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).

Patchworkpatty Fri 27-Mar-15 08:54:25
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 ...
Add message | Report | Message poster

Women like me and hemitcrab will remain a minority whilst people keep pushing marriage as the way to protect oneself financially, and the default option assumed that women stay at home. I'm quite senior and it's not uncommon for my peers to have SAHDs My OH is happy to be at home (we're not married - it's not something I need) - and if it went tits up tomorrow he has a part share in the house we purchased when he was working, and also savings in his own name. The pension thing is a red herring- as he gets my pension should anything happen to me.

Marriage works for some people- I love a good wedding - but not for me

Thanks Pinkfrocks. Everybody in at school thought that we needed to be married for him to get part of my pension if I die first, but from your link it looks like they're wrong. We already had him registered as the beneficiary for the "death in service" payment (which I'm not planning on him ever getting because I want to get as far as retiring) and have now nominated him as my partner for the rest of it too.

We're still getting married though, cos it's not really just about the pension, but there don't seem to be any other financial benefits to either of us. And it costs about £300 here to get married, on a weekday in the registry office, £70 of that is paid just to register the intent to marry which has to be done at least 8 weeks before the ceremony, the rest is for hiring the room and paying for the registrar. We're doing it the cheapest way at the cheapest time, and I can't see anywhere else in the country being a lot cheaper tbh.

Hippo, If I married for security only, I would feel like I am trapping a man into marriage. But yeah, don't have children until you have the right guy who is ready to be a father (and husband)

Unplanned pregnancies do also occur amongst married couples as well though. I speak from experience!

*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.*

Please don't stigmatise parents of unplanned babies. Plenty of people in wonderful relationships have unplanned babies. And plenty of people who plan their babies split up.

It can work the other way.

I worked in a high paying job, ex partner refused to work. He said it was unfair as I got paid more than he would potentially and his line of work was technically harder . He didn't even look after the kids whilst I worked - my mum did. He basically stayed at home and did nothing, not even cleaning - the type of man who slept all day and looked at porn/internet chat rooms all night. He was also violent and abusive.

When we split up, he took me to court for half of everything in the house. He got fuck all - except having to pay the court costs - because I had paid for it (and could prove it) and there was no legal bindings.

The best thing I ever did was not marry him.

Erm. Hold on a second I'm not married and we have one dc and another on the way. It's not about marriage it's about equality in a relationship. We have joint accounts (neither of us have our own accounts), we have a house and mortgage in both our names, we each have a car in our names. We consult each other about all decisions, not just financial ones. We do plan to marry one day (when we can afford it) but it's not protection, I don't need protecting and I resent the implication! If my partner showed me in any way that I was not an equal in our relationship I wouldn't marry him anyway!?

You can afford to marry now, muddylettuce. What you mean is you can't currently afford a big wedding.

We have joint accounts (neither of us have our own accounts)

That's not a good thing. It means that if you split up one of you can magnanimously empty all the accounts without any recourse, leaving the other up shit creek. That's rather a large hole in your plan to protect yourself. You're also completely ignoring the NoK issue (especially pertinent when travelling), inheritance laws and tax on any estate you leave, none of which can be changed other than by marriage.

I think lots of people are also ignoring the nok issue. If something happened to one of you the other partners nok (usually the parents) hold all the cards. They can exclude you from the hospital and any decisions about care, they can even come to the house and take personal possessions in the event of death, oh and then take half the house if no will or children.

I am not married with a dd. I could support myself if needed. If I were to become a SAHm I would definitely get married, even though I don't like the institution. I would never make myself financially dependent on someone I wasn't married to.

The nok issue is really interesting!

When people are admitted to hospital, or register at a gp they are usually asked for a next of kin. Do parents really have the right to trump this if they choose to? That seems wholly unfair, and I would like to see that legally challenged instead of it being used as an argument that people should get married.

Having said that, it is definitely something to be informed/ aware of.

For those who have kids but aren't married, even if you are financially independent, then the worst case scenario is: if you're in a car accident with your partner. You die, and (assuming you have a will) everything goes to them. They are then in hospital, alive but unable to make decisions. Their parents, not yours (who no longer have any say) decide on treatment for your partner, what to do with your money, how to take care of your kids, EVERYTHING.

I know that that is a very far fetched and highly unlikely situation, but just saying 'I don't believe in marriage' is pretty naive.

I actually wish that there was no such thing as 'traditional' marriage, but a better way for people to become a)legally responsible for for their kids, and b) emotionally committed to their partner, without it having to be labelled as 'marriage' in the sense that we now understand it.

It is so easy to suddenly NOT be financially independent. Illness, redundancy, scams, house prices, relationships, etc etc. can all leave you suddenly unable, or less able to support yourself and kids. To do nothing to safeguard yourself in that situation is careless.

I think my PILs would make much better decisions than my mother would in the car crash, coma situation.

Yes, obviously unlike other posters I trust mil completely prob more than DP

Here's my 'worst case scenario' if I married DP:

I die. He inherits everything.

He then remarries, has a new family.

He dies. His new wife and her DCs inherit my money.

Wtf! I'm not having that! By not marrying I avoid that possibility entirely. If I die my DCs inherit from me. That's how I want it.

Surely that would apply only if you died intestate?

If you made a will, leaving most/all your estate (possibly in trust) to your DC, then how it could be spent (ie for the benefit of DC, and transferred to their control at their majority) could be controlled by trustees, not solely surviving parent.

A person who is financially dependent on you can apply for a variation of a will, but that could happen whether married or not.

On one hand, the NOK issue can be solved by powers of attorney (if you are going down the deliberately not marrying, tying things up legall route). DP and I have both health and welfare, and property and financial POA for each other (see here for more info). So if he is incapacitated, I am the person who can make his medical treatment decisions.

But the IL issue is a highly personal one. I trust my ILs. They are more than aware that DP and I are in a long-term, committed relationship. They know that we would know each others' decisions and opinions best. Ditto my parents feel the same way towards DP.

But as a mentioned before, this is all just snipping at people who have made a decision not to marry. Just not really that effective; kind of like preaching to the converted. The issue is women who believe that common law marriage exists, not picking apart the decisions made by another poster.