. I know of too many women who when married believed they would be Ok in the event of separation who have ended up with nothing either because of shared custody or the OH hiding assets or in fact there were no assets to be shared.

People should only get married if that's what they want to do....not because it will protect them should the worst happen. I really do not understand the logic that tells women to marry a man if they want to be financially ok in the future.

I agree, I've been there. Financially dependent on a controlling man.

HOWEVER, i am still glad I didn't marry the fucker

That gives me some comfort.

I left, and had a five year financial recovery plan, it took 6 years. I'm still glad I didn't marry him.

But yes, I would advise my daughter not to do what I did.

I love the assumption from OP that the person "agreed" they would have a child, without protecting themselves first from the man, while little old mum stays at home, with no money to fall back on, living on his income and trapped if anything bad happens.

I've just had my first child, 3 months old, without marriage. I work 42 hours a week, he worked 20, I earn more than him, I have a career he has a "job". Not all women, and then mothers, are the low earners staying at home in the situation.

"So many women these days agree to having children and accept the ' not ready for marriage ' or 'it's just a piece of paper' lie as acceptable"

Yes because women are always the ones wanting marriage and the scared manchildren don't want it.

What a load of sexist tripe.

Put a in it.

It must be hard to get stats on those living together. Married people have a marr certificate, and divorce papers, so you can count them. Non marrieds have neither so not sure how you get accurate figures.

I sort of agree with the OP, although of course she is generalising.

The thing is, if people don't get married beforehand, how many people have these sorts of conversations (about marriage, expectations, etc) before getting pregnant? Even if a woman says "okay, well, pregnant now so let's marry?" and the man says "oh.....no...not yet....etc" or even if he says yes then changes his mind, are you seriously telling me that the woman would leave, even if she really wanted those protections? Of course not. And not when the baby is born either as she will rightly need the support. So basically they end up in a very shitty position.

I know a surprising number of women who have waited years for a proposal, and then decided to just go for a child, as they were keenly aware that their time frame for doing so was shrinking. It made me really angry to see their partners force them to choose that route for no reason other than their total lack of spine.

And yes, of course there are women who don't want to marry either. But are you really suggesting that overall it women who say no to men about marriage? Really?

How about: IF you plan to have a baby/have a baby, and intend to stay at home with said child for longer than your maternity leave covers (or say, more than 6 months), or switch to part time, or pick up more of the childcare to let your partner work longer hours and thereby sacrifice opportunities for promotion, THEN get married.

If you are one of the small portion of women who are able to maintain their careers pretty much exactly as was beforehand, with both partners working full time, then there isn't really any need to be married, if you are okay with the fact that you're not next of kin, etc.

If you are the main breadwinner, and your partner is STAP (Which let's face it, is fucking RARE), then you should get married to ensure that he has the same protections that people here are desperately trying to get women in the same position to wake up to.

Marriage as a religious institution really fucks me off. Yes, it used to be. I assume most people here are aware of civil weddings? I assume most people here celebrate Christmas in one way or another? Religious origin, quite obviously. I assume the vast majority of people here allow their lives to be dominated by the Gregorian calendar? Presented to you by a Pope, no less.

Pancake day? Shrove Tuesday. Another religious festival.

Almost everything has got a religious basis, as it's just part of our history. It's ridiculous to say "oh well, this one is now not religious because reasons, but this thing is still religious ergo it shall not dirty my precious hands - pass me the mini eggs".

I totally 100% disagree with the Australian system someone mentioned about co-habiting counting as marriage. To me that is just ridiculous. You can live with anyone! Flatmates can come and go like the changing seasons. Or you can live with the same flatmates for years. Living together is nothing. Literally, nothing. Unless both parties sit down and make a firm and lasting commitment to live together. There is no decision there. At no point have the two people involved sat down and said "Yes. I choose you".

Maybe it was all so much easier when most people got married first and had a child afterwards. :)

Turning the whole thing upside down is bound to cause problems when the legal system hasn't kept up with the fashions in lifestyle choices.

DH asked me to relocate and live with him in the house he owned- with no wedding date set- and I simply said no. The reason wasn't for moral or religious reasons. I'd have been the one giving up my job, my home (albeit rented) and left high and dry if the relationship hadn't worked out.

Women have only themselves to blame if they end up in a difficult situation which is why the OP is right to draw attention to it.

Norah- census and electoral roll.

Hermitcrab Then as I said in my last post. .good for you ! well done, excellent, couldn' t be more pleased for you - honestly, BUT you are in a tiny tiny minority of women who are in that situation and my thread is about the majority. That said, Have you also thought about your partner's situation and HIS lack of rights if you split ? and about the fact that neither will inherit the others state pension on death (which can be £xxx a week going to the treasury instead of your widow/er ? ) there is no agreement that any solicitor can make to change that ...

goodness I wouldn't move in with DH let alone have DC with him unless we were married. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Here in NJ it can cost about $900 to get divorced and it's about $50 for your marriage certificate. The mayor in our town will marry anyone for free. It is t about being religious, it's about making a commitment to someone and forming a partnership. My DH didnt see why we should get married and I was very clear that if he didn't think it necessary it was the end of our relationship. I was a month shy of 27 and wasn't going to stick around hoping that a man would marry me. These girls who stick around are nuts. Move on from a man who doesn't have a spine. Find someone who cherishes you.

Explain the 'state pension' thing to me as that seems to keep coming up on this thread.

Wasn't it just that 'in the olden days' married women could pay less NI because they could get a share of DH's pension?

I know my mum always said she paid her 'full stamp'.

I do t think this allowance exists anymore?

So do women today have pension entitlements only for married people?

I know my work's pension can be paid to any partner/child I choose- we do t have to be married.

State pensions: I understand that you won't 'inherit' the other's pension but as a married couple you will receive a married couples pension. If one partner dies then you will receive (I think) a part of their pension as a widows/ widowers pension (you can easily check all of this online.)

It all depends on your circumstances. I have an occupational pension(as you say you do) and DH contracted out of the state pension (as many people did ) as he contributes to a final salary pension. He won't get any state pension, so if he dies first I don't think I get any of his as he won't have it anyway. But I do get a full state pension of my own as I have enough contributions.

All pensions are changing anyway with a set amount supposedly being paid to each person and you allowances for time out of work ( caring for children) where your contributions are counted as if you were employed and paying NI ( the 'stamp' as they used to call it.)

You need to look into your own pension forecast which you can do online or ask the pensions dept for a paper copy.

However the state pension for a single person is currently so tiny- just over £5K a year.

Oh and one more thing- a married couples state pension is currently less than double the single person's- so some elderly couples joke they would be better off getting divorced so they can get 2 x single pensions!

When you die your state pension dies with you.

It's a bit more complex than that...you can get a widow's pension= bereavement allowance up to your own pensionable age.

www.which.co.uk/money/retirement/guides/state-pension-explained/widows-pension-and-bereavement-allowance/

We're getting married for the pension stuff. Dps pension provision is pitiful, but I have a pretty decent teachers pension. If I die before him I want him to have the spouses part of my pension, which he can get if we're married but not if we're not. It's only becoming important as we're getting older, because previously I hadn't paid enough in for it to be worth much. I can't really see any other benefits to either of us in being married over staying as we are.

CanadianJohn

What does that link say?

I have heard on R4 that in the UK there is a real class divide, very crudely, married parents=middle class, unmarried parents =working class. Is that what the article in Canada says?

Are you sure that you have to be married to receive a teacher's pension when the 'teacher' dies? Why is this so different from other occupational pension when you can nominate anyone to be the recipient? If you are not married does the pension not pass to your children- or at least a fraction of it?

MsDragons I think you are mistaken. Look at the link and it tells you who can receive your pension when you die-

www.teacherspensions.co.uk/members/the-scheme/retired-teacher/after-you-have-gone.aspx

This is at the top of that page:

After you've gone
After your death, the Teachers’ Pension Scheme may pay pensions to your beneficiaries. That could mean your widow, widower, civil partner, nominated partner, children or nominated dependant.

A lump sum may be payable if you die within five years of your payable date.

It is important to keep your nomination up to date to ensure that the right person gets your benefits when you die.

fakenamefornow I'm too lazy busy to re-read the article, but from memory, the columnist says something like "if you rush into motherhood (or fatherhood) without marrying, you are dooming your family to poor social conditions".

There is, I believe, a much weaker idea of class in Canada, with so many people immigrating without much material goods, but determined to make a better life for themselves. "Class", to the extent there is any idea of class, is related to income and wealth.

Personally I wouldn't want to have a child with someone who didn't want to commit to marrying me. I wouldn't trust that they were committed. For some people that's fine, but not for me personally.

And it costs something like £45 to get married. To say you can't afford a wedding means you can't afford a big party, not that you can't afford to get married. It's about priorities.

I got married before I had a child, wish I didn't , made things much more difficult and expensive for me. Happily divorced now. Think the issue is becoming SAHP, or reducing hours to look after child (ren). In my case, I would have been better of, having my ds without marriage. And I am not some super high earner, but married an abusive (started while pregnant) man who stopped working while I was pregnant and has not worked since.

Aren't 1 in 4 or more of pregnancies unplanned?

You can hardly expect those patents to be together 17 years later.

And they shouldn't be compared to long term cohabitees who choose to start a family together.

Two of my three DC were unplanned. DH and I have been married nearly 16 years.